Define "healthy" food...
Replies
-
sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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?
As I said, look at the ingredients. That is, unless you're going with organic or natural. It's not necessarily the food itself that's the problem. Food colorings and artificial flavors? Preservatives and other chemicals they put in a lot of foods? No thank you.
LOL ahhh I see the clean eaters have entered the frey..
First, all food has "chemicals" so unless you are drinking pure water you are ingesting *gasp* chemiclas.
second - see jo roca's comments on preservatives
third - define "natural"
so because in your eyes said foods are not clean but they meet all goals for macro/micro/and calories they are not healthy?? talk about a food snob...
Not to be nitpicky but water also has chemicals...
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That was me back on page 8 I think. I used cola and OJ though. My point was, in the context of overall diet neither is unhealthy if consumed in the context of a balanced diet. Also either can be unhealthy if not consumed it the context of a balanced diet.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
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.
Arsenic, but that's what I add for people that make me grumpy.
In ice cream? wtf brands are you buying
0 -
-
sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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?
As I said, look at the ingredients. That is, unless you're going with organic or natural. It's not necessarily the food itself that's the problem. Food colorings and artificial flavors? Preservatives and other chemicals they put in a lot of foods? No thank you.
LOL ahhh I see the clean eaters have entered the frey..
First, all food has "chemicals" so unless you are drinking pure water you are ingesting *gasp* chemiclas.
second - see jo roca's comments on preservatives
third - define "natural"
so because in your eyes said foods are not clean but they meet all goals for macro/micro/and calories they are not healthy?? talk about a food snob...
Not to be nitpicky but water also has chemicals...
lol
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
IMO, I don't think anyone is claiming sugar is healthy. What they are saying is, sugar is not inherently unhealthy...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.
Some are, but some are saying both are equally heatlhy foods becasue they both can be part of an overall healthy diet. They can't seem to separate the terms.
Well, in that context, then I cannot see that it is incorrect statement.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're missing it. If you saw the post I made earlier about the ingredients in Dominoes pizza, maybe it'd be easier for you to understand her point.sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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?
As I said, look at the ingredients. That is, unless you're going with organic or natural. It's not necessarily the food itself that's the problem. Food colorings and artificial flavors? Preservatives and other chemicals they put in a lot of foods? No thank you.
First, all food has "chemicals" so unless you are drinking pure water you are ingesting *gasp* chemiclas.
i was not replying to you ..
but way to jump in an comment out of turn.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
So what you are saying is you have no intentions of helping others who could possibly want clarity from said study?
I thought he said he included the link to be helpful. Seems pretty disingenuous to me.0 -
sweetdixie92 wrote: »I do know what organic means, thank you. I have a few nutritionists in the family and I can do some researching for myself.
Just out of curiosity, where do you get your organics from? Brands etc?
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
because if you are going to make outrageous claims you should have something to back them up with ..its not my job to prove a negative.
Saying sugar is linked to a higher risk of death by heart disease is not outrageous. Please prove that it is outrageous. Where is your link?
You aren't very good at this are you?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
emily_stew wrote: »Dang, you guys...you gotta send some kind of Bat Signal when threads like these are made. It's been all day and I haven't noticed this!
This!!!0 -
sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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?
As I said, look at the ingredients. That is, unless you're going with organic or natural. It's not necessarily the food itself that's the problem. Food colorings and artificial flavors? Preservatives and other chemicals they put in a lot of foods? No thank you.
LOL ahhh I see the clean eaters have entered the frey..
First, all food has "chemicals" so unless you are drinking pure water you are ingesting *gasp* chemiclas.
second - see jo roca's comments on preservatives
third - define "natural"
so because in your eyes said foods are not clean but they meet all goals for macro/micro/and calories they are not healthy?? talk about a food snob...
Man made chemicals and chemicals that aren't meant for eating versus chemicals that are in fruit. Okay, you've got me with the terminology there. I'm not the best at explaining, which is why I leave that to others. I know what I want to eat and not eat. Hey, I've been called a snob before, and I'm okay with that. If I don't want to put something in my mouth because a majority says it's okay to, then I won't. But apparently making your own decisions makes you a snob these days...0 -
ldrosophila wrote: »Let's all meet back here in 50 years the ones who are still alive are the wiener and can prove that they are the most healthiest and do a superior dance over the graves of the unhealthy red dye #5 ones eating their kale chips and broccoli yogurt sundaes (is sundae an unhealthy word?) while they laugh smelling of patchouli and sadness for Doritos yearned
Wait, this doesn't seem fair. How old are you?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're missing it. If you saw the post I made earlier about the ingredients in Dominoes pizza, maybe it'd be easier for you to understand her point.sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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?
As I said, look at the ingredients. That is, unless you're going with organic or natural. It's not necessarily the food itself that's the problem. Food colorings and artificial flavors? Preservatives and other chemicals they put in a lot of foods? No thank you.
First, all food has "chemicals" so unless you are drinking pure water you are ingesting *gasp* chemiclas.
That post you made actually made no sense. All you did was list ingredients in a pizza and pick what you thought was unhealthy. Which there was absolutely no reason why it would have been healthy.
If he's referencing the post I think, he posted the ingredients of something like Dominos and then posted the ingredients of his homemade versions. Then went on to explain why his was healthier than the other (IN HIS OPINION)0 -
At not wasting my time providing links to people who have no genuine interest in them? Actually, I'm pretty good at that.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
because if you are going to make outrageous claims you should have something to back them up with ..its not my job to prove a negative.
Saying sugar is linked to a higher risk of death by heart disease is not outrageous. Please prove that it is outrageous. Where is your link?
You aren't very good at this are you?
0 -
sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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?
As I said, look at the ingredients. That is, unless you're going with organic or natural. It's not necessarily the food itself that's the problem. Food colorings and artificial flavors? Preservatives and other chemicals they put in a lot of foods? No thank you.
you do realize organic doesn't mean what you think it means.
also preservatives aren't that bad. sometimes they aren't that good- but not for the reasons you think- they aren't inherently bad for you to consume but more so preservatives can they hide when food is ACTUALLY bad- and when you would have naturally thrown it away (starts to smell/grow etc). Then you're keeping something that's harboring festering things that actually ARE bad for you.
I do know what organic means, thank you. I have a few nutritionists in the family and I can do some researching for myself.
I get what you're saying about preservatives which makes total sense. But if I want to eat something within the time period I normally would without preservatives, then I'd rather get the food that just doesn't have them to begin with.
well if you really got the whole "organic" thing- then you probably wouldn't be that spooled up on it- because it's pretty much a farce.
If that's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I just prefer not eating food with pesticides and other junk on it.
You know there are many pesticides that are "certified organic" which are just minor variations from the non-organic versions?0 -
It's called ingredients that do not have a place in pizza.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're missing it. If you saw the post I made earlier about the ingredients in Dominoes pizza, maybe it'd be easier for you to understand her point.sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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?
As I said, look at the ingredients. That is, unless you're going with organic or natural. It's not necessarily the food itself that's the problem. Food colorings and artificial flavors? Preservatives and other chemicals they put in a lot of foods? No thank you.
First, all food has "chemicals" so unless you are drinking pure water you are ingesting *gasp* chemiclas.
That post you made actually made no sense. All you did was list ingredients in a pizza and pick what you thought was unhealthy. Which there was absolutely no reason why it would have been healthy.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »sweetdixie92 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.
Can you elaborate.
ETA: lol...behind - was already asked. This thread is moving too fast to keep up.
it is the like the gift that keeps on giving...or maybe not ...
Can you detail the micronutrient importance as it pertains to your original post?
The point that I was trying to make was that dietary context matters. So if you hit your macro/micro/calorie target for the day but you have filled that in with say 400 calories of ice cream is that then "unhealthy" < this would also boil down to individual goals - losing fat, bulking, recomping, overall health, etc...
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.
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.
At least we can all agree on this.
(Oh, whoops...I haven't completely caught up on the...FOUR MORE PAGES??? SERIOUSLY??? *sigh*...four pages yet unread, so I guess I shouldn't have posted this yet.)0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're missing it. If you saw the post I made earlier about the ingredients in Dominoes pizza, maybe it'd be easier for you to understand her point.sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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?
As I said, look at the ingredients. That is, unless you're going with organic or natural. It's not necessarily the food itself that's the problem. Food colorings and artificial flavors? Preservatives and other chemicals they put in a lot of foods? No thank you.
First, all food has "chemicals" so unless you are drinking pure water you are ingesting *gasp* chemiclas.
That post you made actually made no sense. All you did was list ingredients in a pizza and pick what you thought was unhealthy. Which there was absolutely no reason why it would have been healthy.
If he's referencing the post I think, he posted the ingredients of something like Dominos and then posted the ingredients of his homemade versions. Then went on to explain why his was healthier than the other (IN HIS OPINION)
Exactly. Where he said full-fat mozzarella was bad, but never explained why...0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
You are claiming sugar can be part of a healthy diet...yes, I want you to prove that.You want me to prove that a balanced diet is key? Seriously?
I honestly do not know how to debate someone with 0 logic and reasoning skills. Haven't done that since I was a first grader. If I ever hit my head and it knocks me back to a first grade education, I'll hit you up.
I wouldn't know how to prove that a nutrient dense diet of fruit (sugar), vegetables (sugar), protein, with some moderately included "junk" food is healthy... I am defeated.
0 -
-
I have to take this piece by piece. Please don't think I'm trying to make a huge argument because I'm not. Discussing, not fighting. Not personal.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.
We disagree right there. I cannot get on board with the premise that food is different based on thoughts or circumstances. The thoughts and circumstances might influence decisions, but they do not influence the food.If you need to gain weight, almost anything edible might be healthy.
I don't agree. If we have an anorexic who was about to die and has been medically cleared, we can send her to a psych unit where they will fill her with all kinds of healthy and unhealthy food. If some of that food contains trans fats, we aren't going to worry about it so long as she eats it. The question of whether the trans fats may or may not contribute to a heart attack when she's 54 is irrelevant if she dies now. Right now, she needs to make herself healthier by gaining weight.
Later, when she's not about to die, she can focus on making herself healthier by eating healthier food. That is a good goal, eating healthy food. But it cannot be a higher priority than being alive.
The food and diet don't change, per se, based on her needs. Her choices must change based on her needs.If you've eaten nothing but broccoli for a week, broccoli is not healthy.
The broccoli continues to be broccoli. It's nutritive value doesn't change because you've been eating only broccoli. It remains the same.
If you eat only broccoli for a week AND you care about your health AND you're willing to listen to advice about what is better or worse AND you're willing to adjust your diet based on that advice, you should start eating other things.In particular, there is no food that is so beneficial that you would want to say that it could make up an entire diet.
Agreed, as above.
Agree and disagree. The food's benefits, per se, won't change. Whether or not it will benefit you is always something that has to be decided. Your overall diet can play a part in your decision-making process, but doesn't actually have any effect on the food.Whether a food benefits your health or not depends on the overall diet.
More broccoli probably won't hurt you, even if you've eaten nothing else for a week. But the exclusion of other nutrients will, eventually, do you physical harm. So if you want to be healthy, you'd be best off if you added some other nutrients.
The broccoli doesn't become an unhealthy food, per se. You just need to eat other healthy foods to get those nutrients.
Agreed. That's a poor diet, if you care about being as healthy as possible.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.
I assume the word you're referencing is "context" and I use it the way the majority of people outside this forum use it.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?)
As I said from the get-go, your diet is comprised of all your individual food choices, so they are important. We all make food choices, assuming we have access to food and nobody prevents us from making choices. Even if we choose to eat whatever is yummiest without any regard to it's nutritive value, we all make choices. If we want an "overall healthy diet" then most of our food choices will need to be foods that are healthy.
I compare chicken and green beans based on the fact that I get enough veggies and fruits. In fact, I get too many fruits and not enough chicken, so I need to put some damn chicken on the plate. If I gave in to what I like, I'd eat green beans and some kind of fruit for dinner.
Given my preferences, I'd eat very little protein, just some eggs and cottage cheese, now and then, and the rest would be incidentally obtained from foods that are not great sources of protein. But that's not good for me, so I add some chicken.
That's the choice I make. I have known, respected and admired people whose diets contained only the worst foods. What I eat doesn't make me better or more intelligent. What they eat (or ate) doesn't make them better or more intelligent.
A very bright person can choose to willingly make all the poorest food choices, all the time, and remain an intelligent person. A very dumb person can learn about nutrition and make only the healthiest of food choices all the time and remain dumb.
Our diets are only one small piece of who we are. They don't make us better, worse, smarter, dumber, more or less lovable, kind, etc. It's just food.
0 -
sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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?
As I said, look at the ingredients. That is, unless you're going with organic or natural. It's not necessarily the food itself that's the problem. Food colorings and artificial flavors? Preservatives and other chemicals they put in a lot of foods? No thank you.
you do realize organic doesn't mean what you think it means.
also preservatives aren't that bad. sometimes they aren't that good- but not for the reasons you think- they aren't inherently bad for you to consume but more so preservatives can they hide when food is ACTUALLY bad- and when you would have naturally thrown it away (starts to smell/grow etc). Then you're keeping something that's harboring festering things that actually ARE bad for you.
I do know what organic means, thank you. I have a few nutritionists in the family and I can do some researching for myself.
I get what you're saying about preservatives which makes total sense. But if I want to eat something within the time period I normally would without preservatives, then I'd rather get the food that just doesn't have them to begin with.
well if you really got the whole "organic" thing- then you probably wouldn't be that spooled up on it- because it's pretty much a farce.
If that's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I just prefer not eating food with pesticides and other junk on it.
but its OK if they spray organic foods with DDT because pesticides...?0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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.
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.
Arsenic, but that's what I add for people that make me grumpy.
In ice cream? wtf brands are you buying
For people I don't like? Dryers, than I add the arsenic. lol.0 -
sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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?
As I said, look at the ingredients. That is, unless you're going with organic or natural. It's not necessarily the food itself that's the problem. Food colorings and artificial flavors? Preservatives and other chemicals they put in a lot of foods? No thank you.
you do realize organic doesn't mean what you think it means.
also preservatives aren't that bad. sometimes they aren't that good- but not for the reasons you think- they aren't inherently bad for you to consume but more so preservatives can they hide when food is ACTUALLY bad- and when you would have naturally thrown it away (starts to smell/grow etc). Then you're keeping something that's harboring festering things that actually ARE bad for you.
I do know what organic means, thank you. I have a few nutritionists in the family and I can do some researching for myself.
I get what you're saying about preservatives which makes total sense. But if I want to eat something within the time period I normally would without preservatives, then I'd rather get the food that just doesn't have them to begin with.
well if you really got the whole "organic" thing- then you probably wouldn't be that spooled up on it- because it's pretty much a farce.
If that's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I just prefer not eating food with pesticides and other junk on it.
Pesticides are used for organic fruits and vegetables too... they are "organic" but pesticides all the same...
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions