Define "healthy" food...
Replies
-
Lasmartchika wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time
And no brain freeze? Amazing!! And that fast? OMG... If I tried, I would die. LOL!
I have never experienced said brain freeze! I hear it is horrible0 -
Also-I didn't bother to read pages 33-26- so I know we talked about muscle/fat poundage at some point- and now we are talking doing things as a profession and eating food.
So I'm just jumping right in cold with no context.
I'm sick at home.
I don't care.
Well, if you didn't eat any pizza and drink beer, there's no way you'd be home sick now.
:ducks:
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.
Interesting, I wasn't aware that there was a rule on what belongs in a pizza.
There should be. Pepperoni - NO, pineapple - yes.
you're saying pepperoni doesn't belong on a pizza- but pineapple does?
At no point- outside of sauce- does fruit belong on a pizza.
Ever.
Yuck. no.
meat- cheese- sauce.
yes.
fruit? nope nope nope.
I used to think this, too. Then one of my buddies brought over Hawaiian pizza. I changed my mind.
epic dislike. no way. do.not.like.
canadian bacon usually accompanies pineapple too.
<shudder>
insert dirty joke
I want my pizza loaded with meat.
Yet another reason why we are friends... Pepperoni and Sausage all the way baby!
At the risk of sounding Jof-like, I am about 8 pages behind because I fell asleep trying to read through this last night and got lulled to sleep by the one word quote responses in the upper 20's.
Yes.
No.
Ok.
Should I keep going over my lunch hour or can someone give me cliff's notes of what happened in the 30's? Is it just a pizza topping debate? Did anyone ever actually post the link to that thread and that study? Did we ever realize that actually about 80% of the people posting here in this thread agree with each other, it is extremely subtle semantics and the inability to understand the meanings of context and dosage that makes it sound like we are still having a vigorous debate...
I actually have what I assume is the study (although who knows if its the one they were referring to as we got no help in narrowing the field from Ms Google It)...but if people want to see it, they should google it - otherwise I will assume that they just want to see it to (continue??) being mean and do not want to actually learn anything.
The funny thing is that I can't for the life of me remember what the study was purported to be, after two days of this winding train wreck... not that I care enough to either google it or read it..
Also, how does one get one of them there bingo cards? Pretty sure I brought up baking soda is toxic way back in the single digit pages yesterday....
It was supposed to 'prove' that sugar causes higher mortality due to increased CVD. Well, I think that is what it was supposed to be doing but the poster was not making much sense to be honest.
Yep re the baking soda - I believe that the over-sight was corrected and the box on the bingo card is now checked.0 -
Lasmartchika wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time
And no brain freeze? Amazing!! And that fast? OMG... If I tried, I would die. LOL!
I have never experienced said brain freeze! I hear it is horrible
IT IS!! Dam sudden headaches!! LMAO!! I always have to take forever eating ice cream, my mouth is too sensitive to the coldness.
0 -
Swiftlet66 wrote: »I asked my parents what they think is healthier: traditional Vietnamese diet or american diet. They claim Vietnamese.
Before moving to the USA, they were lean and had minimal health problems. After living here for a few years, it was the start of weight gain, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels. You can debate all you want and defend certain foods, but in my book, there a line that must be drawn when it comes to what is considered healthier or not when comparing two types of food.
so I can eat 5000 calories a day of Vietnamese diet and not gain a pound and have great health????0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »murphyocean wrote: »whole foods...
in relation to what…???
I love the people that just drive by with a two word response that makes no sense...
It seems that rather than defining "healthy foods", a lot of people are giving examples of foods that fit their definition of healthy. This confounds the issue because often the examples do not actually exemplify the definition they use.
When I think "healthy foods", I think of foods that have been identified as strongly correlated with greater longevity and lower incidence of disease in humans. I use it as a general guideline for menu planning, rather than case by case for individual food decisions.
I can only speak for myself, but I think of healthy food as that which is statistically most likely to improve my health. I don't try to rank every possible pair of foods or anything, I just try to prioritize "healthy" food and eat less useful foods in moderation. And yes, I make sure to meet my macros every day, they are not mutually exclusive. If I find I am meaningfully short on fat one day, I will try to find a fat source that has been linked to longevity or disease prevention, and if that's not feasible, I will at least try to find something that is neutral.
By the way, I am specifically not giving examples because I don't want to confound the definition. I have been doing as much research as I can, but I realize that I haven't seen all the available evidence yet, so while I am satisfied enough with my current knowledge to make dietary changes for myself, I'm not convinced enough to assert my opinions as fact, or as a completely balanced viewpoint.
As it relates to whole foods, they probably tend to fit my definition, as the human nutrition textbook I am currently reading describes the synergistic benefits of phytochemicals, which are lost when nutrients are stripped and then restored in isolation, and the loss of certain nutrients that occurs with different types of processing.
I still don't know the full risks and benefits of each type of processing (I.e. relative risks of organism growth vs nutrient depletion) for each type of food, so I can't say with certainty, but I think that eating most plant foods whole, shortly after harvest (to minimize time for bacteria growth) probably maximizes the risk/reward ratio.
I'm referring to foods that are safe to eat raw, by the way. I don't recommend eating raw meat or potatoes. Even in the case of foods that must be processed for safety, though, the minimum amount of processing required to make it safe would likely be optimal, from a nutritional standpoint.
You didn't want a two word answer. Be careful what you wish for
ETA: for those of you with "long winded but oddly insecure know-it-all" on your bingo cards, you're welcome.
you say that you don't "rank" your foods based on priority but then go on to say that you hit your macros. Isn't that what hitting macros is; i.e. ranking foods for your particular goals...?
I would also be curious as to what some of these foods are that promote longevity....
What I meant by not ranking foods is that I don't have a top 10, or 20, or 100 foods that I consider to be the best, second best, etc. Within the pool of what I currently consider "healthy" (I'm still researching), I choose what best fits my macros. For example, I don't have an opinion on whether nuts are more healthy than fruit. Both are important sources of nutrients and both have been correlated with lower all-cause mortality (I will link the studies I am referring to, but I don't claim them to be an exhaustive list), so if I need more fat I will have nuts. If I need more carbs I will have fruit. If I have met all my minimums, I'll eat whichever I'm in the mood for. Even if I did think that fruits were somehow superior to nuts objectively (i.e. higher correlation or more positive studies), I would choose a food with fat if fat was what I was short on. I would just look for something with some evidence of positive effect, if possible.
I should also clarify that I am saying that this is my opinion of an ideal diet for optimum functioning and lowest disease risk, and I am not implying that every food decision I make is purely based on nutrition. Sometimes I know which of two foods is the healthier choice (again, in my opinion), but choose the other because that's what I want. Ironically, I imagine that some of the people that disagree with me about the actual definition of "healthy food" probably eat a diet much closer to what I consider nutritionally ideal than I do.
As for examples of what I consider healthy food, what I have read so far has seemed to favour fruits and vegetables, nuts, polyunsaturated fats and complex carbohydrates. I have read reports on one large study in particular about animal vs plant protein, but as there is some controversy over the structure of the study and the validity of the conclusions, I honestly at this point don't have a strong opinion one way or another. I might one day try to dig a bit deeper into the literature, but I'm vegetarian for ethical reasons, so the point is kind of moot for me, anyway. I have also seen several references to a lower CVD risk associated with consumption of omega 3 fatty acid containing fish.
I have a basic but certainly not deep understanding of nutrition (college level intro courses; by no means an expert) and no background in biochemistry, so I usually don't read entire studies (the technical detail goes over my head), but I read the abstracts and summaries, and I try to find reviews that are as unbiased as possible (i.e. Harvard, CDC or WHO position papers rather than some guy on a paleo or raw vegan blog). I know what the stated conclusions are and I have an understanding of the measures of significance/quality (i.e high N value, low P value) from the statistics courses I have taken in my financial/business education, not that I can remember the formulas for the life of me, lol. I find out what the experts think, to the extent that opinions are published, and to the extent that I actually can figure out which experts are credible.
Here are two of the studies that have led me to my current understanding of which foods are healthy (again, by my definition.)
The AARP aMED study that looked at looked at the health effects of a Mediterranean type diet found a positive, and dose dependent correlation with reduced all-cause mortality during the study period for participants who ate more servings of legumes, fruits and nuts, fish and grains and fewer servings of dairy and meat. The statistical models were adjusted for gender, smoking, education level, BMI, physical activity, race, and hormone therapy, to reduce as much as possible, any confounding variables. Here is a link to the study summary published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=770019
Here is another large scale and well controlled population study using the Seventh Day Adventists as subjects. They are a less diverse population, obviously, but the fact that they are so close to homogeneous actually has advantages as well, because it removes many of the major confounding variables from more general populations, like smoking or drinking.
This is a link to the Loma Linda University webpage which includes the fact sheet summaries from the large scale, multi year study. I will cut and paste the super-simplified version of the results:
Adventist Health Study-1: 1974-1988
34,192 California Adventists ages 25+
Investigated factors relating to the incidence of disease and mainly compared the different health habits, especially differences in diet, of Adventists.
Key Results:
• Vegetarians had a lower risk of obesity, hypertension, diabetes and death from all causes.
• In men, the risk of fatal heart disease was significantly related to beef intake.
• Regular nut and whole grain consumption were associated with a lower risk of CHD. • The risk of colon cancer was increased by 88% in non-vegetarian compared to vegetarian Adventists. Consumption of legumes (beans) had a protective effect against colon cancer.
• On average, Adventist men live 7.3 years longer and Adventist women live 4.4 years longer than other Californians.
• Men with a high consumption of tomatoes had a 40% lower risk of prostate cancer.
As I said earlier, these are only two studies in the context of thousands, but they are well regarded generally, and their findings tend to be in line with most of the major health organization guidelines. Again, I'm excluding the meat and dairy from my own conclusions because I have very little information on those topics; they aren't of interest to me. Of course, like anyone, I tend to exhibit confirmation bias, but because I know that this bias is present, I try not to draw conclusions when the conclusions will not affect my behaviour anyway.
I apologize again for the length of my reply. I really don't know how to make it much shorter without oversimplifying. I have attempted to include TL;DR for some of my posts, but they just end up adding 4 more paragraphs
. 0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time
One time I ate 14 slices of dominos medium pizza in one sitting. I am not sure of the time limit. Even better I did not gain any weight for the next weigh in after that.
I can crush a whole medium pizza by myself...hell I could probably still crush a large by myself..
my eating skillzzz are legendary ...
pffftta- up your game.
I crushed that for NYE- entire medium pizza + two slices all by myself- and 3 beers (which- i know is laughable- but it's a lot for me- I'm not a drinker)
up your game son. up your game.
most of my new years calories came from alcohol ...the hangover on new years day sucked....0 -
Also-I didn't bother to read pages 33-26- so I know we talked about muscle/fat poundage at some point- and now we are talking doing things as a profession and eating food.
So I'm just jumping right in cold with no context.
I'm sick at home.
I don't care.
Well, if you didn't eat any pizza and drink beer, there's no way you'd be home sick now.
:ducks:
7 days later- I'm calling BS. LOL.
Also- I had ice cream for breakfast.
0 -
You're gonna die.0
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time
One time I ate 14 slices of dominos medium pizza in one sitting. I am not sure of the time limit. Even better I did not gain any weight for the next weigh in after that.
I can crush a whole medium pizza by myself...hell I could probably still crush a large by myself..
my eating skillzzz are legendary ...
pffftta- up your game.
I crushed that for NYE- entire medium pizza + two slices all by myself- and 3 beers (which- i know is laughable- but it's a lot for me- I'm not a drinker)
up your game son. up your game.
most of my new years calories came from alcohol ...the hangover on new years day sucked....
Clearly was because of all of the empty calories.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time
One time I ate 14 slices of dominos medium pizza in one sitting. I am not sure of the time limit. Even better I did not gain any weight for the next weigh in after that.
I can crush a whole medium pizza by myself...hell I could probably still crush a large by myself..
my eating skillzzz are legendary ...
pffftta- up your game.
I crushed that for NYE- entire medium pizza + two slices all by myself- and 3 beers (which- i know is laughable- but it's a lot for me- I'm not a drinker)
up your game son. up your game.
most of my new years calories came from alcohol ...the hangover on new years day sucked....
Christmas I consumed about 2500 calories in lasagna, meatballs, and bread in one sitting...the other 1000 was dessert and alcohol...
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time
One time I ate 14 slices of dominos medium pizza in one sitting. I am not sure of the time limit. Even better I did not gain any weight for the next weigh in after that.
I can crush a whole medium pizza by myself...hell I could probably still crush a large by myself..
my eating skillzzz are legendary ...
pffftta- up your game.
I crushed that for NYE- entire medium pizza + two slices all by myself- and 3 beers (which- i know is laughable- but it's a lot for me- I'm not a drinker)
up your game son. up your game.
most of my new years calories came from alcohol ...the hangover on new years day sucked....
Clearly was because of all of the empty calories.
LOL
thankfully I had PS4 and college football to take my mind off it all day ..0 -
Lasmartchika wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time
And no brain freeze? Amazing!! And that fast? OMG... If I tried, I would die. LOL!
yeah, wtf. 7 minutes and brain didn't die? I wouldn't be able to handle that.0 -
Also-I didn't bother to read pages 33-26- so I know we talked about muscle/fat poundage at some point- and now we are talking doing things as a profession and eating food.
So I'm just jumping right in cold with no context.
I'm sick at home.
I don't care.
SEriously, get an penicillin injection, you've been sick for like two weeks eh?0 -
Swiftlet66 wrote: »I asked my parents what they think is healthier: traditional Vietnamese diet or american diet. They claim Vietnamese. Before moving to the USA, they were lean and had minimal health problems. After living here for a few years, it was the start of weight gain, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels. You can debate all you want and defend certain foods, but in my book, there a line that must be drawn when it comes to what is considered healthier or not when comparing two types of food.
so I can eat 5000 calories a day of Vietnamese diet and not gain a pound and have great health????
The difference is likely calorie density and, if eating outside the home, portion size. If you are used to eating a certain amount I imagine it would be hard to get used to smaller portions for the same calories.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Swiftlet66 wrote: »I asked my parents what they think is healthier: traditional Vietnamese diet or american diet. They claim Vietnamese. Before moving to the USA, they were lean and had minimal health problems. After living here for a few years, it was the start of weight gain, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels. You can debate all you want and defend certain foods, but in my book, there a line that must be drawn when it comes to what is considered healthier or not when comparing two types of food.
so I can eat 5000 calories a day of Vietnamese diet and not gain a pound and have great health????
The difference is likely calorie density and, if eating outside the home, portion size. If you are used to eating a certain amount I imagine it would be hard to get used to smaller portions for the same calories.
more than likely they have been doing minimal exercise and over consuming food...that is my guess ...0 -
Whole foods, from nature. Any prepared foods would be not highly processed. So some ice cream would be better than others!
0 -
what precisely is bad about processing, momma?
It's made our entire food system safer.0 -
A healthy food would lead to a balance of nutrients for the body where an unhealthy food would lead to deficiency in key nutrients.0
-
TheDevastator wrote: »A healthy food would lead to a balance of nutrients for the body where an unhealthy food would lead to deficiency in key nutrients.
so as long as you hit micro/macros you are good to go ..right?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yeah I am pretty sure there are no ice cream trees where I can pick fresh pints of Talenti...
OMG I need a moment to ponder this little fantasy that I just concocted...
0 -
Yeah I am pretty sure there are no ice cream trees where I can pick fresh pints of Talenti...
OMG I need a moment to ponder this little fantasy that I just concocted...
If you ever find one of these magical trees please let me know haha
0 -
I think we need a recipe for pine ice cream.0
-
jofjltncb6 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »Went to lunch... dead-lifted... took my dogs to get groomed and cut, shoveled driveway, made dinner, played some PS4... and this *kitten* is still going strong at 33 pages? WTF.....
It's a brave new MFP.
since threads don't roll anymore…they can kinda just keep going and going and going..
I am surprised the mods did not shut this down on about page 20 ...
That is because my head started to hurt after 3 pages and I had to go lie down. But now that you bring it up, this thread i locked because there is way too much drama and fighting.
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions