Define "healthy" food...
Options
Replies
-
Wow, I've really loved the 400+ replies that I keep getting notified of in this thread....worst idea ever commenting.0
-
If you're not going to read through 23 pages, I'm not either. And if you're not going to read the other thread in which I posted a link, I see no reason to repost. If you were that interested you would make the effort.Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Since I'm not going to read through 23 pages, why don't you go find me one.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
You have not proven anything that you have stated. Ive seen a lot of opinions without anything to "prove" them to be accurate.Liftng4Lis wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Not the way I see it. What have you proven?Liftng4Lis wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
When spouting off on the internet, you have the burden of proof.
I'm sorry where do you see me siting studies and not providing sources?
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
So we'll turn into weiners if we make it 50 more years
You'll be crowned the soy weiner of life
0 -
stop while you're far behind. You obviously have no clue about what you're talking about. You should just sit back and learn at this point.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
If you're not going to read through 23 pages, I'm not either. And if you're not going to read the other thread in which I posted a link, I see no reason to repost. If you were that interested you would make the effort.Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Since I'm not going to read through 23 pages, why don't you go find me one.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
You have not proven anything that you have stated. Ive seen a lot of opinions without anything to "prove" them to be accurate.Liftng4Lis wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Not the way I see it. What have you proven?Liftng4Lis wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
When spouting off on the internet, you have the burden of proof.
I'm sorry where do you see me siting studies and not providing sources?
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*
That shiz is horrible. Bleh. Sorry :flowerforyou:
Ha. I know I'm in the minority. I don't like it baked, I only like it raw in a chopped salad. It has more bite and crunch than regular lettuce. But I like arugula and endive too - maybe I just like bitter greens!
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
You can either take my word for it or read the study yourself...that's how it works!!! LOL!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Where do people come up with this kind of stuff^^^^ You want to reference studies but we have to go read the studies for ourselves? Lol
If you don't give people a link to the study or at the very least give the full title with authors and year so they can find the actual study you read, how can people read said study??
0 -
Yup, if I was interested, I guess I would!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
If you're not going to read through 23 pages, I'm not either. And if you're not going to read the other thread in which I posted a link, I see no reason to repost. If you were that interested you would make the effort.Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Since I'm not going to read through 23 pages, why don't you go find me one.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
You have not proven anything that you have stated. Ive seen a lot of opinions without anything to "prove" them to be accurate.Liftng4Lis wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Not the way I see it. What have you proven?Liftng4Lis wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
When spouting off on the internet, you have the burden of proof.
I'm sorry where do you see me siting studies and not providing sources?
0 -
Calcium, iron, Vitamins A, D, K, E, etc. are naturally occurring parts of nutrition in whole, unprocessed foods. You aren't going to find those quality micronutrients in pizza, ice cream, funnel cakes, candy bars, soda, etc. And, even if you do get some micronutrients in the ingredients used to make those foods, you will also get a huge dose of sodium (implicated in high blood pressure), saturated fats (implicated in cardiovascular diseases) and sugar (which has a whole slew of diet related health issues attributed with it).
A bonus: what sort of education or research do you have to assert this position? I'd love to know.
You need to do some research on salt and blood pressure (myth) and saturated fats and heart disease (myth).
Sugar isn't the devil. You need to get over that too...unless, of course, you are pre-diabetic or diabetic.
1/2 cup of Breyers vanilla ice cream is a great snack, fairly low cal, nice dose of calcium, and some protein. What's the difference between eating some ice cream or having a yogurt?
While the exact effects of both salt and saturated fat have come into some question lately, that hardly makes them myth.
The saturated fat metastudy that everyone is claiming has "debunked" the saturated fat/ CVD connection has been widely discredited (and subsequently revised), with even some of the contributing authors disagreeing with the conclusion. That doesn't completely invalidate it, but I think that before abandoning all the previous analyses and completely changing tack based on a single, flawed analysis, some further research is in order.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/
Also, while some new research has suggested that the AHA sodium guidelines might be unnecessarily low, the study not conclude that there is no link between sodium and hypertension. In contrast, many studies have shown a statistically and clinically significant correlation between sodium and hypertension. Again, more research might be in order to come up with a revised limit, but that is not exactly the same as saying there is no relationship.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
trans fat
IMO, the devil is in the dose...
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Not at all. Why don't you be helpful and post your evidence that sugar is healthy.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
So what you are saying is you have no intentions of helping others who could possibly want clarity from said study?
If you can find a place where I said that, I would....
I don't think sugar is healthy. I just don't think it's unhealthy. There is a difference and it can only be judged by an entire diet.
Please prove that it can only be judged by an entire diet.
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.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Ummm actually you did not..and that thread is now locked by the mods...but feel free to post it again ...
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
I clicked as I was interested - totally not helpful at all.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.
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.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.
You can't calculate the health of one food over another in a complete diet, You have to look at the diet as a whole not just one particular food item
Right. Some people seem to approach nutrition as if you can just label foods as healthy and unhealthy and eat only the healthy foods and be healthy. This leads to such things as the "can I eat clean while avoiding vegetables" question--or people who just do that. Plenty of people think that if they get rid of the foods they have decided are unhealthy (often simply higher calorie or full fat items) they can have a healthy diet by eating diet food or avoiding "white carbs" or whatever, even if they are still seriously protein deficient and eat no vegetables.
If you compare such a diet to, say, someone who eats a balanced, healthy diet with adequate protein (from eggs, dairy, and a variety of meat (including fish)), and a good mix of fruits and veggies, plus perhaps some olive oil, cheese in moderation, and the like, plus a can of Coke a day, which is healthier? Obviously the latter.
But looking at foods as about wearing a healthy and unhealthy label prevents a more sensible look at nutrition.
It's also irritating for people to go on in a self-congratulatory way about avoiding "unhealthy" foods (like my example of the white pasta with chicken and veggies above) while eating some of the stuff that they usually are, but this is clearly me being a hypocritical you know what, so I am not proud of such sentiments. The broader point is that beyond certain basics (like veggies are good), there is lots to debate about (or simply individual) as to what kind of diet works for a specific person.
And to digress about this way of looking at food, some think that it's best not to eat meat or to eat only fish and skinless chicken breast and there are studies that arguably support the former argument, but I personally do not think they are that convincing or that I, as an individual, would be better off as a vegetarian.0 -
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Lost 27 pound in 2 months and improved his health markers.0 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
You can't calculate the health of one food over another in a complete diet, You have to look at the diet as a whole not just one particular food item
See. Here is an example that seems to suggest a can of coke is as healthy as a bowl of raw kale.
Again...context. It is not possible to say which is healthier without knowledge of everything else that is eaten.
It's like the OPs that say "which exercise should I do?". There is no answer without more information.
0 -
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions