There are 'BAD' foods
Replies
-
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because the foods I think of as being unhealthy are either very low in micronutrients and/or loaded with ingredients that I don't think belong in food. In the context of a balanced diet that supplies all of the micronutrients in recommended amounts, I don't think there's much harm in eating those other foods in moderation. But to me, that doesn't change the fact that the food itself (such as poptarts) doesn't provide much nutritional value (from a micronutrient standpoint), and is loaded with other "stuff". Foods like that I'd call unhealthy, although when eaten in moderation I agree that it doesn't make the diet itself unhealthy.Carlos_421 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I support the notion that some foods are unhealthy.
To be honest, my answer is yes. At my church, we pack food for kids at the local elementary school who have little to no food to eat on the weekends. Because of the nature of this undertaking (most of the food is processed and packaged), most of the food they're getting from us is low in nutrients. They're getting fed from a macronutrient standpoint, which is the most important thing, but that food is not doing much good from a micronutrient standpoint.Since these discussions always go to the extremes, let me ask this.
If there is a starving child that hasn't eaten in 3 days, are there any foods that are bad for them?
How does that in any way demonstrate that any given food, in context of appropriate portions and balanced overall diet, is bad or unhealthy in and of itself?
You're still not demonstrating why those foods are unhealthy in and of themselves.
Just because you say so? Why is a low micronutrient profile unhealthy (read: shouldn't be eaten)?
And what is this "other stuff" in pop tarts and how are they bad for me?0 -
If you consider taking a crap a squat without anything but your own body damaging or dangerous how do you go the loo? You probably have squatted many times without injury. Somebody probably has the video of some 80+ YO doing a DL with some considerable weight. I think you'll be okay......or they eventually kill you. Either way you'll find out.ForecasterJason wrote: »
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Same issue as food. Having bacon to the absence of ever making calories for vegetables is probably bad like squatting with poor form. It isn't the one food or the one squat that's the issue. It's the overall context to either.
Also, you can find someone that will say anything. That doesn't make it correct.0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.
I'm not saying that overeating healthy foods wouldn't give the same results, I'm simply implying that this isn't the cause of obesity and associated metabloic issues in the UK and to argue that point is just plain ridiculous. It's common knowledge that a culture of takeaways every weekend, quick fix ready meals are to blame for rising obesity not overeating healthy foods.0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.
Obesity is not simply caused simply by overeating. Sugar and highly palatable foods interfere with our natural signals of fullness and satiation. A healthy body seeks to maintain its natural weight, and there are all sorts of biomechanical processes that regulate metabolism, hunger, and appetite in order to do so. When you consume highly palatable sugary foods that release dopamine, you are overriding your body's natural fullness signals.
0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.
I'm not saying that overeating healthy foods wouldn't give the same results, I'm simply implying that this isn't the cause of obesity and associated metabloic issues in the UK and to argue that point is just plane ridiculous. It's common knowledge that a culture of takeaways every weekend, quick fix ready meals are to blame for rising obesity not overeating healthy foods.
So a takeaway salad can cause an obesity crisis?0 -
Why does it have to be black or white? I can have a glass of semi skimmed milk, or I can have chocolate milk if I have a few extra calories, and get the same nutritional value from either. Why is one seen as good while the other is seen as bad? I find the definition of what makes something "bad" very murky. Is it the sugar? So does that mean fruits are bad too? Is it the calories? Does that make nuts bad? Is it the fat? So avocados are bad too? Is it the overall nutritional profile? So water is bad?
0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.
Obesity is not simply caused simply by overeating. Sugar and highly palatable foods interfere with our natural signals of fullness and satiation. A healthy body seeks to maintain its natural weight, and there are all sorts of biomechanical processes that regulate metabolism, hunger, and appetite in order to do so. When you consume highly palatable sugary foods that release dopamine, you are overriding your body's natural fullness signals.
No, awareness of food period releases dopamine. Eating leads to serotonin which then suppresses dopamine - not because we're designed to avoid overeating but because we're evolved to avoid wasting energy and safety looking for food while there is food available.0 -
Choices. They are ours to make for ourselves.
No one can say what is healthy or unhealthy for anyone else.
Individually, we can decide for ourselves, and really, it is no one else's business what we choose to eat.
Everyone has the same information at their finger tips, and we are all adults.
What I have learned here, in the almost 4 years I have been here, is all things in moderation, and do not consume more calories than you burn, if you want to become a healthy weight, and maintain a healthy weight.
It worked, and is working for me, and yes I do eat what many consider unhealthy foods. In order to stay at a healthy weight, it has to be sustainable. For me it's been over two years of maintaining a healthy weight, and that is proof enough for me.
0 -
It's diet, volume, not the food that's "bad."
My extremely disabled non-verbal brother is OCD. One of his OCD behaviors is to force himself to eat and drink. His water (liquid) consumption can easily go high enough unchecked to wash out his electrolytes and it's almost killed him multiple times. He's on a strict liquid (including water!) and calorie restriction now because of the potentially life ending impact on his health. It's not what he consumes but how he consumes it.
Granted, his circumstances are extreme and he has no concept of what he's doing to himself, but I think his situation aptly illustrates how over consumption make him sick, not the specific food and liquid items.
0 -
Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods. I'm not at all saying one can't be healthy in general eating a balanced diet and including a small amount of pop tarts, but most likely you won't find too many people who get 100% of all vitamins and minerals and still eat low nutrient dense food. So, since this is not something that is easily achievable, I'd say it makes pop tarts unhealthy in this regard.Carlos_421 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because the foods I think of as being unhealthy are either very low in micronutrients and/or loaded with ingredients that I don't think belong in food. In the context of a balanced diet that supplies all of the micronutrients in recommended amounts, I don't think there's much harm in eating those other foods in moderation. But to me, that doesn't change the fact that the food itself (such as poptarts) doesn't provide much nutritional value (from a micronutrient standpoint), and is loaded with other "stuff". Foods like that I'd call unhealthy, although when eaten in moderation I agree that it doesn't make the diet itself unhealthy.Carlos_421 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I support the notion that some foods are unhealthy.
To be honest, my answer is yes. At my church, we pack food for kids at the local elementary school who have little to no food to eat on the weekends. Because of the nature of this undertaking (most of the food is processed and packaged), most of the food they're getting from us is low in nutrients. They're getting fed from a macronutrient standpoint, which is the most important thing, but that food is not doing much good from a micronutrient standpoint.Since these discussions always go to the extremes, let me ask this.
If there is a starving child that hasn't eaten in 3 days, are there any foods that are bad for them?
How does that in any way demonstrate that any given food, in context of appropriate portions and balanced overall diet, is bad or unhealthy in and of itself?
You're still not demonstrating why those foods are unhealthy in and of themselves.
Just because you say so? Why is a low micronutrient profile unhealthy (read: shouldn't be eaten)?
And what is this "other stuff" in pop tarts and how are they bad for me?
Also, food dyes have been shown to have negative consequences in some cases.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.0 -
For me, candy, potato chips, baked goods, and frozen, precooked convenience foods such as popcorn chicken, mozza sticks, etc. are BAD foods. They aren't bad in and of themselves (ok to have occasionally, in moderation), but are bad for me because they are high calorie, some are high fat & sodium, and with the fatty ones, I find that I have a very hard time controlling how much of them I eat. So they are really bad choices for me, but I just say the are EVIL.0
-
You can eat nutritionally sparse foods (bad foods) in limited amounts and still be a healthy weight and get your macro/micros.
However saying there are no bad foods is IMO, the nutritional equivalent of everyone gets a medal or trophy.0 -
The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
The World Health Organization did too.0 -
As for the multivitamin, yes that is true, although one would miss out on other components that certain foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) provide.rankinsect wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.
When it comes to magnesium and potassium, those are very tricky to meet the RDAs from food alone. I've heard it said on here that because those nutrients aren't listed in many foods, a lot of people probably meet the recommendations. However, looking at a lot of the diaries from others on here, I have a hard time believing that.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
As for the multivitamin, yes that is true, although one would miss out on other components that certain foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) provide.rankinsect wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.
When it comes to magnesium and potassium, those are very tricky to meet the RDAs from food alone. I've heard it said on here that because those nutrients aren't listed in many foods, a lot of people probably meet the recommendations. However, looking at a lot of the diaries from others on here, I have a hard time believing that.
If they aren't listed on the label, then the diary entries are inaccurate. So you really can't go off of that.0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.
I'm not saying that overeating healthy foods wouldn't give the same results, I'm simply implying that this isn't the cause of obesity and associated metabloic issues in the UK and to argue that point is just plane ridiculous. It's common knowledge that a culture of takeaways every weekend, quick fix ready meals are to blame for rising obesity not overeating healthy foods.
So a takeaway salad can cause an obesity crisis?
I'm sorry I thought this was a forum for serious discussion not trolling lol, if that's a serious question then I think you have to re-evaluate your usage of MFP haha
If everyone ate takeaway salads instead of a kebab or deep fried pizza or whatever, I doubt the obesity levels of the nation would be quite a problem.0 -
True, I don't have conclusive evidence, but based on the foods being eaten I think it's still a reasonable statement to say that many are coming short.nutmegoreo wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As for the multivitamin, yes that is true, although one would miss out on other components that certain foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) provide.rankinsect wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.
When it comes to magnesium and potassium, those are very tricky to meet the RDAs from food alone. I've heard it said on here that because those nutrients aren't listed in many foods, a lot of people probably meet the recommendations. However, looking at a lot of the diaries from others on here, I have a hard time believing that.
If they aren't listed on the label, then the diary entries are inaccurate. So you really can't go off of that.
0 -
The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
The World Health Organization did too.
Sounds like you read the headline of the story and ran with it without actually reading the article or related study. It was already discussed upthread.0 -
A few foods are bad. Clearly it seems that trans-fats aren't a good idea. Also turtle egg omelette and shark fin soup are both pretty evil.
As to why some countries ban certain products- it is often that the social, religious or economic pressures influence certain choices. Or that the idea of burden of proof for what is considered GAS isn't the same from country to country.
But from their to make the leap that HFCS, etc. is always bad for anyone is outright ridiculous. Context matters.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
True, I don't have conclusive evidence, but based on the foods being eaten I think it's still a reasonable statement to say that many are coming short.nutmegoreo wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As for the multivitamin, yes that is true, although one would miss out on other components that certain foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) provide.rankinsect wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.
When it comes to magnesium and potassium, those are very tricky to meet the RDAs from food alone. I've heard it said on here that because those nutrients aren't listed in many foods, a lot of people probably meet the recommendations. However, looking at a lot of the diaries from others on here, I have a hard time believing that.
If they aren't listed on the label, then the diary entries are inaccurate. So you really can't go off of that.
I think the only way to know with reasonable certainty if people are deficient in needed vitamins and minerals is through lab work. This typically doesn't get done in absence of symptoms for conditions such as hypokalemia or hypomagnesemia (since those are the two you mentioned). I guess you could always ask your doctor to run these tests if you have concerns.
If people you know are not receiving adequate nutrition, by all means take it up with them. At the end of the day it's personal choice and personal responsibility.
ETA: Since you were also talking about children in poverty receiving foods you feel are nutritionally void, I would hope you recognize I am not talking specifically about them. Two completely separate issues. In that situation, perhaps petitioning for more nutrient dense foods would be appropriate. In the end, some food is still better than no food.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
As for the multivitamin, yes that is true, although one would miss out on other components that certain foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) provide.rankinsect wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.
When it comes to magnesium and potassium, those are very tricky to meet the RDAs from food alone. I've heard it said on here that because those nutrients aren't listed in many foods, a lot of people probably meet the recommendations. However, looking at a lot of the diaries from others on here, I have a hard time believing that.
There's plenty vegetables and fruits that provide you with the RDA and then some for small portions. It is not hard to get 100% by a long stretch even on smaller calorie intakes. And what rankinsect said, it's not necessary to get 100 of everything daily forever.0 -
Food breaks down like this:
Delicious
Tolerable
Yucky
That is all.0 -
True. But again, it seems to me that many people on here aren't eating enough fruits and vegetables (even on a mostly regular basis) to meet those particular RDAs.stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As for the multivitamin, yes that is true, although one would miss out on other components that certain foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) provide.rankinsect wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.
When it comes to magnesium and potassium, those are very tricky to meet the RDAs from food alone. I've heard it said on here that because those nutrients aren't listed in many foods, a lot of people probably meet the recommendations. However, looking at a lot of the diaries from others on here, I have a hard time believing that.
There's plenty vegetables and fruits that provide you with the RDA and then some for small portions. It is not hard to get 100% by a long stretch even on smaller calorie intakes. And what rankinsect said, it's not necessary to get 100 of everything daily forever.
0 -
"yes, that is true, although" potatoes and bananas pretty easy to find and consume. Also, potatoes provide many nutrients almost a complete food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
As for the multivitamin, yes that is true, although one would miss out on other components that certain foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) provide.rankinsect wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.
When it comes to magnesium and potassium, those are very tricky to meet the RDAs from food alone. I've heard it said on here that because those nutrients aren't listed in many foods, a lot of people probably meet the recommendations. However, looking at a lot of the diaries from others on here, I have a hard time believing that.
0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.
This is very true, but honestly how many times do you think a doctor looked at an obese person's food diary and said, oh, your eating to much fruits, veggies, fish and lean meat/chicken, compared to you're eating too many doughnuts, chips, cakes, ice cream, etc or drinking too much pop.
While it's for sure an issue overeating "healthy" foods is not much of an issues compared to eating overeating "bad" foods.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
True. But again, it seems to me that many people on here aren't eating enough fruits and vegetables to meet those particular RDAs.stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As for the multivitamin, yes that is true, although one would miss out on other components that certain foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) provide.rankinsect wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.
When it comes to magnesium and potassium, those are very tricky to meet the RDAs from food alone. I've heard it said on here that because those nutrients aren't listed in many foods, a lot of people probably meet the recommendations. However, looking at a lot of the diaries from others on here, I have a hard time believing that.
There's plenty vegetables and fruits that provide you with the RDA and then some for small portions. It is not hard to get 100% by a long stretch even on smaller calorie intakes. And what rankinsect said, it's not necessary to get 100 of everything daily forever.
Where does personal responsibility fit into this? I make the choice to meet my macros 95% of the time. I make a conscious and intentional choice to increase my fruit and veggie intake. I make the choice to include supplements where I know I am having a hard time meeting my goals. Once I have met these goals, I make the choice to use up my left over calories on ice cream or beer. People on here have the choices. If they are not meeting their nutritional needs, it is because they chose not to.0 -
True, but again.....who cares if somebody isn't eating their fruit and vegetables? Are there a few folks with eating disorders who think 5 carrots is a serving? Sure. They'll figure it out.ForecasterJason wrote: »
True. But again, it seems to me that many people on here aren't eating enough fruits and vegetables (even on a mostly regular basis) to meet those particular RDAs.stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As for the multivitamin, yes that is true, although one would miss out on other components that certain foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) provide.rankinsect wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.
When it comes to magnesium and potassium, those are very tricky to meet the RDAs from food alone. I've heard it said on here that because those nutrients aren't listed in many foods, a lot of people probably meet the recommendations. However, looking at a lot of the diaries from others on here, I have a hard time believing that.
There's plenty vegetables and fruits that provide you with the RDA and then some for small portions. It is not hard to get 100% by a long stretch even on smaller calorie intakes. And what rankinsect said, it's not necessary to get 100 of everything daily forever.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions