How Do You Define "Junk Food"?
Replies
-
I'm agreeing that you don't seem to have good reading comprehension. At least for this post.Aaah. 7 pages and I still don't know what a junk food is. Good times.
It was in the very first post as defined by Websters and the Oxford dictionary.
those are terrible definitions BTW.
only people with food phobias would accept either one at face value.
They seem like perfect definitions to me... Pretty much what I think junk food is.
LOL. so food in a package is automatically a "junk" food. :laugh:
if you can't see the inherent biases built in to those definitions, you might be blind.
You must be blind, or your reading comprehension is poor, cause no where does it say that if your food is in a package, it's bad for you.
quoting the c3po avatar lady above... Oxford Dictionary defines it as: "food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation"
which is essentially the same as what you posted 2-3 pages back.
PS: food phobia? :laugh:0 -
I'm agreeing that you don't seem to have good reading comprehension.Aaah. 7 pages and I still don't know what a junk food is. Good times.
It was in the very first post as defined by Websters and the Oxford dictionary.
those are terrible definitions BTW.
only people with food phobias would accept either one at face value.
They seem like perfect definitions to me... Pretty much what I think junk food is.
LOL. so food in a package is automatically a "junk" food. :laugh:
if you can't see the inherent biases built in to those definitions, you might be blind.
You must be blind, or your reading comprehension is poor, cause no where does it say that if your food is in a package, it's bad for you.
quoting the c3po avatar lady above... Oxford Dictionary defines it as: "food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation"
which is essentially the same as what you posted 2-3 pages back.
Now look up what the word "typically" means, as you don't seem to grasp it.0 -
I'm agreeing that you don't seem to have good reading comprehension. At least for this post.Aaah. 7 pages and I still don't know what a junk food is. Good times.
It was in the very first post as defined by Websters and the Oxford dictionary.
those are terrible definitions BTW.
only people with food phobias would accept either one at face value.
They seem like perfect definitions to me... Pretty much what I think junk food is.
LOL. so food in a package is automatically a "junk" food. :laugh:
if you can't see the inherent biases built in to those definitions, you might be blind.
You must be blind, or your reading comprehension is poor, cause no where does it say that if your food is in a package, it's bad for you.
quoting the c3po avatar lady above... Oxford Dictionary defines it as: "food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation"
which is essentially the same as what you posted 2-3 pages back.
the definition you both chose to accept (not me) is the one that includes the completely irrelevant commentary about being "packaged". i would say both of you have the comprehension problem. if you can't see bias in a definition, then i can't help you see it. whoever wrote that definition started with a false premise and compounded it by adding their own editorial bias.
my position is quite clear. there is no such thing as junk food. all food is simply food. it all contains some amount of nutritional quality. i think it's ridiculous to attempt to rate the amount of that nutritional quality. to me, foods are just the building blocks of your diet. if you want to rate the overall quality of a diet, then have at it. i am simply saying that a hostess twinkie is no better or worse for you than a banana. your body derives nutrition and energy from them both. food is just food and it's ridiculous to claim that a banana is inherently better for you than a twinkie. there are times when you are low on fats at the end of the day and the twinkie will get you closer to your goal than a banana, for example.0 -
We comprehended the definition fine. You just disagree with it. That's your prerogative. Most food that most folks (outside of MFP) would call junk food is exactly what that definition describes (as is the stuff bcattoes listed in her post, which I also quoted).
I'm agreeing that you don't seem to have good reading comprehension. At least for this post.Aaah. 7 pages and I still don't know what a junk food is. Good times.
It was in the very first post as defined by Websters and the Oxford dictionary.
those are terrible definitions BTW.
only people with food phobias would accept either one at face value.
They seem like perfect definitions to me... Pretty much what I think junk food is.
LOL. so food in a package is automatically a "junk" food. :laugh:
if you can't see the inherent biases built in to those definitions, you might be blind.
You must be blind, or your reading comprehension is poor, cause no where does it say that if your food is in a package, it's bad for you.
quoting the c3po avatar lady above... Oxford Dictionary defines it as: "food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation"
which is essentially the same as what you posted 2-3 pages back.
the definition you both chose to accept (not me) is the one that includes the completely irrelevant commentary about being "packaged". i would say both of you have the comprehension problem. if you can't see bias in a definition, then i can't help you see it. whoever wrote that definition started with a false premise and compounded it by adding their own editorial bias.
my position is quite clear. there is no such thing as junk food. all food is simply food. it all contains some amount of nutritional quality. i think it's ridiculous to attempt to rate the amount of that nutritional quality. to me, foods are just the building blocks of your diet. if you want to rate the overall quality of a diet, then have at it. i am simply saying that a hostess twinkie is no better or worse for you than a banana. your body derives nutrition and energy from them both. food is just food and it's ridiculous to claim that a banana is inherently better for you than a twinkie. there are times when you are low on fats at the end of the day and the twinkie will get you closer to your goal than a banana, for example.
Enjoy your twinkie. I'll get my fats somewhere else.
Alas, I'm sure "packaged" will now be debated ad nauseam and a priori on here as well.0 -
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?
^^^^ this0 -
If the 250 calories worth of salad dressing is a processed dressing with added sugar, bad fats, etc, then I would call it junk food. If it's a salad dressing made with healthy oils (olive oil, grapeseed oil, etc), then no, it's not junk food0
-
:yawn: Here we go again demonizing food again. *rolling eyes*0
-
de·mon·ize (dm-nz):yawn: Here we go again demonizing food again. *rolling eyes*
tr.v. de·mon·ized, de·mon·iz·ing, de·mon·iz·es
1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.
Nope0 -
I'd class things like McDonalds, sweets/candy and fast food as junk food. Just to name a few.0
-
de·mon·ize (dm-nz):yawn: Here we go again demonizing food again. *rolling eyes*
tr.v. de·mon·ized, de·mon·iz·ing, de·mon·iz·es
1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.
Nope
0 -
Pretty much this. Food with little actual nutritional value for the calories. As to salads "smothered" on dressing, I usually try to add some sort of lean protein to my lettuce, as well as colorful peppers, and use only about 80 calories worth of dressing...IMO, it's a food that is high in calories with little to no nutritional benefit. Like Little Debbie snacks, for instance. Total highly processed junk.
0 -
Oil is pure fat, with nothing else. It is the most calorie dense food on the planet. There is a difference between olives and olive oil, just like there is a difference between corn and high fructose corn syrup, or beets and beet sugar.
No. Just oil.You seem to be under the erroneous impression that oils and fats are 'bad' for health.
Why?
People can add it to their diets and still be very healthy, especially if the other factors of good health are there (exercise, high fruit/veggie intake, social and mental stability, etc), but the part i don't like is when people seem to think that they NEED oil. They think that adding it to food will make the food somehow more healthy. You can get plenty of healthy fats from whole foods, like avocado, coconut, olives, seeds, nuts, etc.
No you do not NEED to eat it to make the salad more healthy but darn it it tastes good and there are much worse things you could put on it. Jeez Louise they aren't drinking it like soda pop....are they? :grumble:0 -
Seems like someone really didn't want to know what other people thought...
the definition you both chose to accept (not me) is the one that includes the completely irrelevant commentary about being "packaged". i would say both of you have the comprehension problem. if you can't see bias in a definition, then i can't help you see it. whoever wrote that definition started with a false premise and compounded it by adding their own editorial bias.
my position is quite clear. there is no such thing as junk food. all food is simply food. it all contains some amount of nutritional quality.
As to what "packaged" may or may not mean in the context of those definitions, I assumed they were referring to extremely processed packaged foods, not foods in packages in general.0 -
de·mon·ize (dm-nz):yawn: Here we go again demonizing food again. *rolling eyes*
tr.v. de·mon·ized, de·mon·iz·ing, de·mon·iz·es
1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.
Nope
I humbly disagree.
Calling foods "junk" is demonizing it, by the 3rd definition posted. They even used it in a handy-dandy sentence. Maybe they should have used smaller words.0 -
Nope. Not me anyway. Just lacking in enough nutrients to make it worth wasting my precious discretionary calories on, for the most part. The OP is could be argued to be "demonizing", but "demonizing" is so misused on this website. Usually when "junk food" is talked about.
de·mon·ize (dm-nz):yawn: Here we go again demonizing food again. *rolling eyes*
tr.v. de·mon·ized, de·mon·iz·ing, de·mon·iz·es
1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.
Nope
I humbly disagree.
Calling foods "junk" is demonizing it, by the 3rd definition posted. They even used it in a handy-dandy sentence. Maybe they should have used smaller words.
But as always, nice job with the insults. They do so much for your arguments. :laugh:0 -
I would assume arguing semantics is not really going to change the fact that some foods have little to no actual nutritional value for your body beyond jacking your sugar up (Little Debbie?)...they won't keep you full long or help you build lean muscle, and they won't provide your vitamins, etc. That is what I consider junk food. Sure, there is a time and place for those foods (namely if you have calories left over that you don't mind spending on them in exchange for the enjoyment of said food,) but it is till essentially junk food. IMO....0
-
A large segment of the IFFYM crowd will disagree with this.I would assume arguing semantics is not really going to change the fact that some foods have little to no actual nutritional value for your body beyond jacking your sugar up (Little Debbie?)...they won't keep you full long or help you build lean muscle, and they won't provide your vitamins, etc. That is what I consider junk food. Sure, there is a time and place for those foods (namely if you have calories left over that you don't mind spending on them in exchange for the enjoyment of said food,) but it is till essentially junk food. IMO....0 -
Just lacking in enough nutrients to make it worth wasting my precious discretionary calories on, for the most part. The OP is could be argued to be "demonizing", but "demonizing" is so misused on this website. Usually when "junk food" is talked about.
I'm with you, Sabine...0 -
Well, they can if they like, but it's basically what you said,... to me, I can tell it's junk food if I know I shouldn't waste my calories on it because it won't keep me full or energized!
A large segment of the IFFYM crowd will disagree with this.I would assume arguing semantics is not really going to change the fact that some foods have little to no actual nutritional value for your body beyond jacking your sugar up (Little Debbie?)...they won't keep you full long or help you build lean muscle, and they won't provide your vitamins, etc. That is what I consider junk food. Sure, there is a time and place for those foods (namely if you have calories left over that you don't mind spending on them in exchange for the enjoyment of said food,) but it is till essentially junk food. IMO....0 -
0 -
So... if you look at what I ate yesterday everything but the banana is junk food? Oh! forgot to add my Brach's Autumn Mix in there. Yet according to nutritiondata I meet or exceed every micro every week. My annual blood tests are perfect every year and I don't use supplements of any kind. No disease or illness.
Food is not going to save you, or cure you. I think many of you place too much hope on it doing so.0 -
Say it with Prince...
0 -
Nope. Not me anyway. Just lacking in enough nutrients to make it worth wasting my precious discretionary calories on, for the most part. The OP is could be argued to be "demonizing", but "demonizing" is so misused on this website. Usually when "junk food" is talked about.
de·mon·ize (dm-nz):yawn: Here we go again demonizing food again. *rolling eyes*
tr.v. de·mon·ized, de·mon·iz·ing, de·mon·iz·es
1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.
Nope
I humbly disagree.
Calling foods "junk" is demonizing it, by the 3rd definition posted. They even used it in a handy-dandy sentence. Maybe they should have used smaller words.
But as always, nice job with the insults. They do so much for your arguments. :laugh:
When logic and reason doesn't work, what do you expect? The word "demonize" might be overused, but then again... so is "junk food."
Since you mentioned that you won't have wine unless you've got the calories left over for it, is wine a junk food?0 -
Junk food is any food that's already been tossed into the garbage.0
-
I'm agreeing that you don't seem to have good reading comprehension. At least for this post.Aaah. 7 pages and I still don't know what a junk food is. Good times.
It was in the very first post as defined by Websters and the Oxford dictionary.
those are terrible definitions BTW.
only people with food phobias would accept either one at face value.
They seem like perfect definitions to me... Pretty much what I think junk food is.
LOL. so food in a package is automatically a "junk" food. :laugh:
if you can't see the inherent biases built in to those definitions, you might be blind.
You must be blind, or your reading comprehension is poor, cause no where does it say that if your food is in a package, it's bad for you.
quoting the c3po avatar lady above... Oxford Dictionary defines it as: "food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation"
which is essentially the same as what you posted 2-3 pages back.
the definition you both chose to accept (not me) is the one that includes the completely irrelevant commentary about being "packaged". i would say both of you have the comprehension problem. if you can't see bias in a definition, then i can't help you see it. whoever wrote that definition started with a false premise and compounded it by adding their own editorial bias.
my position is quite clear. there is no such thing as junk food. all food is simply food. it all contains some amount of nutritional quality. i think it's ridiculous to attempt to rate the amount of that nutritional quality. to me, foods are just the building blocks of your diet. if you want to rate the overall quality of a diet, then have at it. i am simply saying that a hostess twinkie is no better or worse for you than a banana. your body derives nutrition and energy from them both. food is just food and it's ridiculous to claim that a banana is inherently better for you than a twinkie. there are times when you are low on fats at the end of the day and the twinkie will get you closer to your goal than a banana, for example.
I actually agree that the "packaging" comment in that definition isn't the most important part of the definition, however, "typically" doesn't mean ALL as you tried to imply.
The problem with the rest of your thought is that you are assuming that "junk"=bad. That's your problem. Not mine. That's why I can live with the definition for junk food. It doesn't say don't eat it, it doesn't say that it will do harm, and it definitely doesn't say it's bad. It just says what it is. Food with not much nutritional value that is often pre packaged with no preparation.0 -
Since I don't irrationally avoid foods based on meaningless categories, I don't worry about defining "junk food" because doing so accomplishes nothing.0
-
Wine is a beverage. But sure, it could easily be classified as "empty calories". It would also fit nicely with those Julia Child quotes above.
When logic and reason doesn't work, what do you expect? The word "demonize" might be overused, but then again... so is "junk food."
Since you mentioned that you won't have wine unless you've got the calories left over for it, is wine a junk food?
Pleasure. Art. I enjoy wine. I prefer to use those calories for a nice glass, or two, or three of wine than a pop tart or two. It's all about choices. (more so than it is about "moderation", in fact.)
You choose how to use your discretionary calories. I choose how to use mine. And I don't blather on telling others they *should* drink wine, or that they are "deprived" because they don't drink wine, or that their lives are "pathetic" or that they are "wine-o-phobic" because they don't drink wine.
I don't judge how you use your calories. I will from time to time state that the earlier healthier habits are formed the easier it is later. That goes for myself as well. I started eating a more nutritious diet when I was about 34 or 35. I wish I'd started much much earlier. c'est la vie. Cheers!:drinker:
PS: try one post without an insult. Just for the novelty.0 -
Since I don't irrationally avoid foods based on meaningless categories, I don't worry about defining "junk food" because doing so accomplishes nothing.
0 -
I'm sure this has already been said by countless rational people but I'm going to say it anyway.
Food = Food
Junk food = irrational fear of food
Eat whatever you like just make sure you pay attention to your macros, micros and caloric intake.0 -
Junk food = irrational fear of food
This is simply untrue.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions