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
Replies
-
@geneticexpectations I have yet to buy or make a pizza crust without gluten that is better then pizza made with gluten. Please give me this recipe because since Celiac I miss pizza THE MOST
0 -
@geneticexpectations I have yet to buy or make a pizza crust without gluten that is better then pizza made with gluten. Please give me this recipe because since Celiac I miss pizza THE MOST
Sure. I'm at work and I haven't made it in a while (it is a bit high maintenance and I'm busier these days) so I can't rattle if off by heart. I'll have to post it later. It's not just the crust though, the toppings make it.
Also I should add that it will not appeal to anyone who is concerned about limiting calories. I don't count calories so I eat it until I can't move.0 -
as I am eating a big bag of chips and drinking a high calorie cider.0
-
I'd enjoy hearing from the anthropologists chime in on this.0
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »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).
Okay -- I wonder if your definition of "junk food" (assuming it is foods with those ingredients) is so unusual as to be unhelpful in a discussion, however -- by which I mean makes communication less likely.
As you have said you are "paleo," I'd assume your list of ingredients includes grains, legumes, and dairy (although I know you said not all dairy), sugar, various oils -- is that right? So "junk food" would include steel cut oats, legumes, or corn on the cob (which you said you did not eat before)?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.
I'm not meaning by "junk foods" foods that are bad for me (as I said, I don't think they are, in moderation), but foods that simply aren't nutrient dense. I think that's the usual definition.
I don't think any specific foods are bad for my goals, but particular ways of eating overall. Nor do I think what works for me is going to work for everyone, although I do have a general sense of what a healthy diet involves that I think is more general.
It sounds to me that a lot of what you are talking about isn't really about health in general (i.e., including some junk food is actively negative to health) but about what is helpful to YOU. If that's so, there's really no debate, as I don't disagree that it could be.1 -
A population of people who eat processed and low quality food on a daily basis, 3x a day for years on in and have many in better shape than the average American.................................Prison inmates.
They aren't dying from the food. Staying in prison for many for decades yet eating all that "bad" food should have them in body bags according to many "naturalists".
So explanation for why this is?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5 -
A population of people who eat processed and low quality food on a daily basis, 3x a day for years on in and have many in better shape than the average American.................................Prison inmates.
They aren't dying from the food. Staying in prison for many for decades yet eating all that "bad" food should have them in body bags according to many "naturalists".
So explanation for why this is?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Things seem not to be how you picture them
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661478/
1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »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.htmlOtzi 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.
Admittedly, I'm not completely up on all of this, but could you please tell me your basis for claiming that paleolithic people had less atherosclerosis if it was a genetic predisposition towards it, as they determined in Otzi's case?
Also, what would be the big difference between the diets of paleolithic and neolithic peoples to make such a change as you're asserting?1 -
A population of people who eat processed and low quality food on a daily basis, 3x a day for years on in and have many in better shape than the average American.................................Prison inmates.
They aren't dying from the food. Staying in prison for many for decades yet eating all that "bad" food should have them in body bags according to many "naturalists".
So explanation for why this is?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
When people who spout crazy ideas like me speak of certain foods being unhealthy, it is not the same as the FDA's version of unhealthy, which deals with ACUTE unhealthiness of a food. We are referring to CHRONIC unhealthy effects. Again, this is of course difficult to prove, unless one does a study examining chronic disease patterns in inmates.
What is the incidence of:
Cancer
significant flow limiting coronary heart disease
autoimmune disease
diabetes
even mental health (obviously hard to elicit food vs shower experience as a cause)
But being in better "shape" ie, lots of muscle no fat, is better than being obese, but does not, I repeat, does NOT prevent the above diseases.
Again, I have no proof, just my "feelings", which are based upon seeing these people from a clinical standpoint day in and day out. I see their scans. I know what is inside. Unless I am hallucinating every day. Shiny on the outside is shiny on the outside. Not shiny on the inside by default.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »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).
Okay -- I wonder if your definition of "junk food" (assuming it is foods with those ingredients) is so unusual as to be unhelpful in a discussion, however -- by which I mean makes communication less likely.
As you have said you are "paleo," I'd assume your list of ingredients includes grains, legumes, and dairy (although I know you said not all dairy), sugar, various oils -- is that right? So "junk food" would include steel cut oats, legumes, or corn on the cob (which you said you did not eat before)?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.
I'm not meaning by "junk foods" foods that are bad for me (as I said, I don't think they are, in moderation), but foods that simply aren't nutrient dense. I think that's the usual definition.
I don't think any specific foods are bad for my goals, but particular ways of eating overall. Nor do I think what works for me is going to work for everyone, although I do have a general sense of what a healthy diet involves that I think is more general.
It sounds to me that a lot of what you are talking about isn't really about health in general (i.e., including some junk food is actively negative to health) but about what is helpful to YOU. If that's so, there's really no debate, as I don't disagree that it could be.
No, that's why I don't have a definition of junk food. There are foods I prefer to eat and those I don't. I mean because the term is thrown around there must be some definition out there that people adhere to when they mean junk food, and you have stated that for you that definition is high cal low nutrition.
My definition yes works for me, but I'm not the only one with that definition. I follow ancestral health principles and that way of eating is actually becoming common. Not to say one thing is right over the other, but both "definitions" are fairly prevalent.0 -
These issues aren't related to food. Drug abuse, mental issues and catching viral infections are high, but again that has nothing to do with the food they eat. It's not the food that killing them.Gianfranco_R wrote: »A population of people who eat processed and low quality food on a daily basis, 3x a day for years on in and have many in better shape than the average American.................................Prison inmates.
They aren't dying from the food. Staying in prison for many for decades yet eating all that "bad" food should have them in body bags according to many "naturalists".
So explanation for why this is?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Things seem not to be how you picture them
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661478/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
These issues aren't related to food. Drug abuse, mental issues and catching viral infections are high, but again that has nothing to do with the food they eat. It's not the food that killing them.Gianfranco_R wrote: »A population of people who eat processed and low quality food on a daily basis, 3x a day for years on in and have many in better shape than the average American.................................Prison inmates.
They aren't dying from the food. Staying in prison for many for decades yet eating all that "bad" food should have them in body bags according to many "naturalists".
So explanation for why this is?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Things seem not to be how you picture them
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661478/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
And the link isn't talking about whether the inmates got the chronic illness in jail or had it as pre-existing condition.
Also the CDC says that about 50% of the adult population has suffered from at least 1 chronic illness in their life, so those prison inmates are at or better than the average adult in the US in terms of that too.
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/3 -
These issues aren't related to food. Drug abuse, mental issues and catching viral infections are high, but again that has nothing to do with the food they eat. It's not the food that killing them.Gianfranco_R wrote: »A population of people who eat processed and low quality food on a daily basis, 3x a day for years on in and have many in better shape than the average American.................................Prison inmates.
They aren't dying from the food. Staying in prison for many for decades yet eating all that "bad" food should have them in body bags according to many "naturalists".
So explanation for why this is?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Things seem not to be how you picture them
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661478/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You could review the same with the military - all processed food and even those is the lowest PRT classifications represent the top 5% physical fitness of the US population. As you state - it's not the food.2 -
It's hard to define the above incidences even if conclusive because GENETICS would dictate much of it. The prison population doesn't reflect the general population when it comes to it's population by percentage.geneticexpectations wrote: »A population of people who eat processed and low quality food on a daily basis, 3x a day for years on in and have many in better shape than the average American.................................Prison inmates.
They aren't dying from the food. Staying in prison for many for decades yet eating all that "bad" food should have them in body bags according to many "naturalists".
So explanation for why this is?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
When people who spout crazy ideas like me speak of certain foods being unhealthy, it is not the same as the FDA's version of unhealthy, which deals with ACUTE unhealthiness of a food. We are referring to CHRONIC unhealthy effects. Again, this is of course difficult to prove, unless one does a study examining chronic disease patterns in inmates.
What is the incidence of:
Cancer
significant flow limiting coronary heart disease
autoimmune disease
diabetes
even mental health (obviously hard to elicit food vs shower experience as a cause)
But being in better "shape" ie, lots of muscle no fat, is better than being obese, but does not, I repeat, does NOT prevent the above diseases.
Again, I have no proof, just my "feelings", which are based upon seeing these people from a clinical standpoint day in and day out. I see their scans. I know what is inside. Unless I am hallucinating every day. Shiny on the outside is shiny on the outside. Not shiny on the inside by default.
But the point is, shouldn't the low quality food being eaten 3x a day cause health issues to the point that they are dying from it? How do they live decades doing this?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »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.htmlOtzi 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.
Admittedly, I'm not completely up on all of this, but could you please tell me your basis for claiming that paleolithic people had less atherosclerosis if it was a genetic predisposition towards it, as they determined in Otzi's case?
Also, what would be the big difference between the diets of paleolithic and neolithic peoples to make such a change as you're asserting?
Sorry, I meant to imply that I was assuming that paleolithic people had less. I may have read that somewhere, but I cannot say if the source was that credible. However, atherosclerosis is not really the big deal. That is normal biology. Atherosclerosis manifesting as coronary heart disease or peripheral vascular disease is a modern phenomenon. That certainly could not have been present in paleolithic times (or if it happened under those circumstances it would have led to extinction or at least significant population control as atherosclerosis is a post reproductive age entity). Paleolithic times was essentially Ninja Wars 24/7/365. I do stress tests on those with coronary heart disease and the workload that they can tolerate is not Ninja Wars caliber, lets put it that way.0 -
I like food.
Food is good.
I eat for health AND pleasure, but the pleasure side of eating isn't the only pleasure.
I increased my life expectancy just by losing the bulk of my weight.1 -
It's hard to define the above incidences even if conclusive because GENETICS would dictate much of it. The prison population doesn't reflect the general population when it comes to it's population by percentage.geneticexpectations wrote: »A population of people who eat processed and low quality food on a daily basis, 3x a day for years on in and have many in better shape than the average American.................................Prison inmates.
They aren't dying from the food. Staying in prison for many for decades yet eating all that "bad" food should have them in body bags according to many "naturalists".
So explanation for why this is?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
When people who spout crazy ideas like me speak of certain foods being unhealthy, it is not the same as the FDA's version of unhealthy, which deals with ACUTE unhealthiness of a food. We are referring to CHRONIC unhealthy effects. Again, this is of course difficult to prove, unless one does a study examining chronic disease patterns in inmates.
What is the incidence of:
Cancer
significant flow limiting coronary heart disease
autoimmune disease
diabetes
even mental health (obviously hard to elicit food vs shower experience as a cause)
But being in better "shape" ie, lots of muscle no fat, is better than being obese, but does not, I repeat, does NOT prevent the above diseases.
Again, I have no proof, just my "feelings", which are based upon seeing these people from a clinical standpoint day in and day out. I see their scans. I know what is inside. Unless I am hallucinating every day. Shiny on the outside is shiny on the outside. Not shiny on the inside by default.
But the point is, shouldn't the low quality food being eaten 3x a day cause health issues to the point that they are dying from it? How do they live decades doing this?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Agreed. genetics are important. I wouldn't survive a day in prison. I'm too nice. Plus some of the muscle they pack on is insane.
How do you know they are NOT dying from their stay in prison?
How do you know that many of them are living decades?
A study would be very interesting.
But I'll say this, we do scan prisoners and it ain't pretty. Just like manyothers. Regardless of body composition.0 -
And weight is still the number one risk factor for health issues. People just getting down to an exceptional weight (regardless of how they did it), decrease health risk automatically.cerise_noir wrote: »I like food.
Food is good.
I eat for health AND pleasure, but the pleasure side of eating isn't the only pleasure.
I increased my life expectancy just by losing the bulk of my weight.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
4 -
A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
3 -
And weight is still the number one risk factor for health issues. People just getting down to an exceptional weight (regardless of how they did it), decrease health risk automatically.cerise_noir wrote: »I like food.
Food is good.
I eat for health AND pleasure, but the pleasure side of eating isn't the only pleasure.
I increased my life expectancy just by losing the bulk of my weight.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Completely agree. fat loss is certainly helpful. It's just not the immunity card people think it is.0 -
cerise_noir wrote: »I like food.
Food is good.
I eat for health AND pleasure, but the pleasure side of eating isn't the only pleasure.
I increased my life expectancy just by losing the bulk of my weight.
I'm on board with that. And very happy for you!!! !!!!!!!
0 -
A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things. Virtually nothing around you is the same. It's pretty much all different. Shoes instead of barefeet don't do expected alignment any favors, but do protect your feet from glass shards. Clothes limit sun exposure, but do prevent you from getting fined for indecent exposure.
But my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different. Yet, our paleolithic ancestors were far healthier than we were because there is NO WAY they would have survived.
And survival doesn't just happen because of more muscle and less fat. Absence of chronic diseases that slow you down are even more important.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »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).
Okay -- I wonder if your definition of "junk food" (assuming it is foods with those ingredients) is so unusual as to be unhelpful in a discussion, however -- by which I mean makes communication less likely.
As you have said you are "paleo," I'd assume your list of ingredients includes grains, legumes, and dairy (although I know you said not all dairy), sugar, various oils -- is that right? So "junk food" would include steel cut oats, legumes, or corn on the cob (which you said you did not eat before)?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.
I'm not meaning by "junk foods" foods that are bad for me (as I said, I don't think they are, in moderation), but foods that simply aren't nutrient dense. I think that's the usual definition.
I don't think any specific foods are bad for my goals, but particular ways of eating overall. Nor do I think what works for me is going to work for everyone, although I do have a general sense of what a healthy diet involves that I think is more general.
It sounds to me that a lot of what you are talking about isn't really about health in general (i.e., including some junk food is actively negative to health) but about what is helpful to YOU. If that's so, there's really no debate, as I don't disagree that it could be.
No, that's why I don't have a definition of junk food. There are foods I prefer to eat and those I don't. I mean because the term is thrown around there must be some definition out there that people adhere to when they mean junk food, and you have stated that for you that definition is high cal low nutrition.
My definition yes works for me, but I'm not the only one with that definition. I follow ancestral health principles and that way of eating is actually becoming common. Not to say one thing is right over the other, but both "definitions" are fairly prevalent.
I think that's stretching the definition of common. It was kind of common among people in a CF box I used to be a member of, but even so, not really -- most of them were in the process of transitioning to something else, mainly because it tended to be too limited in carbs to fit with their ideas of good nutrition for their goals.
Random story: our receptionist sees me as a repository of knowledge about weight loss stuff and grabbed me one day as I passed and said "I just heard about this new diet, paleo, do you know what that is?" I realize it's not new (as I said in the other thread, I was interested in it at one time and did it for a bit, but ultimately decided I saw no point in it for me and that I thought the various "scientific" claims ranged from not well supported to silly), but was not committal and just said "yeah, no grains, no legumes, no dairy." "Oh," she said. And then, "well, won't be doing that!"0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »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).
Okay -- I wonder if your definition of "junk food" (assuming it is foods with those ingredients) is so unusual as to be unhelpful in a discussion, however -- by which I mean makes communication less likely.
As you have said you are "paleo," I'd assume your list of ingredients includes grains, legumes, and dairy (although I know you said not all dairy), sugar, various oils -- is that right? So "junk food" would include steel cut oats, legumes, or corn on the cob (which you said you did not eat before)?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.
I'm not meaning by "junk foods" foods that are bad for me (as I said, I don't think they are, in moderation), but foods that simply aren't nutrient dense. I think that's the usual definition.
I don't think any specific foods are bad for my goals, but particular ways of eating overall. Nor do I think what works for me is going to work for everyone, although I do have a general sense of what a healthy diet involves that I think is more general.
It sounds to me that a lot of what you are talking about isn't really about health in general (i.e., including some junk food is actively negative to health) but about what is helpful to YOU. If that's so, there's really no debate, as I don't disagree that it could be.
No, that's why I don't have a definition of junk food. There are foods I prefer to eat and those I don't. I mean because the term is thrown around there must be some definition out there that people adhere to when they mean junk food, and you have stated that for you that definition is high cal low nutrition.
Oh, and I should add that YOU brought up the term junk food, not me, when you said that you thought it was actively negative. It seems to me that to make such a claim you need some kind of definition.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »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).
Okay -- I wonder if your definition of "junk food" (assuming it is foods with those ingredients) is so unusual as to be unhelpful in a discussion, however -- by which I mean makes communication less likely.
As you have said you are "paleo," I'd assume your list of ingredients includes grains, legumes, and dairy (although I know you said not all dairy), sugar, various oils -- is that right? So "junk food" would include steel cut oats, legumes, or corn on the cob (which you said you did not eat before)?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.
I'm not meaning by "junk foods" foods that are bad for me (as I said, I don't think they are, in moderation), but foods that simply aren't nutrient dense. I think that's the usual definition.
I don't think any specific foods are bad for my goals, but particular ways of eating overall. Nor do I think what works for me is going to work for everyone, although I do have a general sense of what a healthy diet involves that I think is more general.
It sounds to me that a lot of what you are talking about isn't really about health in general (i.e., including some junk food is actively negative to health) but about what is helpful to YOU. If that's so, there's really no debate, as I don't disagree that it could be.
No, that's why I don't have a definition of junk food. There are foods I prefer to eat and those I don't. I mean because the term is thrown around there must be some definition out there that people adhere to when they mean junk food, and you have stated that for you that definition is high cal low nutrition.
Oh, and I should add that YOU brought up the term junk food, not me, when you said that you thought it was actively negative. It seems to me that to make such a claim you need some kind of definition.
You didn't bring up the term, but neither did I.
Stevencloser did.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »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).
Okay -- I wonder if your definition of "junk food" (assuming it is foods with those ingredients) is so unusual as to be unhelpful in a discussion, however -- by which I mean makes communication less likely.
As you have said you are "paleo," I'd assume your list of ingredients includes grains, legumes, and dairy (although I know you said not all dairy), sugar, various oils -- is that right? So "junk food" would include steel cut oats, legumes, or corn on the cob (which you said you did not eat before)?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.
I'm not meaning by "junk foods" foods that are bad for me (as I said, I don't think they are, in moderation), but foods that simply aren't nutrient dense. I think that's the usual definition.
I don't think any specific foods are bad for my goals, but particular ways of eating overall. Nor do I think what works for me is going to work for everyone, although I do have a general sense of what a healthy diet involves that I think is more general.
It sounds to me that a lot of what you are talking about isn't really about health in general (i.e., including some junk food is actively negative to health) but about what is helpful to YOU. If that's so, there's really no debate, as I don't disagree that it could be.
No, that's why I don't have a definition of junk food. There are foods I prefer to eat and those I don't. I mean because the term is thrown around there must be some definition out there that people adhere to when they mean junk food, and you have stated that for you that definition is high cal low nutrition.
Oh, and I should add that YOU brought up the term junk food, not me, when you said that you thought it was actively negative. It seems to me that to make such a claim you need some kind of definition.
You didn't bring up the term, but neither did I.
Stevencloser did.
But the point is that you made a claim about it:
"My "background" of perceived difference refers to my viewing junk food as "actively negative" in addition to the excess calories and dearth of nutrition."
How can you make a claim about it without having a definition in mind?
And in that case, you were contrasting your own view to mine and others who had said that including "junk food" in a nutrient dense, balanced, and calorie-appropriate diet was (in our opinion) not bad for health.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »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).
Okay -- I wonder if your definition of "junk food" (assuming it is foods with those ingredients) is so unusual as to be unhelpful in a discussion, however -- by which I mean makes communication less likely.
As you have said you are "paleo," I'd assume your list of ingredients includes grains, legumes, and dairy (although I know you said not all dairy), sugar, various oils -- is that right? So "junk food" would include steel cut oats, legumes, or corn on the cob (which you said you did not eat before)?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.
I'm not meaning by "junk foods" foods that are bad for me (as I said, I don't think they are, in moderation), but foods that simply aren't nutrient dense. I think that's the usual definition.
I don't think any specific foods are bad for my goals, but particular ways of eating overall. Nor do I think what works for me is going to work for everyone, although I do have a general sense of what a healthy diet involves that I think is more general.
It sounds to me that a lot of what you are talking about isn't really about health in general (i.e., including some junk food is actively negative to health) but about what is helpful to YOU. If that's so, there's really no debate, as I don't disagree that it could be.
No, that's why I don't have a definition of junk food. There are foods I prefer to eat and those I don't. I mean because the term is thrown around there must be some definition out there that people adhere to when they mean junk food, and you have stated that for you that definition is high cal low nutrition.
My definition yes works for me, but I'm not the only one with that definition. I follow ancestral health principles and that way of eating is actually becoming common. Not to say one thing is right over the other, but both "definitions" are fairly prevalent.
I think that's stretching the definition of common. It was kind of common among people in a CF box I used to be a member of, but even so, not really -- most of them were in the process of transitioning to something else, mainly because it tended to be too limited in carbs to fit with their ideas of good nutrition for their goals.
Random story: our receptionist sees me as a repository of knowledge about weight loss stuff and grabbed me one day as I passed and said "I just heard about this new diet, paleo, do you know what that is?" I realize it's not new (as I said in the other thread, I was interested in it at one time and did it for a bit, but ultimately decided I saw no point in it for me and that I thought the various "scientific" claims ranged from not well supported to silly), but was not committal and just said "yeah, no grains, no legumes, no dairy." "Oh," she said. And then, "well, won't be doing that!"
Among physicians its getting more common. We don't want to be what we diagnose all day.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
To add an example to that point (and throw another wrench into the idea of paleo as it pertains something that is a no-no in it), in the ~10000 years since we started agriculture, and more importantly cattle farming, the regions that did this extensively already evolved so a large majority of the population in these regions is lactose tolerant.
Our bodies now "expect" that many of us drink milk past infanthood and thus keep producing lactase to properly digest it.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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K 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