Define "healthy" food...

1181921232438

Replies

  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    edited January 2015
    BigT555 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    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.
    i just want to point out the irony here...

    I get it. Opinion, to fact....took me a second..;) No sarcasm meant, I just screwed up.
  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 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.
    Get out of here with you ridiculous argument.

    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
    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.

    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.

    You see it as back peddling because you fail to grasp the concept of logic. It's ok. We don't think any less of you.

    Look. I'm just asking where you got the idea that eating broccoli for 1-2 months would land one in the hospital. That's it. Can you answer the question? Seriously, that's what I asking.

    If you can't see the answer to that for yourself then there is no helping you.

    If you can't explain it with any clarity, detail or logic, just give up. It was a very simple request. If you simply cannot quantify it with any substance, just say it
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    dbmata wrote: »
    I'll just throw this out there, so much blather about what is healthy food and what isn't. Ya'll know what's unhealthy? The massive cortisol releases from all this arguing. Ya'll should just break up.

    yep....stress leads to heart attacks. LOL
  • keola64
    keola64 Posts: 207 Member
    dbmata wrote: »
    I'll just throw this out there, so much blather about what is healthy food and what isn't. Ya'll know what's unhealthy? The massive cortisol releases from all this arguing. Ya'll should just break up.

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    but......I was only gone for 4 hours.

    pffff you must have like 400 notifications on this thread...
  • keola64
    keola64 Posts: 207 Member
    keola64 wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    I'll just throw this out there, so much blather about what is healthy food and what isn't. Ya'll know what's unhealthy? The massive cortisol releases from all this arguing. Ya'll should just break up.

    LOL
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    PRMinx wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    PRMinx wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    a month of broccoli?

    good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIY
    Because 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.

    I really like kale....*ducks*

    get out.

    we can't be friends any more

    <cries>

    I had a raw kale salad at the brasilian place last night.

    I guess db and I will have to go sit in a corner.

    But, hey, I hear there's beer over here. And peanut butter. You won't be able to resist us for long.

    peanut butter oreos, and FR squat plans.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    but......I was only gone for 4 hours.

    pffff you must have like 400 notifications on this thread...

    453 and 11 more trying to catch up...it is only Tuesday right? I think I need some veggies for the reading!
    b58qgr0pzvnq.jpeg

  • MakePeasNotWar
    MakePeasNotWar Posts: 1,329 Member
    dbmata wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    PRMinx wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    a month of broccoli?

    good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIY
    Because 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.

    I really like kale....*ducks*

    get out.

    we can't be friends any more

    <cries>

    I had a raw kale salad at the brasilian place last night.

    I saw "kale" and "brasilian" and thought this was another one of those "would you rather" tangents. It's be a close one.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    No-one is suggesting that a can of coke is as healthy as a bowl of raw kale.

    Are you sure? It sure seems like some are.
  • asdowe13
    asdowe13 Posts: 1,951 Member
    dbmata wrote: »
    PRMinx wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    PRMinx wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    a month of broccoli?

    good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIY
    Because 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.

    I really like kale....*ducks*

    get out.

    we can't be friends any more

    <cries>

    I had a raw kale salad at the brasilian place last night.

    I guess db and I will have to go sit in a corner.

    But, hey, I hear there's beer over here. And peanut butter. You won't be able to resist us for long.

    peanut butter oreos, and FR squat plans.

    I hate kale but I'll join you in the corner
  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    MrM27 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.
    Get out of here with you ridiculous argument.

    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
    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.

    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.

    You see it as back peddling because you fail to grasp the concept of logic. It's ok. We don't think any less of you.

    Look. I'm just asking where you got the idea that eating broccoli for 1-2 months would land one in the hospital. That's it. Can you answer the question? Seriously, that's what I asking.

    If you can't see the answer to that for yourself then there is no helping you.

    If you can't explain it with any clarity, detail or logic, just give up. It was a very simple request. If you simply cannot quantify it with any substance, just say it

    Logic is enough to explain that for you. Give it a shot.

    No, it's not. Because logically, you haven't provided any substance to that claim. Logically, you can't explain yourself, thus the 1-2 pages of nonsense you are posting to avoid having to do so. Look, you can't explain yourself. That's fine. I'll leave it at that. but don't that that prevent you from adding one more illogical flame my way :blush:
  • PRMinx
    PRMinx Posts: 4,585 Member
    adowe wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    PRMinx wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    PRMinx wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    a month of broccoli?

    good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIY
    Because 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.

    I really like kale....*ducks*

    get out.

    we can't be friends any more

    <cries>

    I had a raw kale salad at the brasilian place last night.

    I guess db and I will have to go sit in a corner.

    But, hey, I hear there's beer over here. And peanut butter. You won't be able to resist us for long.

    peanut butter oreos, and FR squat plans.

    I hate kale but I'll join you in the corner

    You are always welcome in my corner. You AND your headband.
  • sweetdixie92
    sweetdixie92 Posts: 655 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    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?

    Yes. Just look at the ingredient list.

    Where your nutrients, fat, carbs, etc. are coming from do matter.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Ezzmie wrote: »
    Don't know if anyone has ever taken an edX course but there is one coming up called: Introduction to Nutrition – Food for Health (this is offered online and starts Jan 12) May help tackle the question what is health food...

    https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-nutrition-food-health-wageningenx-nutr101x#.VKwkfivF99k

    how about you just give us the cliff notes?
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Actually, I did. But you amuse me and this might help somebody who is actually serious.
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sugar+linked+to+death+from+CVD+study+CDC

    awww look it took me to a google search ..how cool ..

    still is not a link to specific study you referenced...
    That's what google is for!!! They have made BILLIONS helping people look up information on the Internet. Oh well, I posted it in the other thread...you snooze, you lose! :)
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    BayBanana wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    BayBanana wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    BayBanana wrote: »
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    Not sure who is worse or more annoying the hysterical "sugar is the devil" crowd or the "ermagerd processed, chemicalz, toxins" in the food hypochondriacs.

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

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

    How is Red Dye #5 bad for you?

    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.

    I never mentioned red dye 5, but agreed with someone about artificial colors being unhealthy.

    And npr.org came up first when I googled 'what are artificial colors made of' “Artificial food dyes are made from petroleum and approved for use by the FDA to enhance the color of processed foods.” http://www.npr.org/2011/03/30/134962888/fda-probes-link-between-food-dyes-kids-behavior

    At the end they talk about how labeling in Europe requires a warning label on foods that contain artificial dyes.

    But everyone considers different things healthy. That's what I was saying in my first post on this thread. I won't eat foods depending on what's in them and I will consider a lot of stuff unhealthy. But other people might be comfortable with it, and that's fine.

    You referred to it as containing known carcinogens in this quote string, so yes you did.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    No-one is suggesting that a can of coke is as healthy as a bowl of raw kale.

    Are you sure? It sure seems like some are.

    It's not an argument to make without context. I think that's the biggest point.
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member

    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.
    That was one of the first way's I tried kale- and my friend is a very good cook. I was so crushed- and I just . I felt violated.
    PRMinx wrote: »
    Anyone who compares kale to potato chips needs to GTFO. And I like kale. But they ain't no chip.
    yeah nope- not at all.
    I had a raw kale salad at the brasilian place last night.

    WHO THE HELL ARE YOU AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH MY AWESOME FRIEND.

    <grump>

    I'd also like to weigh in on broccoli vs Doritos at this time.

    What's the drink of choice with this?

    Because really I only drink Doritos with pepsi- so I mean if we are doing Doritos + pepsi for a month vs broccoli and OJ- I mean- I think I'd lean toward Pepsi/Doritos combo Honestly.

    Who am I kidding- with out butter/bacon grease broccoli is nothing to me.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    BigT555 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    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.
    i just want to point out the irony here...

    I get it. Opinion, to fact....took me a second..;) No sarcasm meant, I just screwed up.

    Well, darn. I guess I'll shut up, then. o:)
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    ndj1979 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.

    why is the healthy eating crews immediate fall back to ALWAYS build a straw man argument about having 100% of your diet from donuts. No one is advocating that.

    so if I eat kale, and ice cream and I have fulfilled micro/macro/calorie goals does that convert the ice cream from unhealthy to healthy?

    No, that is absurd. Ice cream is still an unhealthy FOOD, but if it is part of an OVERALL HEALTHY DIET then it is not at all a problem to have it. I'm not sure how you are not getting that, I am not the first person to explain it.

    Name something in it that is inherently detrimental to health.
  • CooCooPuff
    CooCooPuff Posts: 4,374 Member
    I was raised eating kale and love it. But I also kind of hate that it's become a "superfood" too. The prices for it at the grocery are outrageous now.
    My local Kroger has recently started stocking frozen kale. Because it's store brand, it's actually cheaper than my favorite frozen turnip greens. :(

  • JoKnowsJo
    JoKnowsJo Posts: 257 Member
    Eating broccoli, nuts/seeds, beans can put me in the hospital.
    I only allow these in the house once or twice a month, as well the windows need to be open after the males in the house consume them in mass quantities, and yes they are considered healthy.
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    No-one is suggesting that a can of coke is as healthy as a bowl of raw kale.

    Are you sure? It sure seems like some are.

    No....what people are saying is having a can of coke with a bowl of stew, that has veggies and proteins in it, is not considered unhealthy as I met all my macs and micros for the day, if I have room I will fit ice cream or a cookie or whatever.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    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?

    Yes. Just look at the ingredient list.

    Where your nutrients, fat, carbs, etc. are coming from do matter.

    oh really??? care to elaborate?

    so if my macors are 35p/35c/30 fats and I hit them all with eggs, chicken, rice, bread, etc and then filled in rest of day with ice cream and some cookies, you are saying that is an unhealthy day just because I got 500 - 600 from ice cream and cookies...really?
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    BigT555 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    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.
    i just want to point out the irony here...

    I get it. Opinion, to fact....took me a second..;) No sarcasm meant, I just screwed up.

    Well, darn. I guess I'll shut up, then. o:)
    I'll take someone defending me anytime :) but I buck up when I f___ up, too.

  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    PRMinx wrote: »
    adowe wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    PRMinx wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    PRMinx wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    a month of broccoli?

    good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIY
    Because 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.

    I really like kale....*ducks*

    get out.

    we can't be friends any more

    <cries>

    I had a raw kale salad at the brasilian place last night.

    I guess db and I will have to go sit in a corner.

    But, hey, I hear there's beer over here. And peanut butter. You won't be able to resist us for long.

    peanut butter oreos, and FR squat plans.

    I hate kale but I'll join you in the corner

    You are always welcome in my corner. You AND your headband.

    It's a pretty headband.
  • PRMinx
    PRMinx Posts: 4,585 Member
    JoRocka wrote: »

    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.
    That was one of the first way's I tried kale- and my friend is a very good cook. I was so crushed- and I just . I felt violated.
    PRMinx wrote: »
    Anyone who compares kale to potato chips needs to GTFO. And I like kale. But they ain't no chip.
    yeah nope- not at all.
    I had a raw kale salad at the brasilian place last night.

    WHO THE HELL ARE YOU AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH MY AWESOME FRIEND.

    <grump>

    I'd also like to weigh in on broccoli vs Doritos at this time.

    What's the drink of choice with this?

    Because really I only drink Doritos with pepsi- so I mean if we are doing Doritos + pepsi for a month vs broccoli and OJ- I mean- I think I'd lean toward Pepsi/Doritos combo Honestly.

    Who am I kidding- with out butter/bacon grease broccoli is nothing to me.

    That's where I was at, too. This whole broccoli scenario can be changed with a good dose of Plugra.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Ezzmie wrote: »
    Don't know if anyone has ever taken an edX course but there is one coming up called: Introduction to Nutrition – Food for Health (this is offered online and starts Jan 12) May help tackle the question what is health food...

    link redacted

    Nice spam job.

This discussion has been closed.