Define "healthy" food...
Replies
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
Get out of here with you ridiculous argument.JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
Really? Because Broccoli provides us with all of the nutrients we need?
No. Because broccoli will stand a better chance at providing more nutrients we need vs doritos. That's just a guess on my part. But I never said either would provide all nutrients we need and never implied it. The issue here was eating ONE food for a month. Doritos or broccoli.
You know what? Why not address the question when you get called out instead of attempting to flame yourself out of the question poised to you. It was you that that presented the question.
Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli
Well let's see, where will you get dietary fat and protein from?
Then you said:
It is debatable. the fact that broccoli doesn't have dietary fat doesn't mean it's the worse choice of the two over a month's time.
You really think it's debatable that it's unhealthy to go without protein or fat for a month or 2?
Broccoli has protein. And yet again, you misunderstood the question. The question is this. Which of the two if you ate for a month, would you be better off with at the end of the month. The question isn't if one would be an unhealthy choice. The question is which would be more healthy or unhealthy for you.
Neither one. Because if you ate a diet of a 100% broccoli or 100% doritos for a month or two you probably end up in the hospital with either. That's why neither should be done and both comparisons are ridiculous.
I disagree that one wouldn't be better than the other. You continued the argument, then once cornered, you went off on another tangent. Congrats. After considering the last two nutritional labels, I'd go with broccoli. but in reality, I wouldn't eat just one.
But you know what? Because of this, you now know broccoli has protein.
Right, you think you're teaching me something? I'm going to eat 30 servings of broccoli in order to get my protein requirements. While at the same time getting no fat. Makes sense. Please try again if you think an all broccoli diet for a month or 2 wouldn't land you in the hospital. You really are clueless.
I'm the clueless one. Who here didn't know broccoli didn't contain protein? And what data do you have that shows that eating broccoli would land you in a hospital after 1 or 2 months? I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm asking for how you are coming to those time frames
I didn't know broccoli contained protein ? Ummmm, yeah okay. If that's what you want to think. I don't know that you are the one that thinks either one of those 2 examples would be acceptable for a month, 2 months, whatever. Then you ask for studies showing that. Lol. You are clearly just trolling at this point.
Hahaha. You said "wow, just wow". That was supposed to mean how much protein broccoli has? Come on man.
And again, no one said it would be acceptable. I CLEARLY asked you for data that proves that eating just one of the other would land you in a hospital in 1 or 2 months. You have NO problem asking for proof of other people's statements so I'm asking you for yours
I read it as "wow, just wow" to the quantity of broccoli one would need to eat to reach a sufficient minimum amount of protein...and perhaps a passing thought of the intensity of the required bathroom visits.
Personally, I suspect one would be healthier after a month of just Doritos than just broccoli...because a month without the micros broccoli provides won't be as bad as a month without any appreciable dietary fat...but it isn't like you'll find a recent study confirming/refuting this because ethics.0 -
This "science" you use just gets more and more bizzare.
Food has no context.
I don't know what is in carbonara. Tasted it, didn't like it. Can't discuss it.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Food isn't different based on what one person eats. The fact that I'm allergic to bananas doesn't make the bananas unhealthy. The bananas are fine. The fact that I cannot eat them doesn't make them unhealthy per se.
I need to keep my fat low. That doesn't change the fat. The fat remains the same.
The food has no context. It cannot be changed. If people think about what they ate earlier today, the food sitting on the plate does not change.
Nothing anyone thinks has any effect on the food itself. The food does not change.
wow, you totally do not understand dietary context do you?
None of what you say or think will change the food itself.
ummmm I know you don't read so well but read what I said "dietary context"...there is no food in dietary...
I give up and am out.
0 -
-
goddessofawesome wrote: »a month of broccoli?
good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIYBecause it is extremely high calorie, high sugar, and high fat for little volume and not a great deal of nutritional value. To be honest I didn't choose the ice cream metaphor, and don't find ice cream to be nearly as unhealthy as, say, a can of coke, but in comparison to a bunch of kale YES ice cream offers less nutritional value.
so much sadness and wrongess here.
also this: kale vs ice cream?
seriously?
no questions- the kales' in the trash- it's rubbish awful food. You want to talk about 'unhealthy' anything that tastes that bad before you put int your pie hole should never be considered healthy- much less a "super food"
PS Eff you women's health for making kale a thing.
seriously. die.
You obviously haven't had kale made correctly. I have a fabulous recipe that involves bacon, bacon grease and blue cheese crumbles. I guarantee if I made it you wouldn't even know you were eating kale.
you said bacon- I might be willing to attempt consumption.
(but I'm inclined to believe that's a ruination of good bacon)0 -
0 -
a month of broccoli?
good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIYBecause it is extremely high calorie, high sugar, and high fat for little volume and not a great deal of nutritional value. To be honest I didn't choose the ice cream metaphor, and don't find ice cream to be nearly as unhealthy as, say, a can of coke, but in comparison to a bunch of kale YES ice cream offers less nutritional value.
so much sadness and wrongess here.
also this: kale vs ice cream?
seriously?
no questions- the kales' in the trash- it's rubbish awful food. You want to talk about 'unhealthy' anything that tastes that bad before you put int your pie hole should never be considered healthy- much less a "super food"
PS Eff you women's health for making kale a thing.
seriously. die.
So, tell us how you really feel about kale.0 -
This "science" you use just gets more and more bizzare.
Food has no context.
I don't know what is in carbonara. Tasted it, didn't like it. Can't discuss it.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Food isn't different based on what one person eats. The fact that I'm allergic to bananas doesn't make the bananas unhealthy. The bananas are fine. The fact that I cannot eat them doesn't make them unhealthy per se.
I need to keep my fat low. That doesn't change the fat. The fat remains the same.
The food has no context. It cannot be changed. If people think about what they ate earlier today, the food sitting on the plate does not change.
Nothing anyone thinks has any effect on the food itself. The food does not change.
wow, you totally do not understand dietary context do you?
None of what you say or think will change the food itself.
ummmm I know you don't read so well but read what I said "dietary context"...there is no food in dietary...
I give up and am out.
ummm so you think dietary context is science...???? yea, its time to bail on this one...
feel free to try and play again next time..0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
Get out of here with you ridiculous argument.JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
Really? Because Broccoli provides us with all of the nutrients we need?
No. Because broccoli will stand a better chance at providing more nutrients we need vs doritos. That's just a guess on my part. But I never said either would provide all nutrients we need and never implied it. The issue here was eating ONE food for a month. Doritos or broccoli.
You know what? Why not address the question when you get called out instead of attempting to flame yourself out of the question poised to you. It was you that that presented the question.
Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli
Well let's see, where will you get dietary fat and protein from?
Then you said:
It is debatable. the fact that broccoli doesn't have dietary fat doesn't mean it's the worse choice of the two over a month's time.
You really think it's debatable that it's unhealthy to go without protein or fat for a month or 2?
Broccoli has protein. And yet again, you misunderstood the question. The question is this. Which of the two if you ate for a month, would you be better off with at the end of the month. The question isn't if one would be an unhealthy choice. The question is which would be more healthy or unhealthy for you.
Neither one. Because if you ate a diet of a 100% broccoli or 100% doritos for a month or two you probably end up in the hospital with either. That's why neither should be done and both comparisons are ridiculous.
I disagree that one wouldn't be better than the other. You continued the argument, then once cornered, you went off on another tangent. Congrats. After considering the last two nutritional labels, I'd go with broccoli. but in reality, I wouldn't eat just one.
But you know what? Because of this, you now know broccoli has protein.
Right, you think you're teaching me something? I'm going to eat 30 servings of broccoli in order to get my protein requirements. While at the same time getting no fat. Makes sense. Please try again if you think an all broccoli diet for a month or 2 wouldn't land you in the hospital. You really are clueless.
I'm the clueless one. Who here didn't know broccoli didn't contain protein? And what data do you have that shows that eating broccoli would land you in a hospital after 1 or 2 months? I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm asking for how you are coming to those time frames
I didn't know broccoli contained protein ? Ummmm, yeah okay. If that's what you want to think. I don't know that you are the one that thinks either one of those 2 examples would be acceptable for a month, 2 months, whatever. Then you ask for studies showing that. Lol. You are clearly just trolling at this point.
Hahaha. You said "wow, just wow". That was supposed to mean how much protein broccoli has? Come on man.
And again, no one said it would be acceptable. I CLEARLY asked you for data that proves that eating just one of the other would land you in a hospital in 1 or 2 months. You have NO problem asking for proof of other people's statements so I'm asking you for yours
Personally, I suspect one would be healthier after a month of just Doritos than just broccoli...because a month without the micros broccoli provides won't be as bad as a month without any appreciable dietary fat...but it isn't like you'll find a recent study confirming/refuting this because ethics.
That's fine because you are just stating an opinion. While he was trying to state a fact.0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »The fact that people don't agree on the basic definition is the problem itself. I think 99% of the arguments could be averted if we realize that we are not working from the same definition, and are not talking about the same thing. I might be wrong, but I think the two major "definitions" are:
Food that is correlated with better health outcomes for humans in general in mainstream scientific literature. (i.e. multiple large and diverse population studies that show statistically significant and clinically significant increases in lifespan and decreases in disease risk in groups that eat more or less of particular foods and food groups, especially if there is a dose-dependent effect)
or
Food that serves a particular individual's nutritional or emotional needs at a particular time in the context of their current health and nutritional status.
As long as we are comparing apples and oranges, we can never reach a consensus. Both concepts are important, and are applicable in different situations. The first is a great basis for developing broad guidelines for diverse groups. The second is much more appropriate when dealing with a specific person making a single decision. Both sides are correct, using their definition.
By that I mean that when someone says some foods are clearly healthier than others, when working from the meaning that healthy means "correlated with improved health over broad and diverse populations", and when someone says that what is healthy is entirely based on context, using healthy to mean "appropriate to the health or other needs of the individual in question at a particular point in time", they are both correct.
By the way, I am not saying either definition is right, (though I usually use the phrase in the first sense unless referring to an individual), or that the people who use examples in their definitions are always using the appropriate example. My point is that all of the arguments over "healthy food" are entirely moot if we can't agree on what we are actually discussing. It's literally just semantics.
Perhaps if we stopped assuming that our definition is obvious (as I did until I started to read other members' posts and realized it was open to interpretation), and simply stated our definition rather than use the general word "healthy", we might find that we pretty much agree on most things.
Forgive my long-windedness; I am desperately trying not to say anything that will be misinterpreted.
TL;DR Food that is generally health-promoting for a population is not necessarily going to apply to all individuals in all situations.
I don't expect it to solve anything, but I think this is one of the most helpful posts and I finally grasp why some think the healthy thing is obvious and intuitive. I simply never really considered that they were using it in the first sense, but thought they were trying to distinguish between food that did good inherently vs. those that did harm inherently, which seemed clearly wrong as applied to me.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »a month of broccoli?
good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIYBecause it is extremely high calorie, high sugar, and high fat for little volume and not a great deal of nutritional value. To be honest I didn't choose the ice cream metaphor, and don't find ice cream to be nearly as unhealthy as, say, a can of coke, but in comparison to a bunch of kale YES ice cream offers less nutritional value.
so much sadness and wrongess here.
also this: kale vs ice cream?
seriously?
no questions- the kales' in the trash- it's rubbish awful food. You want to talk about 'unhealthy' anything that tastes that bad before you put int your pie hole should never be considered healthy- much less a "super food"
PS Eff you women's health for making kale a thing.
seriously. die.
So, tell us how you really feel about kale.
I'd get flagged off MFP.
Seriously- I get really (uncharacteristically and excessively) ragey about it.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Ummm actually you did not..and that thread is now locked by the mods...but feel free to post it again ...0 -
This "science" you use just gets more and more bizzare.
Food has no context.
I don't know what is in carbonara. Tasted it, didn't like it. Can't discuss it.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Food isn't different based on what one person eats. The fact that I'm allergic to bananas doesn't make the bananas unhealthy. The bananas are fine. The fact that I cannot eat them doesn't make them unhealthy per se.
I need to keep my fat low. That doesn't change the fat. The fat remains the same.
The food has no context. It cannot be changed. If people think about what they ate earlier today, the food sitting on the plate does not change.
Nothing anyone thinks has any effect on the food itself. The food does not change.
wow, you totally do not understand dietary context do you?
None of what you say or think will change the food itself.
ummmm I know you don't read so well but read what I said "dietary context"...there is no food in dietary...
I give up and am out.
ummm so you think dietary context is science...???? yea, its time to bail on this one...
feel free to try and play again next time..
I'm still waiting for your micronutrient value in the context of this thread. You might also want to state if the micros/macros are already met in the context of your first post0 -
chivalryder wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »The problem is that health and nutrition cannot be considered or discussed in a vacuum...context and dosage are incredibly important to the discussion. As individual food items are concerned, I do think there are obviously "healthier" choices and lesser choices and I do think that getting overall proper nutrition is very important to one's overall health...but I also think that some Doritos can easily fit into an overall balanced and overwhelmingly "healthful" diet without consequence.
That to me seems to be where people get so hung up...it's like they think if they have a soda that somehow negates the 6-8 servings of vegetables they had earlier or something. Context and dosage, context and dosage....
I am with you wolf man..
like I pointed out in my original OP ..if I hit my calorie/micro/macro goal for the day but within that day I had about 400-500 calories of ice cream cookies, etc, does that mean it was unhealthy?? No, it just means that I used those foods to round out my day ...
ice cream has some micro nutrients. Cookies umm I have to see the labels.
but if you already hit the micros what difference does it make???
I would be surprised if people really hit all there micro nutrients alot. If you did and you still had calories to spare I guess why not eat something with little to no nutrients in it.
I actually do much of the time.
The only one I am sometimes short on is iron (being a vegetarian it's more common)- but I do not have an iron deficiency so I am not too concerned.
How much riboflavin did you consume yesterday?
lulz. Considering I had 4 cups of milk, 4oz of buratta, some green veggies in my Thai food, I am pretty sure I hit the RDA. In fact, the milk alone gave me 104% of the RDA.
How much did you?0 -
a month of broccoli?
good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIYBecause it is extremely high calorie, high sugar, and high fat for little volume and not a great deal of nutritional value. To be honest I didn't choose the ice cream metaphor, and don't find ice cream to be nearly as unhealthy as, say, a can of coke, but in comparison to a bunch of kale YES ice cream offers less nutritional value.
so much sadness and wrongess here.
also this: kale vs ice cream?
seriously?
no questions- the kales' in the trash- it's rubbish awful food. You want to talk about 'unhealthy' anything that tastes that bad before you put int your pie hole should never be considered healthy- much less a "super food"
PS Eff you women's health for making kale a thing.
seriously. die.
me thinks you are a closet kale lover...0 -
a month of broccoli?
good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIYBecause it is extremely high calorie, high sugar, and high fat for little volume and not a great deal of nutritional value. To be honest I didn't choose the ice cream metaphor, and don't find ice cream to be nearly as unhealthy as, say, a can of coke, but in comparison to a bunch of kale YES ice cream offers less nutritional value.
so much sadness and wrongess here.
also this: kale vs ice cream?
seriously?
no questions- the kales' in the trash- it's rubbish awful food. You want to talk about 'unhealthy' anything that tastes that bad before you put int your pie hole should never be considered healthy- much less a "super food"
PS Eff you women's health for making kale a thing.
seriously. die.
me thinks you are a closet kale lover...
I've had it like 2-3 times and I cannot.even.
between the fact it tastes so awful and the huge "OMGHERD kale" reaction people get all ga-ga for in health food circles- it makes me stabby.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Not a fan of kale, broccoli, spinach etc... but I do recognize the micronutrient values. Taste doesn't determine nutrient values. But this is why I bought a Vitamix. I blend in the blah tasting foods into something I can drink and tastes good.0
-
Are we there yet?0
-
Your choices, my choices, some other guy's choices will be different, based on our health, desires and abilities. But all the thinking we all do - even whether we think the same things! - will have no effect on the food itself.
The food doesn't change.
"Food is different based on context"...It's just a bizarre concept.
But the problem is that "healthiness"--at least in the way that I am using it, as in "is beneficial to eat" is not an inherent property of food but depends on the circumstances. If you need to gain weight, almost anything edible might be healthy. If you've eaten nothing but broccoli for a week, broccoli is not healthy. In particular, there is no food that is so beneficial that you would want to say that it could make up an entire diet. Whether a food benefits your health or not depends on the overall diet. Oatmeal is quite healthy, IMO, but getting 90% of your diet from oatmeal is not ideal, IMO. Bananas are fabulous, but the banana only diet seems idiotic to me.
But thanks to another poster I now get how you are using the term and it makes more sense to me, although I don't really think of food so much that way, but in connection with an overall diet. (This is because I think the desire to rank foods and all that is really bizarre and impossible. How on earth do you even start to compare chicken and zucchini or some such. And why?)
0 -
Just spent a good bit of time getting caught up on all the posts since I was last at my computer.
Regarding the response to me about fat: Not necessarily my own decision to specifically buy part skim mozzarella cheese. But in reality, I'm already eating plenty of fat anyway in my diet (sometimes up to 35%), so I don't think I need that cheese being full fat.
To spell it out what I mean about the differences in nutritional value in the pizza crust, here is the ingredient list for Dominoes hand tossed crust. You can probably pick any other commercial pizza brand and would find other ingredients that are not needed in the pizza making process.Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Niacin, Riboflavin, Folic Acid) Water, Vegetable Oil (Soybean), Sugar, Salt, Yeast, Vital Wheat Gluten, Less than 1% Dough Conditioners [Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Whey, Enzyme (with Wheat Starch), Ascorbic Acid, L-cysteine, and Silicon Dioxide added as processing aid], Corn Meal (used in preparation).
The ingredients I bolded are not even close to being ingredients "naturally" used in making pizza. Also, the flour used in my pizza has the nutrients already in, meaning they're naturally in the flour instead of being stripped away and then put back in. If that list of ingredients in the flour encompasses all the ingredients put back in the flour, then I'm pretty certain the flour I use has a much higher micronutrient content. As a result, my pizza can help me meet my micronutrient goals a lot easier, plus there is less added stuff that doesn't need to be in the food.
0 -
This thread was great entertainment with lots of ups and downs.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
You really need me to explain to you that wow just wow was in response to you believing broccoli is an high or even acceptable source of protein. Lol. Derp derp derp. Now you ask why I say eating alunch broccoli for a month or 2 would land you in the hospital? Oh please, your trolling skills are so sad. Yes, everybody thinks I though broccoli had zero protein. Lol.JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
Get out of here with you ridiculous argument.JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
Really? Because Broccoli provides us with all of the nutrients we need?
No. Because broccoli will stand a better chance at providing more nutrients we need vs doritos. That's just a guess on my part. But I never said either would provide all nutrients we need and never implied it. The issue here was eating ONE food for a month. Doritos or broccoli.
You know what? Why not address the question when you get called out instead of attempting to flame yourself out of the question poised to you. It was you that that presented the question.
Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli
Well let's see, where will you get dietary fat and protein from?
Then you said:
It is debatable. the fact that broccoli doesn't have dietary fat doesn't mean it's the worse choice of the two over a month's time.
You really think it's debatable that it's unhealthy to go without protein or fat for a month or 2?
Broccoli has protein. And yet again, you misunderstood the question. The question is this. Which of the two if you ate for a month, would you be better off with at the end of the month. The question isn't if one would be an unhealthy choice. The question is which would be more healthy or unhealthy for you.
Neither one. Because if you ate a diet of a 100% broccoli or 100% doritos for a month or two you probably end up in the hospital with either. That's why neither should be done and both comparisons are ridiculous.
I disagree that one wouldn't be better than the other. You continued the argument, then once cornered, you went off on another tangent. Congrats. After considering the last two nutritional labels, I'd go with broccoli. but in reality, I wouldn't eat just one.
But you know what? Because of this, you now know broccoli has protein.
Right, you think you're teaching me something? I'm going to eat 30 servings of broccoli in order to get my protein requirements. While at the same time getting no fat. Makes sense. Please try again if you think an all broccoli diet for a month or 2 wouldn't land you in the hospital. You really are clueless.
I'm the clueless one. Who here didn't know broccoli didn't contain protein? And what data do you have that shows that eating broccoli would land you in a hospital after 1 or 2 months? I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm asking for how you are coming to those time frames
I didn't know broccoli contained protein ? Ummmm, yeah okay. If that's what you want to think. I don't know that you are the one that thinks either one of those 2 examples would be acceptable for a month, 2 months, whatever. Then you ask for studies showing that. Lol. You are clearly just trolling at this point.
Hahaha. You said "wow, just wow". That was supposed to mean how much protein broccoli has? Come on man.
Yea that's exactly what wow just wow meant. Lol. If that's what you think it meant then I clearly chose the proper response to your post with that one.
The backpedaling is strong in this one.
Oh yes because your lack of understanding that wow was the best response to the level of derp your postes is why you would see it as back peddling. It's okay, I can't blame you for being you.
No. I just stated broccoli has protein. You stated "wow, just wow". Explain exactly what you meant.
But we all know you thought it did not have protein and your just backpedalling. Not only that, you are ignoring the question about how you know that eating broccoli for 1-2 months = hospital. Take your time on this one
Why? I just asked you exactly what you meant.
You are just backpedaling even more. Yeah I asked you for proof that eating it for 1-2 months would land you in the hospital? Why? Simply because you said it would. Now where is this proof? Hell where is your the explanation of your statement? You won't even offer it.0 -
550 comments or so. I will never catch up.
So my opinion...
No one food is healthy or unhealthy. A complete diet can be healthy or unhealthy, but not one food. If you think otherwise, you are just plain wrong.0 -
a month of broccoli?
good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIYBecause it is extremely high calorie, high sugar, and high fat for little volume and not a great deal of nutritional value. To be honest I didn't choose the ice cream metaphor, and don't find ice cream to be nearly as unhealthy as, say, a can of coke, but in comparison to a bunch of kale YES ice cream offers less nutritional value.
so much sadness and wrongess here.
also this: kale vs ice cream?
seriously?
no questions- the kales' in the trash- it's rubbish awful food. You want to talk about 'unhealthy' anything that tastes that bad before you put int your pie hole should never be considered healthy- much less a "super food"
PS Eff you women's health for making kale a thing.
seriously. die.
me thinks you are a closet kale lover...
I've had it like 2-3 times and I cannot.even.
between the fact it tastes so awful and the huge "OMGHERD kale" reaction people get all ga-ga for in health food circles- it makes me stabby.
all right calm down ...go do some squats or something to get all the aggression out 0 -
a month of broccoli?
good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIYBecause it is extremely high calorie, high sugar, and high fat for little volume and not a great deal of nutritional value. To be honest I didn't choose the ice cream metaphor, and don't find ice cream to be nearly as unhealthy as, say, a can of coke, but in comparison to a bunch of kale YES ice cream offers less nutritional value.
so much sadness and wrongess here.
also this: kale vs ice cream?
seriously?
no questions- the kales' in the trash- it's rubbish awful food. You want to talk about 'unhealthy' anything that tastes that bad before you put int your pie hole should never be considered healthy- much less a "super food"
PS Eff you women's health for making kale a thing.
seriously. die.
me thinks you are a closet kale lover...
I've had it like 2-3 times and I cannot.even.
between the fact it tastes so awful and the huge "OMGHERD kale" reaction people get all ga-ga for in health food circles- it makes me stabby.
More than one person has told me that seasoned kale chips were a tasty alternative to potato chips. I guess I am naive, because I went out, bought some kale, rubbed it with oil, added my seasonings, etc., baked it for however long the recipe said (I don't remember), and you know what? It didn't taste like potato chips. It tasted like %$#^ kale!
I don't know if I can ever learn to trust again.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Your choices, my choices, some other guy's choices will be different, based on our health, desires and abilities. But all the thinking we all do - even whether we think the same things! - will have no effect on the food itself.
The food doesn't change.
"Food is different based on context"...It's just a bizarre concept.
But the problem is that "healthiness"--at least in the way that I am using it, as in "is beneficial to eat" is not an inherent property of food but depends on the circumstances. If you need to gain weight, almost anything edible might be healthy. If you've eaten nothing but broccoli for a week, broccoli is not healthy. In particular, there is no food that is so beneficial that you would want to say that it could make up an entire diet. Whether a food benefits your health or not depends on the overall diet. Oatmeal is quite healthy, IMO, but getting 90% of your diet from oatmeal is not ideal, IMO. Bananas are fabulous, but the banana only diet seems idiotic to me.
But thanks to another poster I now get how you are using the term and it makes more sense to me, although I don't really think of food so much that way, but in connection with an overall diet. (This is because I think the desire to rank foods and all that is really bizarre and impossible. How on earth do you even start to compare chicken and zucchini or some such. And why?)
you are wasting your time with snoop froggy frog ...0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
How are you going to hit your macros/micros by eating only donuts?
For that matter, you would have a pretty hard to explain how you do that by eating apples all day.
No-one is suggesting that a can of coke is as healthy as a bowl of raw kale.0 -
550 comments or so. I will never catch up.
So my opinion...
No one food is healthy or unhealthy. A complete diet can be healthy or unhealthy, but not one food. If you think otherwise, you are just plain wrong.
Yes but, more importantly, would you rather eat only broccoli for one month or only Doritos?0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »a month of broccoli?
good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIYBecause it is extremely high calorie, high sugar, and high fat for little volume and not a great deal of nutritional value. To be honest I didn't choose the ice cream metaphor, and don't find ice cream to be nearly as unhealthy as, say, a can of coke, but in comparison to a bunch of kale YES ice cream offers less nutritional value.
so much sadness and wrongess here.
also this: kale vs ice cream?
seriously?
no questions- the kales' in the trash- it's rubbish awful food. You want to talk about 'unhealthy' anything that tastes that bad before you put int your pie hole should never be considered healthy- much less a "super food"
PS Eff you women's health for making kale a thing.
seriously. die.
me thinks you are a closet kale lover...
I've had it like 2-3 times and I cannot.even.
between the fact it tastes so awful and the huge "OMGHERD kale" reaction people get all ga-ga for in health food circles- it makes me stabby.
More than one person has told me that seasoned kale chips were a tasty alternative to potato chips. I guess I am naive, because I went out, bought some kale, rubbed it with oil, added my seasonings, etc., baked it for however long the recipe said (I don't remember), and you know what? It didn't taste like potato chips. It tasted like %$#^ kale!
I don't know if I can ever learn to trust again.
Anyone who compares kale to potato chips needs to GTFO. And I like kale. But they ain't no chip.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions