Define "healthy" food...

Options
1515253545557»

Replies

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    adowe wrote: »
    royaldrea wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    royaldrea wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    royaldrea 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...

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    adowe wrote: »
    royaldrea wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    royaldrea wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    royaldrea 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 ..
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    adowe wrote: »
    royaldrea wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    royaldrea wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    royaldrea 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! :astonished:

    yeah, wtf. 7 minutes and brain didn't die? I wouldn't be able to handle that.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    JoRocka wrote: »
    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?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 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.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 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 ...
  • mommacool
    mommacool Posts: 138 Member
    Options
    Whole foods, from nature. Any prepared foods would be not highly processed. So some ice cream would be better than others! ;)
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    what precisely is bad about processing, momma?

    It's made our entire food system safer.
  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    Options
    A healthy food would lead to a balance of nutrients for the body where an unhealthy food would lead to deficiency in key nutrients.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    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?

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    mommacool wrote: »
    Whole foods, from nature. Any prepared foods would be not highly processed. So some ice cream would be better than others! ;)

    I believe all ice cream is processed...
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    mommacool wrote: »
    Whole foods, from nature. Any prepared foods would be not highly processed. So some ice cream would be better than others! ;)

    I believe all ice cream is processed...

    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...

  • Azexas
    Azexas Posts: 4,334 Member
    Options
    Kruggeri wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    mommacool wrote: »
    Whole foods, from nature. Any prepared foods would be not highly processed. So some ice cream would be better than others! ;)

    I believe all ice cream is processed...

    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

  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    I think we need a recipe for pine ice cream.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,391 MFP Moderator
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jofjltncb6 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.


This discussion has been closed.