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.

"Junk Food" and Health

geneticexpectations
geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
edited November 13 in Debate Club
Will the internet explode?
«134

Replies

  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    So...what is the debate?
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    So...what is the debate?

    Lemurcat wanted to talk about our disagreement regarding junk food and its effect on health.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Original thread for context: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10484020/not-all-calories-are-equal#latest
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    Original thread for context: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10484020/not-all-calories-are-equal#latest

    Ah, thanks Dianne.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    OP, can you provide your working definition of "junk food"? People can mean different things by that term, so it might be helpful for you to explain what you mean by it.
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    OP, can you provide your working definition of "junk food"? People can mean different things by that term, so it might be helpful for you to explain what you mean by it.

    On the other thread I explained that for me, I don't have a definition of junk food and health food, but I look at food as a spectrum.

    I'll just give a quick run down of where I come from in case anyone is curious

    I do like to try to eat MORE ALONG THE LINES OF what our bodies "expect" according to a long evolutionary timeline. Not EXACTLY what our bodies expect b/c that isn't an exact science, but MORE ALONG THE LINES OF.

    Essentially I prefer that the STAPLES (not the only constituents) of my diet consist of plants that come from the ground (or sea) and animals that eat plants that come from the ground (or sea). But I do include a lot of grass fed high fat dairy, dark chocolate made with minimal ingredients etc.

    I do try to outright avoid manmade industrial seed/vegetable oils. I avoid grains as best as possible, and am not much for the added sugars, but that last one sneaks in every now and then and I don't totally mind esp if post workout.

    BUT, there's a whole middle ground there - will I eat Mapleton's ice cream on occasion? Sure. Will I eat the most delicious cakes I have ever tasted on occasion (this shop near me makes them with with nuts, coconut oil, dates, honey and a few other "whole food" ingredients)? Absolutely.

    At first glance people think I deprive myself, but I have a rule that I do not put anything in my mouth that isn't absolutely delicious. Yes, including vegetables, because I smother them in ghee.

    And everything I eat now I find tastes far better than everything I ate before. (up until 5 years ago, I ate all the "typical" junk everyone is familiar with - conventional pizza, burgers, cakes, ice cream).

    You may be thinking, whatever how can anyone compete with pizza? I've got a recipe for a pizza crust made with nut flour, and every single person who I have served it to says it is the best pizza they have ever tasted - yes it tastes different, but also better.

    Just as background, with the foods I now eat, I only eat when I'm hungry, and stop when I'm full. I don't count calories. I've gone from 200 lbs to 150 lbs (with big increases in strength, which highlights that the fat loss is even more than the weight loss). Maintained this level for 4 years. That's the weight loss side of things

    But, to address this forum thread, my opinion (of course not "proven" by RCT, just my opinion, which I acknowledge is not for everybody) is that sticking with "higher quality" foods may impact chronic disease incidence independent of weight loss. Just my opinion and my choice. I understand that this viewpoint is not for everyone. And if I can enjoy food, yet stay within parameters that make me comfortable, why not? And I certainly have lots of friends who don't see "junk food" as "unhealthy" and that's totally cool. We get along!

    Big take home point though!!!!!! - I recognize that this works for ME. That I got to where I wanted to get to and that food has never tasted better. I'm happy. But I recognize that lots of you have achieved lots of things and are happy too and have done things differently and view things differently.
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    richln wrote: »
    Smells like a trap. Like a trap made out of a dumpster, doused with gasoline, and baited with donuts.

    Combustion is not healthy

    But toasted marshmallows?
    Toasted-Marshmallow-Day-30th-August.jpg

    Also please define "junk food". I read the other thread and what you said about "junk food" being over-touched by humans (or something similar) has me wondering how you're eating food since most of it has been processed by man and unlike it is in nature.

    Sorry, I probably just posted right as you were posting. see above (ie, I can't draw a hard line between what is junk and what isn't).
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    OP, can you provide your working definition of "junk food"? People can mean different things by that term, so it might be helpful for you to explain what you mean by it.

    On the other thread I explained that for me, I don't have a definition of junk food and health food, but I look at food as a spectrum.

    I'll just give a quick run down of where I come from in case anyone is curious

    I do like to try to eat MORE ALONG THE LINES OF what our bodies "expect" according to a long evolutionary timeline. Not EXACTLY what our bodies expect b/c that isn't an exact science, but MORE ALONG THE LINES OF.

    Essentially I prefer that the STAPLES (not the only constituents) of my diet consist of plants that come from the ground (or sea) and animals that eat plants that come from the ground (or sea). But I do include a lot of grass fed high fat dairy, dark chocolate made with minimal ingredients etc.

    I do try to outright avoid manmade industrial seed/vegetable oils. I avoid grains as best as possible, and am not much for the added sugars, but that last one sneaks in every now and then and I don't totally mind esp if post workout.

    BUT, there's a whole middle ground there - will I eat Mapleton's ice cream on occasion? Sure. Will I eat the most delicious cakes I have ever tasted on occasion (this shop near me makes them with with nuts, coconut oil, dates, honey and a few other "whole food" ingredients)? Absolutely.

    At first glance people think I deprive myself, but I have a rule that I do not put anything in my mouth that isn't absolutely delicious. Yes, including vegetables, because I smother them in ghee.

    And everything I eat now I find tastes far better than everything I ate before. (up until 5 years ago, I ate all the "typical" junk everyone is familiar with - conventional pizza, burgers, cakes, ice cream).

    You may be thinking, whatever how can anyone compete with pizza? I've got a recipe for a pizza crust made with nut flour, and every single person who I have served it to says it is the best pizza they have ever tasted - yes it tastes different, but also better.

    Just as background, with the foods I now eat, I only eat when I'm hungry, and stop when I'm full. I don't count calories. I've gone from 200 lbs to 150 lbs (with big increases in strength, which highlights that the fat loss is even more than the weight loss). Maintained this level for 4 years. That's the weight loss side of things

    But, to address this forum thread, my opinion (of course not "proven" by RCT, just my opinion, which I acknowledge is not for everybody) is that sticking with "higher quality" foods may impact chronic disease incidence independent of weight loss. Just my opinion and my choice. I understand that this viewpoint is not for everyone. And if I can enjoy food, yet stay within parameters that make me comfortable, why not? And I certainly have lots of friends who don't see "junk food" as "unhealthy" and that's totally cool. We get along!

    Big take home point though!!!!!! - I recognize that this works for ME. That I got to where I wanted to get to and that food has never tasted better. I'm happy. But I recognize that lots of you have achieved lots of things and are happy too and have done things differently and view things differently.

    If you don't have a definition of junk food, I am unsure of what we are actually being encouraged to debate here.

    Virtually 100% of my body comes from plants from the ground or sea (100% if you don't consider things like salt). Some of those things receive more pre-processing than others, but everyone is basing their diet on plants from the ground or sea, animals from the ground or sea (who eat those plants or other animals), or things like dairy/eggs that are produced by the bodies of those creatures. So when you say your diet is based on those things, what is that being compared to? We're just on this planet right now -- our food has to come from things that either grow on Earth with us or live on Earth with us.
  • chocolate_owl
    chocolate_owl Posts: 1,695 Member
    @geneticexpectations It seems your concern with food on the "bad" end of your spectrum is its possible relation to chronic disease in your opinion (no evidence provided - do you have studies anywhere?). If incidence of chronic disease is a concern, why choose a paleo diet rather than emulating a way of eating that's already correlated with low incidence of chronic disease, like a diet from a Blue Zone? Do you have any evidence to support that how you're eating will really provide you with the benefits you want?
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    OP, can you provide your working definition of "junk food"? People can mean different things by that term, so it might be helpful for you to explain what you mean by it.

    On the other thread I explained that for me, I don't have a definition of junk food and health food, but I look at food as a spectrum.

    I'll just give a quick run down of where I come from in case anyone is curious

    I do like to try to eat MORE ALONG THE LINES OF what our bodies "expect" according to a long evolutionary timeline. Not EXACTLY what our bodies expect b/c that isn't an exact science, but MORE ALONG THE LINES OF.

    Essentially I prefer that the STAPLES (not the only constituents) of my diet consist of plants that come from the ground (or sea) and animals that eat plants that come from the ground (or sea). But I do include a lot of grass fed high fat dairy, dark chocolate made with minimal ingredients etc.

    I do try to outright avoid manmade industrial seed/vegetable oils. I avoid grains as best as possible, and am not much for the added sugars, but that last one sneaks in every now and then and I don't totally mind esp if post workout.

    BUT, there's a whole middle ground there - will I eat Mapleton's ice cream on occasion? Sure. Will I eat the most delicious cakes I have ever tasted on occasion (this shop near me makes them with with nuts, coconut oil, dates, honey and a few other "whole food" ingredients)? Absolutely.

    At first glance people think I deprive myself, but I have a rule that I do not put anything in my mouth that isn't absolutely delicious. Yes, including vegetables, because I smother them in ghee.

    And everything I eat now I find tastes far better than everything I ate before. (up until 5 years ago, I ate all the "typical" junk everyone is familiar with - conventional pizza, burgers, cakes, ice cream).

    You may be thinking, whatever how can anyone compete with pizza? I've got a recipe for a pizza crust made with nut flour, and every single person who I have served it to says it is the best pizza they have ever tasted - yes it tastes different, but also better.

    Just as background, with the foods I now eat, I only eat when I'm hungry, and stop when I'm full. I don't count calories. I've gone from 200 lbs to 150 lbs (with big increases in strength, which highlights that the fat loss is even more than the weight loss). Maintained this level for 4 years. That's the weight loss side of things

    But, to address this forum thread, my opinion (of course not "proven" by RCT, just my opinion, which I acknowledge is not for everybody) is that sticking with "higher quality" foods may impact chronic disease incidence independent of weight loss. Just my opinion and my choice. I understand that this viewpoint is not for everyone. And if I can enjoy food, yet stay within parameters that make me comfortable, why not? And I certainly have lots of friends who don't see "junk food" as "unhealthy" and that's totally cool. We get along!

    Big take home point though!!!!!! - I recognize that this works for ME. That I got to where I wanted to get to and that food has never tasted better. I'm happy. But I recognize that lots of you have achieved lots of things and are happy too and have done things differently and view things differently.

    What makes you think our bodies "expect" to be fed certain types of foods? Our stomach, intestines, liver and kidneys are not sentient. They extract the nutrients from what we put in them and excrete what they don't need as waste. They work the same way no matter what we put into them (barring allergies/intolerances/other medical conditions that alter the digestive process). Humans are incredibly adaptive and our survival over the millennia and ever-increasing life expectancy are proof of that.

    As far as thinking that man-made=unhealthy because natural is better - I just don't buy into that line of thinking, at all. We are animals, we are nature. Just because we are smart enough and resourceful enough to alter foods and other substances to fit our needs does not separate us from the overall food chain, or that nature knows best. I'd rather take a BC Powder for my headache than chew on willow bark, for example.

    I look at it a bit differently. Again, my beliefs and my beliefs only:

    The hominid lineage has been around for 2.5 million years.
    Over that time, we grew to dominating that food chain.
    The two main selection pressures (starvation and predator danger) dictated that we had to be at our absolute best, not just in peak performance fitness wise, but there was no room for chronic health conditions to slow us down.
    One can assume that the chronic diseases that are rampant in our population (and are NOT limited to old age) such as cancer, diabetes, atherosclerosis, autoimmune conditions, and obesity were rare as hens teeth or nonexistent. We just could not have competed with those on board.
    In other words, although all of us carry varying genes for chronic disease to some capacity, our environment back then did not allow those genes to be expressed.
    During this long long time period, we ate what plants grew naturally and we ate animals that ate plants that grew naturally. We also moved around a lot at a slow pace, and exerted ourselves briefly to get dinner or get away from being someone else's dinner.
    This whole process of 2.5 million years changed drastically with the advent of civilization and agriculture 10 thousand years ago.
    Diet and activity changed accordingly, but did we evolve to adapt to this?
    I would argue not to any significant degree, because Evolution depends upon the main selection pressures of starvation and predator danger to exert its selection effects. Civilization eliminated those selection pressures.
    Genetically, we are "essentially" similar to 10 thousand years ago, yet the environment has changed substantially (namely food and types of activity).
    I humbly believe that it's probably best for genetic expression (not just for performance, but for absence of health conditions) to try AS BEST AS I CAN to eat CLOSER to the foods available then as compared to standard dietary convention today.
    So I just try to choose options that steer me in that direction, not worrying if I'm emulating a caveman perfectly or something ridiculous like that, but to try to have a positive influence on gene expression.

    There. I imagine that around these parts, this will be torn apart like a pack of lions on a gazelle :) But, that's me being honest about where my thoughts come from and so far over the last years, I'm happy that it's worked well. Not just weight wise, but lots of different aspects of life and health. I also totally respect your viewpoints Alyssa and thank you for sharing them.
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    edited December 2016
    chocolate_owl wrote: »
    @geneticexpectations It seems your concern with food on the "bad" end of your spectrum is its possible relation to chronic disease in your opinion (no evidence provided - do you have studies anywhere?). If incidence of chronic disease is a concern, why choose a paleo diet rather than emulating a way of eating that's already correlated with low incidence of chronic disease, like a diet from a Blue Zone? Do you have any evidence to support that how you're eating will really provide you with the benefits you want?

    Correct, I don't have evidence in the form of a big RCT, and that's why I share rather than preach. And I'm perfectly open to the possibility of being totally wrong.

    However, I do have scattered collection of all sorts of small trials (and some big trials) and anecdotes and journal articles that add up to a big picture FOR ME. I emphasize the "FOR ME".

    However, I don't really have an impetus to look for that huge piece of evidence everyday when I'm enjoying life and food as much as I do now. The lazy gene :)

    I'd rather not use the term "Paleo". It's a silly name and the original version of the paleo diet is kinda silly to me. However, I prefer ancestral health principles as a whole because the evolutionary model of 2.5 million years with exceptionally strict and harsh criteria (stick around or be extinct) I think is much stronger than a "Blue Zone model", because that's just a comparison of modern societies and who has the best health on average, and given the incidence of chronic disease in the world (over a lifetime it is the majority of the population), the control standard is easy to beat. Again, those are just MY reasons.

    But if my friend chose a Blue Zone model and found that it worked for him/her or if he she chose IIFYM or veganism or whatever... if my friend is happy and comfortable and loves the food he/she is eating, I WILL BE THEIR BIGGEST CHEERLEADER.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    So...what is the debate?

    Lemurcat wanted to talk about our disagreement regarding junk food and its effect on health.

    Here:

    "Resolved [your resolution, not mine]: junk food, consumed even in the context of an overall balanced and nutrient-dense diet that hits all nutrient requirements, is actively bad for you.

    Example, since we probably agree that some things (say, transfats) can be bad for you if included regularly, even in small amounts, including 200 calories of ice cream regularly in one's 2100 calorie TDEE-based day.

    We may have to define "junk food" first, as I think we may be using different definitions. I think it means "food that is high cal and low nutrient, at least for the number of calories involved."

    If you want we can start a new thread in Debate, as OP's thread is about weight loss and I don't think this discussion would be."
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    In the other thread it was suggested that we (genetic expectations ("GE") vs. the other posters) disagreed, because even though all of us were saying that eating a balanced, nutrient dense diet was a good idea, GE said that he/she believed that "junk food" was actively a negative in any amount whereas the rest of us were saying it was fine in moderation in the context of a diet that was otherwise calorie appropriate and nutritionally adequate.

    GE, if I am misunderstanding your claim from the other thread, please correct me.

    If that is the claim, my question is what harm it does to eat some "junk food" (i.e., high cal, low nutrient foods) if you otherwise don't go over calories or prevent yourself from getting the nutrients you need (and even beyond that, have a nutrient dense diet). For the purposes of this discussion I will say that I agree that transfats are harmful and would not choose "junk foods" with that as an ingredient.

    I will also say that although I don't object to the term "junk food," I think it's kind of hard to really define or differentiate from other foods. For example, I'd call ice cream "junk food" as it's higher cal and not especially high in protein or healthy fats or micros, but if so how is it that different from a dessert of cheese or, say, a meal involving pulled pork, which has more protein, but mostly just has more calories and fat than pork loin, so ends up working in the context of an overall diet in the same way.
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    I forgot to address life expectancy Alyssa, sorry.

    Paleolithic life expectancy is quoted as 33 years, however a lot of that is due to infant mortality rate being disgustingly high.

    And for adults, death was not postulated to be due to chronic disease (there really isn't room for a long slow death), but rather a violent gory end or due to infection from a cause that is easily treated today.

    Causes of death were entirely different.

    Today, our life expectancy is certainly higher, but much of those extended years for many involve a ton of meds, hospital visits, IVs, tubes, amputations, chemo, radiation etc. In other words, we prolong survival in a disease state that is far from optimal.

    Those paleolithic people (extrapolating from living hunter gatherer societies today) that live to their 70s and 80s can climb trees, sprint, and lift carcasses.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    Again, my beliefs and my beliefs only:

    The hominid lineage has been around for 2.5 million years.
    Over that time, we grew to dominating that food chain.
    The two main selection pressures (starvation and predator danger) dictated that we had to be at our absolute best, not just in peak performance fitness wise, but there was no room for chronic health conditions to slow us down.
    One can assume that the chronic diseases that are rampant in our population (and are NOT limited to old age) such as cancer, diabetes, atherosclerosis, autoimmune conditions, and obesity were rare as hens teeth or nonexistent. We just could not have competed with those on board.
    In other words, although all of us carry varying genes for chronic disease to some capacity, our environment back then did not allow those genes to be expressed.

    Point one: there is no one "environment back then" but a bunch of different environments.

    Point two: to the extent you are trying to make a link between what we ate and our health being stellar, I don't see that you have. You can say that those of us who survived to reproduce were genetically the strongest (based on the environment then, which is obviously different from now). You can't say that was (a) due to what we ate, or (b) means that what we ate was the healthiest possible diet for us to eat (and of course it was lots of different diets, as noted in point one).
    This whole process of 2.5 million years changed drastically with the advent of civilization and agriculture 10 thousand years ago.

    And at various times since then, yes.

    But significantly the animals we ate and the plants we ate were quite different pre agriculture, no matter how you choose to eat now. (Also, my understanding of the research is that the claim that we ate no grains or legumes and a high fat and protein, low carb diet pre agriculture is wrong. Don't know if you are making that claim, but it's one I've seen.)
    Genetically, we are "essentially" similar to 10 thousand years ago, yet the environment has changed substantially (namely food and types of activity).

    Yes--humans seem to be able to do well under a bunch of different food conditions, which is why I think blue zones tend to be the most interesting evidence, and looking at the variety of traditional diets is also of interest.
    I humbly believe that it's probably best for genetic expression (not just for performance, but for absence of health conditions) to try AS BEST AS I CAN to eat CLOSER to the foods available then as compared to standard dietary convention today.

    I think it's fine if you want to do this (impossible as I think it is in any meaningful sense), although I don't see how it follows from the argument made above.

    What I would disagree with is the claim that NOT doing it is actively harmful or that a diet that doesn't follow these principles is less healthy. (I happen to think a paleo diet, like many other ways of eating, can be done healthfully or not, but is not in and of itself healthful.)

    In that you've talked a lot about how you lost weight by changing your diet, I wonder how you ate before changing your diet. I know I am biased in part because although I personally like eating whole foods and making as much from whole local seasonal ingredients as possible (and getting meat and produce, to the extent possible, from local farms and all that), my weight gain began and largely occurred when I was most obsessed with eating in a super "natural" way, so I can't delude myself that doing that makes it impossible to gain weight (for me).

    In looking at my food preferences with rigorous honesty, I try to distinguish between preferences that help me because I enjoy them (getting into whole foods and seasonal cooking and all that does so for me) and those that actually matter for health and nutrition. When I force myself to focus on the latter, I think a lot of the things that I find fun and motivating are not actually important and -- and this is something to be concerned about, for me -- often more about class issues or subculture.

    (There is a SNL skit about "the Bubble" that I saw yesterday -- someone sent it to me, since I no longer watch SNL -- and while it is funny, it's also way too true to the subculture I'm in, and that's not unrelated here.)
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    In the other thread it was suggested that we (genetic expectations ("GE") vs. the other posters) disagreed, because even though all of us were saying that eating a balanced, nutrient dense diet was a good idea, GE said that he/she believed that "junk food" was actively a negative in any amount whereas the rest of us were saying it was fine in moderation in the context of a diet that was otherwise calorie appropriate and nutritionally adequate.

    GE, if I am misunderstanding your claim from the other thread, please correct me.

    If that is the claim, my question is what harm it does to eat some "junk food" (i.e., high cal, low nutrient foods) if you otherwise don't go over calories or prevent yourself from getting the nutrients you need (and even beyond that, have a nutrient dense diet). For the purposes of this discussion I will say that I agree that transfats are harmful and would not choose "junk foods" with that as an ingredient.

    I will also say that although I don't object to the term "junk food," I think it's kind of hard to really define or differentiate from other foods. For example, I'd call ice cream "junk food" as it's higher cal and not especially high in protein or healthy fats or micros, but if so how is it that different from a dessert of cheese or, say, a meal involving pulled pork, which has more protein, but mostly just has more calories and fat than pork loin, so ends up working in the context of an overall diet in the same way.

    No, you got my claim right.

    I think you partially answered your first question to me. You identified an ingredient that you feel is harmful and would not choose junk foods with that ingredient. I am the same (and I also include man made transfats. I'm totally fine with congugated linolenic acid in grass fed products though). My list of ingredients is only slightly larger (albeit with ingredients that are more ubiquitous).

    However, I don't actually define junk food as high calorie low nutrient. Now, I do believe in nutrient density, but I have no problem eating a lot of chocolate as long as the sugar content is low (I have a company near me that makes very low sugar chocolate with maybe too much fiber.. aghem you know what I mean), but it tastes great. No I don't think sugar is the devil, but low sugar chocolates are mostly fat, which jives with my body just fine. I guess because I don't keep an eye on calories at all (and yes I was obese by medical definition 5 years ago), just quality of food, I don't necessarily consider all high calorie low nutrient food by definition to be junk food. But I know that for others, high calorie foods send their weight loss goals off the rails, so I completely understand. for me, I've found that I have to keep an eye on acellular carbohydrates. And even with cellular carbs (like fruits and tubers), I still have to exert some moderation, or else the weight may creep back up. Don't ask me why that is, it just happens every damn time and it's too much of a tried tested and true pattern for me to ignore. But if I gorge on fats, I don't seem to get derailed. Don't ask me why.

    In regards to health though, biochemically, I prefer fats on the spectrum of more inert. Saturated animal fats, monounsaturated fats etc are relatively stable and I like those, whereas industrial seed oils are often solvent and temperature treated, and being polyunsaturated, have a tendency towards instability (just from a chemical perspective). Then you add the heat from cooking polys, and that increases instability. Chemical reactivity I guess just doesn't sit well with me, and then add the fact that there is no evolutionary precedent for industrial seed/vegetable oils, and... I guess I could do without them. THEN, add to the fact that the stable fats taste 10x better (to ME), and it's a slam dunk for me.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    And @geneticexpectations , I do respect your opinion and I believe that you should eat whatever/however makes you happy. However, I do not think that you are necessarily healthier than those of us who choose to eat "man-made" or "processed" foods in moderation within the context of an overall balanced/healthy diet and are able to maintain a healthy weight and active lifestyle.

    Are you healthier than a morbidly obese, sedentary individual eating a diet high in trans fats and low on nutritional variety? Sure, I think many of us would agree with that. But I think our reasoning for why you are healthier than that person may be different.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    OP, can you provide your working definition of "junk food"? People can mean different things by that term, so it might be helpful for you to explain what you mean by it.

    On the other thread I explained that for me, I don't have a definition of junk food and health food, but I look at food as a spectrum.

    I'll just give a quick run down of where I come from in case anyone is curious

    I do like to try to eat MORE ALONG THE LINES OF what our bodies "expect" according to a long evolutionary timeline. Not EXACTLY what our bodies expect b/c that isn't an exact science, but MORE ALONG THE LINES OF.

    Essentially I prefer that the STAPLES (not the only constituents) of my diet consist of plants that come from the ground (or sea) and animals that eat plants that come from the ground (or sea). But I do include a lot of grass fed high fat dairy, dark chocolate made with minimal ingredients etc.

    I do try to outright avoid manmade industrial seed/vegetable oils. I avoid grains as best as possible, and am not much for the added sugars, but that last one sneaks in every now and then and I don't totally mind esp if post workout.

    BUT, there's a whole middle ground there - will I eat Mapleton's ice cream on occasion? Sure. Will I eat the most delicious cakes I have ever tasted on occasion (this shop near me makes them with with nuts, coconut oil, dates, honey and a few other "whole food" ingredients)? Absolutely.

    At first glance people think I deprive myself, but I have a rule that I do not put anything in my mouth that isn't absolutely delicious. Yes, including vegetables, because I smother them in ghee.

    And everything I eat now I find tastes far better than everything I ate before. (up until 5 years ago, I ate all the "typical" junk everyone is familiar with - conventional pizza, burgers, cakes, ice cream).

    You may be thinking, whatever how can anyone compete with pizza? I've got a recipe for a pizza crust made with nut flour, and every single person who I have served it to says it is the best pizza they have ever tasted - yes it tastes different, but also better.

    Just as background, with the foods I now eat, I only eat when I'm hungry, and stop when I'm full. I don't count calories. I've gone from 200 lbs to 150 lbs (with big increases in strength, which highlights that the fat loss is even more than the weight loss). Maintained this level for 4 years. That's the weight loss side of things

    But, to address this forum thread, my opinion (of course not "proven" by RCT, just my opinion, which I acknowledge is not for everybody) is that sticking with "higher quality" foods may impact chronic disease incidence independent of weight loss. Just my opinion and my choice. I understand that this viewpoint is not for everyone. And if I can enjoy food, yet stay within parameters that make me comfortable, why not? And I certainly have lots of friends who don't see "junk food" as "unhealthy" and that's totally cool. We get along!

    Big take home point though!!!!!! - I recognize that this works for ME. That I got to where I wanted to get to and that food has never tasted better. I'm happy. But I recognize that lots of you have achieved lots of things and are happy too and have done things differently and view things differently.

    What makes you think our bodies "expect" to be fed certain types of foods? Our stomach, intestines, liver and kidneys are not sentient. They extract the nutrients from what we put in them and excrete what they don't need as waste. They work the same way no matter what we put into them (barring allergies/intolerances/other medical conditions that alter the digestive process). Humans are incredibly adaptive and our survival over the millennia and ever-increasing life expectancy are proof of that.

    As far as thinking that man-made=unhealthy because natural is better - I just don't buy into that line of thinking, at all. We are animals, we are nature. Just because we are smart enough and resourceful enough to alter foods and other substances to fit our needs does not separate us from the overall food chain, or that nature knows best. I'd rather take a BC Powder for my headache than chew on willow bark, for example.

    I look at it a bit differently. Again, my beliefs and my beliefs only:

    The hominid lineage has been around for 2.5 million years.
    Over that time, we grew to dominating that food chain.
    The two main selection pressures (starvation and predator danger) dictated that we had to be at our absolute best, not just in peak performance fitness wise, but there was no room for chronic health conditions to slow us down.
    One can assume that the chronic diseases that are rampant in our population (and are NOT limited to old age) such as cancer, diabetes, atherosclerosis, autoimmune conditions, and obesity were rare as hens teeth or nonexistent. We just could not have competed with those on board.
    In other words, although all of us carry varying genes for chronic disease to some capacity, our environment back then did not allow those genes to be expressed.
    During this long long time period, we ate what plants grew naturally and we ate animals that ate plants that grew naturally. We also moved around a lot at a slow pace, and exerted ourselves briefly to get dinner or get away from being someone else's dinner.
    This whole process of 2.5 million years changed drastically with the advent of civilization and agriculture 10 thousand years ago.
    Diet and activity changed accordingly, but did we evolve to adapt to this?
    I would argue not to any significant degree, because Evolution depends upon the main selection pressures of starvation and predator danger to exert its selection effects. Civilization eliminated those selection pressures.
    Genetically, we are "essentially" similar to 10 thousand years ago, yet the environment has changed substantially (namely food and types of activity).
    I humbly believe that it's probably best for genetic expression (not just for performance, but for absence of health conditions) to try AS BEST AS I CAN to eat CLOSER to the foods available then as compared to standard dietary convention today.
    So I just try to choose options that steer me in that direction, not worrying if I'm emulating a caveman perfectly or something ridiculous like that, but to try to have a positive influence on gene expression.

    There. I imagine that around these parts, this will be torn apart like a pack of lions on a gazelle :) But, that's me being honest about where my thoughts come from and so far over the last years, I'm happy that it's worked well. Not just weight wise, but lots of different aspects of life and health. I also totally respect your viewpoints Alyssa and thank you for sharing them.

    Dude. You're worried about gene expression?

    How many millions of babies are you planning to have?
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    edited December 2016
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    This is a very old debate. I'm going to sit this one out and eat popcorn. Since I don't consider grains junk food, I can presume my health will remain intact.

    I did want to drop this here since geneticexpectations made a claim about atherosclerosis and our ancestors.

    http://www.livescience.com/47114-otzi-had-heart-disease-genes.html
    Otzi was discovered in 1991, when two hikers stumbled upon the well-preserved mummy in the Ötztal Alps, near the border between Austria and Italy. Since then, every detail of the iceman has been scrutinized, from his last meal and moments (Ötzi was bashed on the head before being pierced by the deadly arrow blow), to where he grew up, to his fashion sense. [Top 9 Secrets About Ötzi the Iceman]

    Past research has revealed that Ötzi likely suffered from joint pain, Lyme disease and tooth decay, and computed tomography (CT) scanning revealed calcium buildups, a sign of atherosclerosis, in his arteries.

    Initially, the atherosclerosis was a bit of a surprise, because much research has linked heart disease to the couch-potato lifestyle and calorie-rich foods of the modern world, Zink said. But in recent research, as scientists conducted CT scans on mummies from the Aleutian Islands to ancient Egypt, they realized that heart disease and atherosclerosis were prevalent throughout antiquity, in people who had dramatically different diets and lifestyles, he said.

    "It really looks like the disease was already frequent in ancient times, so it's not a pure civilizational disease," Zink told Live Science.

    Totally cool. I do have lots of friends who eat popcorn!!! And I don't make claims about their health, just to be clear.

    I myself don't use Otzi as an example of a paleolithic man - because he wasn't. Neither are the mummies they refer to. Otzi lived well within the neolithic period (post advent of agriculture) along with the mummies. I don't disagree that neolithic peoples could have had some atherosclerosis. (I'm sure paleolithic peoples may have had atherosclerosis as well but probablyy less. Athersclerotic plaques are just band aids used by the body to cover up the initial inflammatory insult to the intima, which is the inner layer of the artery wall, a process known in pathology as the "fatty streak". Its clinical manifestation however (as angina and myocardial infarctions) were not significantly prevalent until the early 20th century.

    Paleolithic humans are essentially the same health wise as wild animals. Sure, some of them can have atherosclerosis - it's the body's repair mechanism for damage to the arterial intima. How many wild animals or wild humans in those days (or any day) would actually have what we call FLOW-LIMITING ATHEROSCLEROSIS?? In other words, not being able to run or sprint from danger because of angina chest pain? What kind of species evolves to the top of the food chain with that kind of physical limitation? What kind of dominant species dies ON THEIR OWN (infection and starvation aside because all animals die of those in the wild) as a regular cause of death?

    If I was chasing a lion and it collapsed and died of a heart attack, I would be the luckiest caveman on the planet. And lions would suck. But they don't.

    So by that same rationale, humans would kind of suck. But they don't. Or didn't.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories