Calories in calories out is it that simple?
Options
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
It's a shame OP hasn't been back to clarify what he or she meant with the original question:
"Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?"
Many people assume that means that OP wants to eat nothing but junk (gummy bears, specifically and curiously).
I assume that means that OP wants to include less nutrient dense foods in their diet but does not intend to build the entire diet around these foods.
It would be helpful if @suenewberry81 would provide additional information and would help move the discussion forward so people might be able to offer more specific suggestions about how to balance nutrient dense foods with occasional indulgences.
I agree it would be helpful if the OP came back and clarified.
When I read "Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?" I assume it means majority unhealthy, however the OP defines "unhealthy".
I'd expect a question about occasional treats to be worded differently.2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
It's a shame OP hasn't been back to clarify what he or she meant with the original question:
"Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?"
Many people assume that means that OP wants to eat nothing but junk (gummy bears, specifically and curiously).
I assume that means that OP wants to include less nutrient dense foods in their diet but does not intend to build the entire diet around these foods.
It would be helpful if @suenewberry81 would provide additional information and would help move the discussion forward so people might be able to offer more specific suggestions about how to balance nutrient dense foods with occasional indulgences.
I agree it would be helpful if the OP came back and clarified.
When I read "Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?" I assume it means majority unhealthy, however the OP defines "unhealthy".
I'd expect a question about occasional treats to be worded differently.
It's just hard to say. I've seen both, but it's more infrequent to have a poster who knowingly intends to eat a diet comprised entirely of calorie dense "junk" foods and freely admits that.
0 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
It looks like celery (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2914?manu=&fgcd=&ds=), cucumbers (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/144986?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) and iceberg lettuce (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3002?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) contain various vitamins and minerals despite being extremely low in calories. I wouldn't consider them to have low nutrient density.4 -
-
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.0 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
It looks like celery (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2914?manu=&fgcd=&ds=), cucumbers (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/144986?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) and iceberg lettuce (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3002?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) contain various vitamins and minerals despite being extremely low in calories. I wouldn't consider them to have low nutrient density.
You are just looking at the fact that vitamins exist in them. They are essentially less than 5% in the few vitamins they have for daily intake per 100g. Meaning you would have to eat 2-2.5kg (4.4lbs to 5.5lbs) to get vitamin C up to a daily requirement(as an example). They are universally considered to be low nutrient.7 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
It looks like celery (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2914?manu=&fgcd=&ds=), cucumbers (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/144986?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) and iceberg lettuce (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3002?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) contain various vitamins and minerals despite being extremely low in calories. I wouldn't consider them to have low nutrient density.
You are just looking at the fact that vitamins exist in them. They are essentially less than 5% in the few vitamins they have for daily intake. Meaning you would have to eat 2-2.5kg (4.4lbs to 5.5lbs) to get vitamin C up to a daily requirement. They are universally considered to be low nutrient.
Right and based off of eating 5.5lbs of celery, you'd have your daily requirement of vitamin C in less than 400 calories. That would be considered nutrient density.
Edited: 100g= 16 calories. 2.5kg= 2,500 grams. 25*16= 400 calories.5 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?6 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
It looks like celery (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2914?manu=&fgcd=&ds=), cucumbers (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/144986?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) and iceberg lettuce (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3002?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) contain various vitamins and minerals despite being extremely low in calories. I wouldn't consider them to have low nutrient density.
You are just looking at the fact that vitamins exist in them. They are essentially less than 5% in the few vitamins they have for daily intake. Meaning you would have to eat 2-2.5kg (4.4lbs to 5.5lbs) to get vitamin C up to a daily requirement. They are universally considered to be low nutrient.
Right and based off of eating 5.5lbs of celery, you'd have your daily requirement of vitamin C in less than 400 calories. That would be considered nutrient density.
Edited: 100g= 16 calories. 2.5kg= 2,500 grams. 25*16= 400 calories.
It would be something density, especially considering you're not eating anything else that day.4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.5 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of mass per volume. Nutrient density would imply that something is high in a vitamin or macro and low in weight to achieve that. To say that eating 5.5lbs of celery is nutrient dense is just laughable.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?6 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Nutrient value per volume. not per calorie.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Nutrient value per volume. not per calorie.
That's just purely false.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Nutrient value per volume. not per calorie.
That's just purely false.
You claim it's a basic definition, but you seem unable to grasp what the basic definition means.3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
It looks like celery (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2914?manu=&fgcd=&ds=), cucumbers (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/144986?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) and iceberg lettuce (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3002?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) contain various vitamins and minerals despite being extremely low in calories. I wouldn't consider them to have low nutrient density.
You are just looking at the fact that vitamins exist in them. They are essentially less than 5% in the few vitamins they have for daily intake. Meaning you would have to eat 2-2.5kg (4.4lbs to 5.5lbs) to get vitamin C up to a daily requirement. They are universally considered to be low nutrient.
Right and based off of eating 5.5lbs of celery, you'd have your daily requirement of vitamin C in less than 400 calories. That would be considered nutrient density.
Edited: 100g= 16 calories. 2.5kg= 2,500 grams. 25*16= 400 calories.
Interesting that being physically able to eat that much doesn't seem to factor into whether something is nutrient dense to you.9 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?
And Celery is more nutrient dense than carrots.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions