Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Classifying food as "healthy" vs. "unhealthy": completely erroneous?
Options
Replies
-
CipherZero wrote: »There's no "healthy vs unhealthy" foods. There's more optimal and less optimal.
And what is more optimal and less optimal depends on the situation you're in.1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
The problem I have with examples like this is that it's largely hypothetical. This is just not simply a realistic scenario except in an extreme case.markrgeary1 wrote: »I'd suggest it's never black and white.
If you were dying of starvation and came across a big juicy yummy bucket of frosting laden with trans fat, is it "healthy" to eat the "unhealthy" food to prevent starvation?
Yeah, stuff like that only happens on the Island in Lost.1 -
Two people are eating gummy bears.
One is a six year old who snuck the bag into his room to get full on them before supper. This will result in a calorie surplus and a spoiled appetite which will further lead to him not eating his supper, thus not getting sufficient protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals in his diet.
The other is a 19 year old male who just completed a 90 minute heavy lifting routine (leg day) and is eating them to restore glycogen and spike insulin (which is anabolic). He has prelogged the calories for this into his eating diary and will eat a complete meal in about an hour. All of his nutrition needs will be met and the gummy bears will have served to aid him in reaching his goals.
Are gummy bears healthy or not?
The moral of this story:
To properly assess whether or not something is healthy requires context which does apply at the level of an individual food item, thus it is the diet and habits of an individual that are either healthy or unhealthy and not the individual components of the diet.
Dosage further complicates the matter (i.e. if the 19 year old male mentioned above ate a 10 pound serving of gummy bears, he would no longer be eating toward his goals and if the 6 year old only ate 3 gummy bears, he would no longer be spoiling his appetite).
Conclusion: No individual food is healthy/unhealthy. The amounts and manner in which we eat them are either healthy or unhealthy.13 -
stevencloser wrote: »What's wrong with tofu?
I had the same reaction. Good stuff if done right3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
The problem I have with examples like this is that it's largely hypothetical. This is just not simply a realistic scenario except in an extreme case.markrgeary1 wrote: »I'd suggest it's never black and white.
If you were dying of starvation and came across a big juicy yummy bucket of frosting laden with trans fat, is it "healthy" to eat the "unhealthy" food to prevent starvation?
Artificial trans fats is a horrible example. It's something I think we all should avoid. The more realistic scenarios involves gels, candy, cookies, chocolate, etc. I don't backpack in remote areas without very high calorie, sugar laden foods, particularly if there's a chance of cold weather. Endurance athletes use all sorts of energy foods that your average couch potato should avoid or at least minimize. Candy also provides a nice post lifting insulin and energy spike.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »There's no "healthy vs unhealthy" foods. There's more optimal and less optimal.
This type semantic argument seems silly to me.
The whole "healthy vs unhealthy" food debate is a silly semantics argument, but may make a psychological difference in how someone approaches their food choices.3 -
Great article at Reason magazine's website. Article basically takes a look at what happens when you take a long list of food items and then ask consumers on the one hand, and nutritionists on the other to classify the foods as "healthy" or "unhealthy." Bottom line - there's a ton of disagreement, and maybe the question really just isn't that helpful in the first place?
People always tell me I should eat my vegetables because they're a healthy food. I'm so relieved to hear that there's no such thing as healthy and unhealthy food, I never have to eat another vegetable as long as I live.
1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Great article at Reason magazine's website. Article basically takes a look at what happens when you take a long list of food items and then ask consumers on the one hand, and nutritionists on the other to classify the foods as "healthy" or "unhealthy." Bottom line - there's a ton of disagreement, and maybe the question really just isn't that helpful in the first place?
People always tell me I should eat my vegetables because they're a healthy food. I'm so relieved to hear that there's no such thing as healthy and unhealthy food, I never have to eat another vegetable as long as I live.
as long as you get adequate micro nutrients from another source then yes you are correct.4 -
What other sources will get me adequate micros, in practice? I mean I can't just take a multi-vitamin, right?1
-
NorthCascades wrote: »What other sources will get me adequate micros, in practice? I mean I can't just take a multi-vitamin, right?
Organ meat, or yes a multivitamin.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Great article at Reason magazine's website. Article basically takes a look at what happens when you take a long list of food items and then ask consumers on the one hand, and nutritionists on the other to classify the foods as "healthy" or "unhealthy." Bottom line - there's a ton of disagreement, and maybe the question really just isn't that helpful in the first place?
People always tell me I should eat my vegetables because they're a healthy food. I'm so relieved to hear that there's no such thing as healthy and unhealthy food, I never have to eat another vegetable as long as I live.
But anyway. Say you already met your micronutrients for the day but are still 1000 calories shy of your goals and lacking in fat and protein, which can easily happen if your diet is rich in vegetables.
Is it healthy to eat even more vegetables or something that fulfills your current needs?0 -
CipherZero wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »There's no "healthy vs unhealthy" foods. There's more optimal and less optimal.
This type semantic argument seems silly to me.
The whole "healthy vs unhealthy" food debate is a silly semantics argument, but may make a psychological difference in how someone approaches their food choices.
More so than optimal and less optimal?? (which is completely incorrect anyway) Why would someone get all bent out of shape about not eating 100% "healthy" foods but be okay with eating foods that are less "optimal"? Either someone will obsess over eating perfectly or they won't. I doubt that little change in wordage will make a difference to those that are obsessive.1 -
"Healthy" is defined as: "indicative of, conducive to, or promoting good health." Applying that to foods only, I believe that a "healthy" food can be defined as a food that improves someone's health, leaves it in a better state than before the food was consumed, and/or has more positive impacts on the body than negative.
Obviously, in the context of different people's overall diet and exercise regimens, foods you could apply the above definition to could vary widely. But, for purposes of discussion, let's take a typical American who is not a body builder or extreme endurance athlete, has no diseases or allergies that limit types of food that can be consumed, and who generally eats a SAD.
For that typical American, I think it's difficult to argue that a carrot is not inherently healthier than a slice of chocolate peanut butter cookie dough cheesecake from The Cheesecake Factory. A carrot is nutrient-dense, low in calories compared to volume, and has very few properties that would result in a negative impact to the body (for that typical American). The cheesecake is very calorie-dense, far exceeds RDAs for an entire day for saturated fat and sugar, and has only a few properties that would result in a positive impact to the body.
The difficulties in applying the "healthy" or "unhealthy" tag to foods come when you look at the 90% of foods that fall in-between carrots and cheesecake - the foods that don't have significantly more or fewer positive or negative impacts on the body when taken completely on their own. That's when context again becomes the primary driver in determining whether something is healthy or not, this time within the SAD. A sandwich, a salad, a latte, an omelet, a slice of bacon, a chicken thigh, a bowl of pasta, a glass of wine...I believe the vast majority of the nutritional properties of most foods are in fact neutral until you look at them in relation to the rest of your day. Is this ham sandwich "healthier" than this chicken caesar salad? I don't know - what macros are you lacking today, how's your fiber intake, how about your vitamin A and sodium? Further - maybe the sandwich doesn't really fit today's calorie/macro/micro goals, but how does the rest of the week look? The month?
All of that being said, just because I believe that there are indeed a few foods that can generally be classified as "healthy" or "unhealthy" does not mean that I believe occasional consumption of "unhealthy" foods automatically means an "unhealthy" diet overall (or, conversely, that regular consumption of "healthy" foods automatically means a "healthy" diet). You may or may not be able to look at the nutritional properties of a single food someone consumed and draw some conclusions about the healthfulness of that food on its own, but you cannot use them to draw conclusions about the healthfulness of the diet of the person who ate it. It doesn't work that way. It's absolutely possible to consume "unhealthy" foods within a diet that, overall, meets that person's nutritional needs. Yet again, context is key.3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »What's wrong with tofu?
I had the same reaction. Good stuff if done right
My reaction also. My wife makes Pad Thai with tofu and it totally kicks butt.1 -
fish, fruits, multivitamin ..etc...NorthCascades wrote: »Great article at Reason magazine's website. Article basically takes a look at what happens when you take a long list of food items and then ask consumers on the one hand, and nutritionists on the other to classify the foods as "healthy" or "unhealthy." Bottom line - there's a ton of disagreement, and maybe the question really just isn't that helpful in the first place?
People always tell me I should eat my vegetables because they're a healthy food. I'm so relieved to hear that there's no such thing as healthy and unhealthy food, I never have to eat another vegetable as long as I live.
as long as you get adequate micro nutrients from another source then yes you are correct.
0 -
markrgeary1 wrote: »I'd suggest it's never black and white.
If you were dying of starvation and came across a big juicy yummy bucket of frosting laden with trans fat, is it "healthy" to eat the "unhealthy" food to prevent starvation?
If you were stranded in a wilderness and starving, you might be surprised at what you would eventually come to consider as "food", healthy or otherwise. The definition of "palatable" changes under such circumstances, and the brain will demand glucose from whatever source is available.1 -
Like most food and fitness buzzwords, "healthy" isn't quantitative. That's why I avoid getting information from enthusiasts that use terms like "healthy" or "clean eating".4
-
stevencloser wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »What other sources will get me adequate micros, in practice? I mean I can't just take a multi-vitamin, right?
Organ meat, or yes a multivitamin.
I would also add there are micros in non-organ meats, fruit, dairy, grain products (usually enriched, but still), seeds and nuts, etc. it's not like veggies are our sole source of micronutrients. I happen to like veggies, but if you don't, you could still get adequate micronutrients. Might be more challenging, especially if you don't care for liver, lol, but possible.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »What's wrong with tofu?
Everything..it is an alien lifeform looking to inhabit your body..it is horrible..Just my opinion ..0 -
Common Sense should be fine for most people. Unhealthy..could be a greasy doublecheeseburger with bacon Vs a salad. Could be a sundae with whipped cream Vs strawberries with no whipped cream? Could be potato chips Vs veggie sticks...
I think some of these foods could be considered unhealthy ..or perhaps..not the healthiest choice? I believe someone said it earlier..semantics...
Some foods are probably better choices for us, we simply don't always choose the best choice. Does that make having 6 beers on a Saturday night unhealthy? Or is it the quanity of the choice..? One beer = ok..
6 beers=unhealthy A doublecheeseburger 4 ounces fine, on the grill , a slice of real cheese and two slices of bacon..VS Can you eat the Big Bang DoubleCheeseburger challenge at the bar...? two 4 oz patties, 4 slices of cheese, 6 strips of bacon with ketchup, pickles, onions, mustard, and a 1/2 pound of salted fries in 20 minutes?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions