Quality also matters, not just quantity

eveedance
eveedance Posts: 77
edited November 13 in Food and Nutrition
Seems like the "there is no unhealthy or healthy food" concept is being challenged a bit here.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108492

Replies

  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    eveedance wrote: »
    Seems like the "there is no unhealthy or healthy food" concept is being challenged a bit here.

    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108492

    Is typically stated with moderation in mind.

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • eveedance
    eveedance Posts: 77
    emily_stew wrote: »
    In....to read later...maybe. Probably not.

    In keeping with the inertia I see in many
  • stephdeeday
    stephdeeday Posts: 43 Member
    Nothing that article says can convince me not to eat fried chicken.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    eveedance wrote: »
    Seems like the "there is no unhealthy or healthy food" concept is being challenged a bit here.

    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108492

    You are either missing what this study is showing, or you are missing what moderation is. Either way, the study kinda falls into the "no crap" category.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    To try and head off a discussion where everyone is talking past each other, I want to clarify a couple of things.

    (1) When people say a calorie is a calorie or calories are all that matter, they mean for weight loss specifically, all else equal. I'm not aware of anyone here who would argue that overall diet is irrelevant as to other things, like health or nutrition.

    (2) When people say there is no such thing as a healthy or unhealthy food, they mean that context matters. There are, of course, healthier and less healthy diets, but whether a particular food makes a diet more or less healthy depends on context--what else have you eaten, what are your goals. For a couple of examples, if you've eaten no protein, an apple, while normally a perfectly great food, is not going to be as good a choice as a steak, despite the existence of studies that suggest that red meat can have adverse effects (and we can debate those too, of course). Similarly, if you are on a long bike ride and not terribly far from bonking, some sugar is needed, even though the same sugar might be a poor choice for someone who had spent the day on the couch and already had 5 cookies.

    The study that you point to doesn't seem to me to contradict the usual MFP arguments on these points, because it seems to be about diets (which of course can be more or less health-promoting, although individual differences will always also matter too, as in a minority of people seem to have cholesterol levels that are responsive to diet/dietary cholesterol, whereas most seem not to, although they do often have levels that improve with weight loss).

    I'm curious why you think that the study is inconsistent with the arguments. Do you see something wrong in what I've said, or were you understanding the arguments to be something other than what I've stated here?
  • annaskiski
    annaskiski Posts: 1,212 Member
    I think Herrspoons point is relevant.
    You're confused about the difference between weight loss and heart health.
  • eveedance
    eveedance Posts: 77
    stephdeeday wrote: »
    Nothing that article says can convince me not to eat fried chicken.

    Neither me or the article are telling anyone to do anything. Just posting journal articles. As an alternative to people posting random thoughts.

    You do what you want with the information.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    eveedance wrote: »
    Seems like the "there is no unhealthy or healthy food" concept is being challenged a bit here.

    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108492

    I don't see anything in there that goes against the prevailing wisdom on MFP - there are no "good" foods or "bad" foods for weight loss, it is okay to eat pretty much anything in moderation if you are under your calorie goal and hitting your macros, and different food choices work for different people with different health issues.
  • eveedance
    eveedance Posts: 77
    annaskiski wrote: »
    I think Herrspoons point is relevant.
    You're confused about the difference between weight loss and heart health.

    Please quote any statements in this thread where I used the words "weight loss" or "heart health" to demonstrate my confusion between the two. I just posted an article. Read it. Or don't.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited March 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    eveedance wrote: »
    emily_stew wrote: »
    In....to read later...maybe. Probably not.

    In keeping with the inertia I see in many

    Wow.
  • LKArgh
    LKArgh Posts: 5,178 Member
    eveedance wrote: »
    Seems like the "there is no unhealthy or healthy food" concept is being challenged a bit here.

    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108492

    Who ever had this concept??? I have read on this site repeatedly that when it comes to weight, calories are calories, and weight loss/gain does not care about the calories coming from fresh salads or deep fried mars bars. Which is true. But who on their right mind would ever claim that when it comes to health what you eat does not matter?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    eveedance wrote: »
    Seems like the "there is no unhealthy or healthy food" concept is being challenged a bit here.

    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108492

    You are either missing what this study is showing, or you are missing what moderation is. Either way, the study kinda falls into the "no crap" category.

    yup.gif
  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,423 Member
    From the article-
    Although investigations of dietary components may help to shed light on mechanisms behind the benefits of dietary patterns, it is unlikely that modifying the intake of a few nutrients or foods would substantially influence coronary outcomes.

    I would say that the article does not really say that quality of food over quantity matters to health. The article does not talk about weight loss at all which is what people talk about here. The article does not really say one way of eating is healthiest for everyone either.
    It seemed to be a study about studies.
  • annaskiski
    annaskiski Posts: 1,212 Member

    Who ever had this concept??? I have read on this site repeatedly that when it comes to weight, calories are calories, and weight loss/gain does not care about the calories coming from fresh salads or deep fried mars bars. Which is true. But who on their right mind would ever claim that when it comes to health what you eat does not matter?[/quote]

    Apparently the OP eveedance must have claimed it, and is now attempting to refute his confused understanding...
  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    annaskiski wrote: »
    Who ever had this concept??? I have read on this site repeatedly that when it comes to weight, calories are calories, and weight loss/gain does not care about the calories coming from fresh salads or deep fried mars bars. Which is true. But who on their right mind would ever claim that when it comes to health what you eat does not matter?

    Apparently the OP eveedance must have claimed it, and is now attempting to refute his confused understanding...[/quote]

    While casting aspersions at others...
  • eveedance
    eveedance Posts: 77
    Lounmoun wrote: »
    From the article-
    Although investigations of dietary components may help to shed light on mechanisms behind the benefits of dietary patterns, it is unlikely that modifying the intake of a few nutrients or foods would substantially influence coronary outcomes.

    I would say that the article does not really say that quality of food over quantity matters to health. The article does not talk about weight loss at all which is what people talk about here. The article does not really say one way of eating is healthiest for everyone either.
    It seemed to be a study about studies.

    Thanks for being objective, calm and mature in your response. I agree with everything you said - just posting the article.
  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    eveedance wrote: »
    Lounmoun wrote: »
    From the article-
    Although investigations of dietary components may help to shed light on mechanisms behind the benefits of dietary patterns, it is unlikely that modifying the intake of a few nutrients or foods would substantially influence coronary outcomes.

    I would say that the article does not really say that quality of food over quantity matters to health. The article does not talk about weight loss at all which is what people talk about here. The article does not really say one way of eating is healthiest for everyone either.
    It seemed to be a study about studies.

    Thanks for being objective, calm and mature in your response. I agree with everything you said - just posting the article.

    But you're not "just posting the article," and Lounmoun's statement that it doesn't talk about whether one way of eating is healthiest is in direct opposition of your OP, "Seems like the "there is no unhealthy or healthy food" concept is being challenged a bit here."

    It [the concept] is not being challenged in this article, as many others have pointed out (including Lounmoun, with whom you've just agreed), and now that they have pointed it out, you've become defensive and settled into the "Just Asking Questions" gambit. Why not JAQ off somewhere else?

This discussion has been closed.

Categories