How Do You Define "Junk Food"?
Replies
-
It's safe to say that the tater tots I had at lunch are junk food.0
-
OP, instead of trying to change this website, which will be a frustrating, losing battle for you, why don't you just find another website that is more in agreement with your way of thinking/living?
While I may not agree that the oil on a salad would be classified as "junk food", trying to make this message board an echo chamber is the one of the worst ideas I have read on these boards.
Why not create a group if you don't want to read opinions that are different than yours?0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.0
-
Again, seriously??
How bout this....food becomes junk when you are over your daily caloric/macro needs??
I love this answer, and have to agree.
IF IT FITS YOUR MACROS BRO.0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
that's a terrible definition.
you are defining the food "quality" based solely on the overall quantity of calories.
how can 1 egg not be junk food, but 100 eggs be junk food?
the only answer that works universally is that there is no such thing as junk food. food is just food.
there is such a thing as "too much food" or "too little food" and even an "unbalanced diet of food", but there is no such thing as "junk food".0 -
On another thread, i called a meal with 64% of it's calories coming from refined fat: "junk food". The meal being named was a salad doused in oil. Some people are trying to claim that is not junk food, despite the high ratio of nutritionless fiberless refined fat, to actual food. Do you think drowning a 90 calorie salad in 250 calories of oil makes it junk food?
How do you define what is "junk food"?
I think the definition of junk food is something that adds calories to your diet with little, to no, nutrients, and i think the definition includes anything toxic (loaded with food chemicals, unwanted hormones, pesticides, etc).
Websters defines it as: "food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar"
Oxford Dictionary defines it as: "food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation."
What's your definition?
Any food that gets thrown away.0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
that's a terrible definition.
you are defining the food "quality" based solely on the overall quantity of calories.
how can 1 egg not be junk food, but 100 eggs be junk food?
the only answer that works universally is that there is no such thing as junk food. food is just food.
there is such a thing as "too much food" or "too little food" and even an "unbalanced diet of food", but there is no such thing as "junk food".
Clearly you did not get my point...0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
that's a terrible definition.
you are defining the food "quality" based solely on the overall quantity of calories.
how can 1 egg not be junk food, but 100 eggs be junk food?
the only answer that works universally is that there is no such thing as junk food. food is just food.
there is such a thing as "too much food" or "too little food" and even an "unbalanced diet of food", but there is no such thing as "junk food".
Clearly you did not get my point...
i got it. it's just that i don't agree. do you think the term "junk food" is even valid? if you do, then we are 180 degrees apart.0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
that's a terrible definition.
you are defining the food "quality" based solely on the overall quantity of calories.
how can 1 egg not be junk food, but 100 eggs be junk food?
the only answer that works universally is that there is no such thing as junk food. food is just food.
there is such a thing as "too much food" or "too little food" and even an "unbalanced diet of food", but there is no such thing as "junk food".
Clearly you did not get my point...
i got it. it's just that i don't agree. do you think the term "junk food" is even valid? if you do, then we are 180 degrees apart.
No, you did not get it. Why do you think I put the word in quotes?0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
Your argument here doesn't make sense to me. The nature of the food does not change simply because you alter the level of consumption.0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
that's a terrible definition.
you are defining the food "quality" based solely on the overall quantity of calories.
how can 1 egg not be junk food, but 100 eggs be junk food?
the only answer that works universally is that there is no such thing as junk food. food is just food.
there is such a thing as "too much food" or "too little food" and even an "unbalanced diet of food", but there is no such thing as "junk food".
Clearly you did not get my point...
i got it. it's just that i don't agree. do you think the term "junk food" is even valid? if you do, then we are 180 degrees apart.
No, you did not get it. Why do you think I put the word in quotes?
i dunno... because the thread title has it in quotes???0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
Your argument here doesn't make sense to me. The nature of the food does not change simply because you alter the level of consumption.
Again, I said it is an end user deal... not the food in and of itself. There is a point of diminishing return if you over consume anything.0 -
My three year old knows the difference between junk food and healthy food.
In our house, junk food isn't something that is taboo or not to be eaten. It is just the foods that are not to be eaten in large quantities or before a proper meal. For example, no chocolate before dinner but a small piece after dinner or between meals is fine occasionally.0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
that's a terrible definition.
you are defining the food "quality" based solely on the overall quantity of calories.
how can 1 egg not be junk food, but 100 eggs be junk food?
the only answer that works universally is that there is no such thing as junk food. food is just food.
there is such a thing as "too much food" or "too little food" and even an "unbalanced diet of food", but there is no such thing as "junk food".
Clearly you did not get my point...
i got it. it's just that i don't agree. do you think the term "junk food" is even valid? if you do, then we are 180 degrees apart.
No, you did not get it. Why do you think I put the word in quotes?
i dunno... because the thread title has it in quotes???
Seriously?0 -
My three year old knows the difference between junk food and healthy food.
In our house, junk food isn't something that is taboo or not to be eaten. It is just the foods that are not to be eaten in large quantities or before a proper meal. For example, no chocolate before dinner but a small piece after dinner or between meals is fine occasionally.
are cashews "junk food"? because they pack a lot of calories.
what about cheese? or bread? or raisins? because those are calorie-dense foods.
i think the term "junk food" is complete fiction. food is just food. trying to sort foods using nebulous labels like "good" or "bad" or "unhealthy" or "healthy" or "junk" is just ridiculous to me. i truly cannot comprehend that mindset. it's alien to me. i understand what people think they mean when they use those terms, but i find the usage of terms like these to be almost universally wrong.
and with that, i'll bow out of this thread...0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
Your argument here doesn't make sense to me. The nature of the food does not change simply because you alter the level of consumption.
Again, I said it is an end user deal... not the food in and of itself. There is a point of diminishing return if you over consume anything.
Food cannot simultaneously be both junk and not junk. It can be one or the other since those two descriptions directly contradict each other. ... So, according to what I'm getting from your posts, all food is junk food, all the time.
I understand that you're trying to put caveats on that statement, but those little modifiers you throw in there ("It's an end user deal!") only make me think you're back-pedaling. ... And poorly, at that.0 -
Fro myself I'd ay anything with little to no nutritional value , iceberg lettuce for example , I eat this but with spinach and other veggies when available just like the crunchy aspect is all.0
-
Websters defines it as: "food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar"
Oxford Dictionary defines it as: "food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation."
What's your definition?
You posted 2 definitions for Junk Food from relatively well known entities. I am gonna go with either of their definitions on defining junk food, since those are, in fact, the definitions.
Now, do I think junk food is bad? Not if in moderation.0 -
When I say "junk food" I mean packaged snacks, candy, processed pre-packaged baked goods. Things that have a lot of non-food additives and usually too much fat, sugar and/or salt and too little micronutrients. Cheetos, pop-tarts, Snickers, Funyuns, M&Ms, things made by Frito-Lay or Little Debbie and such.0
-
On another thread, i called a meal with 64% of it's calories coming from refined fat: "junk food". The meal being named was a salad doused in oil. Some people are trying to claim that is not junk food, despite the high ratio of nutritionless fiberless refined fat, to actual food. Do you think drowning a 90 calorie salad in 250 calories of oil makes it junk food?
How do you define what is "junk food"?
I think the definition of junk food is something that adds calories to your diet with little, to no, nutrients, and i think the definition includes anything toxic (loaded with food chemicals, unwanted hormones, pesticides, etc).
Websters defines it as: "food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar"
Oxford Dictionary defines it as: "food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation."
What's your definition?
On a (slightly) more serious note, it's interesting to me that most of your posts that I've read are in this vein. What are you trying to prove? ... And to whom?
^^^THIS.0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
Your argument here doesn't make sense to me. The nature of the food does not change simply because you alter the level of consumption.
Again, I said it is an end user deal... not the food in and of itself. There is a point of diminishing return if you over consume anything.
Food cannot simultaneously be both junk and not junk. It can be one or the other since those two descriptions directly contradict each other. ... So, according to what I'm getting from your posts, all food is junk food, all the time.
I understand that you're trying to put caveats on that statement, but those little modifiers you throw in there ("It's an end user deal!") only make me think you're back-pedaling. ... And poorly, at that.
I honestly don't know how you are getting that from what I wrote. A pint of ice cream for a hundred pound female yogi and a 200 pound bodybuilder are two totally different foods IMO. To the yogi, it will most likely put them over TDEE, to the bodybuilder it is likely a necessity to hit TDEE.0 -
Fro myself I'd ay anything with little to no nutritional value , iceberg lettuce for example , I eat this but with spinach and other veggies when available just like the crunchy aspect is all.
Per 100 calories of iceberg lettuce you get about 7g protein, 9g fiber, 13% RDA calcium, 1065mg potassium. Granted, it takes a whole head to get 100 calories, but I don't see how that could be considered "junk".0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
Your argument here doesn't make sense to me. The nature of the food does not change simply because you alter the level of consumption.
Again, I said it is an end user deal... not the food in and of itself. There is a point of diminishing return if you over consume anything.
Food cannot simultaneously be both junk and not junk. It can be one or the other since those two descriptions directly contradict each other. ... So, according to what I'm getting from your posts, all food is junk food, all the time.
I understand that you're trying to put caveats on that statement, but those little modifiers you throw in there ("It's an end user deal!") only make me think you're back-pedaling. ... And poorly, at that.
I honestly don't know how you are getting that from what I wrote. A pint of ice cream for a hundred pound female yogi and a 200 pound bodybuilder are two totally different foods IMO. To the yogi, it will most likely put them over TDEE, to the bodybuilder it is likely a necessity to hit TDEE.
... And this makes the ice cream junk food, apparently? I'm sorry, I thought we were dealing with objective facts, here. Either ice cream is or is not junk food. Can I just get a straight answer from you?
Again... food cannot "be (junk)" and "not be (junk)" at the same time--not in this universe that is governed by reality. It cannot be junk food (to the yogi) and not junk food (to the bodybuilder). You're speaking about quantity when the discussion is about substance.0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
Your argument here doesn't make sense to me. The nature of the food does not change simply because you alter the level of consumption.
Again, I said it is an end user deal... not the food in and of itself. There is a point of diminishing return if you over consume anything.
Food cannot simultaneously be both junk and not junk. It can be one or the other since those two descriptions directly contradict each other. ... So, according to what I'm getting from your posts, all food is junk food, all the time.
I understand that you're trying to put caveats on that statement, but those little modifiers you throw in there ("It's an end user deal!") only make me think you're back-pedaling. ... And poorly, at that.
I honestly don't know how you are getting that from what I wrote. A pint of ice cream for a hundred pound female yogi and a 200 pound bodybuilder are two totally different foods IMO. To the yogi, it will most likely put them over TDEE, to the bodybuilder it is likely a necessity to hit TDEE.
... And this makes the ice cream junk food, apparently? I'm sorry, I thought we were dealing with objective facts, here. Either ice cream is or is not junk food. Can I just get a straight answer from you?
Again... food cannot "be (junk)" and "not be (junk)" at the same time--not in this universe that is governed by reality. It cannot be junk food (to the yogi) and not junk food (to the bodybuilder). You're speaking about quantity when the discussion is about substance.
The question was how do you define junk. I took the words junk and put them in quotes because I do not think food is junk. However I do believe the same food put into context to the end user can either move you closer to health and fitness goals or push you farther away. How is this so hard to understand? How is that not direct?0 -
0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
Your argument here doesn't make sense to me. The nature of the food does not change simply because you alter the level of consumption.
Again, I said it is an end user deal... not the food in and of itself. There is a point of diminishing return if you over consume anything.
Food cannot simultaneously be both junk and not junk. It can be one or the other since those two descriptions directly contradict each other. ... So, according to what I'm getting from your posts, all food is junk food, all the time.
I understand that you're trying to put caveats on that statement, but those little modifiers you throw in there ("It's an end user deal!") only make me think you're back-pedaling. ... And poorly, at that.
I honestly don't know how you are getting that from what I wrote. A pint of ice cream for a hundred pound female yogi and a 200 pound bodybuilder are two totally different foods IMO. To the yogi, it will most likely put them over TDEE, to the bodybuilder it is likely a necessity to hit TDEE.
... And this makes the ice cream junk food, apparently? I'm sorry, I thought we were dealing with objective facts, here. Either ice cream is or is not junk food. Can I just get a straight answer from you?
Again... food cannot "be (junk)" and "not be (junk)" at the same time--not in this universe that is governed by reality. It cannot be junk food (to the yogi) and not junk food (to the bodybuilder). You're speaking about quantity when the discussion is about substance.
The question was how do you define junk. I took the words junk and put them in quotes because I do not think food is junk. However I do believe the same food put into context to the end user can either move you closer to health and fitness goals or push you farther away. How is this so hard to understand? How is that not direct?
it's not direct because it is deliberately obtuse.
it's like somebody asking you whether a volkswagen passat is a car or not and you responding by saying, "well, it depends on who is driving it."0 -
I define junk food like this... "Junk" food is ANY food you chronically over consume to the point that you gain fat. So IMO, it's more of an end user issue then the food in and of itself.
Your argument here doesn't make sense to me. The nature of the food does not change simply because you alter the level of consumption.
Again, I said it is an end user deal... not the food in and of itself. There is a point of diminishing return if you over consume anything.
Food cannot simultaneously be both junk and not junk. It can be one or the other since those two descriptions directly contradict each other. ... So, according to what I'm getting from your posts, all food is junk food, all the time.
I understand that you're trying to put caveats on that statement, but those little modifiers you throw in there ("It's an end user deal!") only make me think you're back-pedaling. ... And poorly, at that.
I honestly don't know how you are getting that from what I wrote. A pint of ice cream for a hundred pound female yogi and a 200 pound bodybuilder are two totally different foods IMO. To the yogi, it will most likely put them over TDEE, to the bodybuilder it is likely a necessity to hit TDEE.
... And this makes the ice cream junk food, apparently? I'm sorry, I thought we were dealing with objective facts, here. Either ice cream is or is not junk food. Can I just get a straight answer from you?
Again... food cannot "be (junk)" and "not be (junk)" at the same time--not in this universe that is governed by reality. It cannot be junk food (to the yogi) and not junk food (to the bodybuilder). You're speaking about quantity when the discussion is about substance.
The question was how do you define junk. I took the words junk and put them in quotes because I do not think food is junk. However I do believe the same food put into context to the end user can either move you closer to health and fitness goals or push you farther away. How is this so hard to understand? How is that not direct?
it's not direct because it is deliberately obtuse.
it's like somebody asking you whether a volkswagen passat is a car or not and you responding by saying, "well, it depends on who is driving it."
No... a better way to phrase it is... is a volkwagen a "good" or "bad" car? Yes it depends on the user. For a jockey it is a good car. For an basketball player... not so much.0 -
No. Just oil.You seem to be under the erroneous impression that oils and fats are 'bad' for health.0 -
No. Just oil.You seem to be under the erroneous impression that oils and fats are 'bad' for health.
Why?0 -
Aaah. 7 pages and I still don't know what a junk food is. Good times.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions