How Do You Define "Junk Food"?

paleojoe

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.

bcattoes

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".

RivenV

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.

paleojoe

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?

Cindyinpg

BrainyBurro

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."

paleojoe

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.

Rocbola

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that oils and fats are 'bad' for health.

No. Just oil.

Carnivor0us

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that oils and fats are 'bad' for health.

No. Just oil.

Why?

Phoenix_Warrior

Aaah. 7 pages and I still don't know what a junk food is. Good times.

RivenV

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.

Uh... No. The car is not good; it is not bad; it just is. It exists and that's all there is to it. The decision of the user does not make the car good or bad.

This logic applies to food as well. Just replace the word "car" with the word "food," and you have the answer.

paleojoe

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.

Uh... No. The car is not good; it is not bad; it just is. It exists and that's all there is to it. The decision of the user does not make the car good or bad.

This logic applies to food as well. Just replace the word "car" with the word "food," and you have the answer.

What are we arguing about here? The end user decides if it is good or bad for them. They decide if it fits or does not fit into their goals.

magerum

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that oils and fats are 'bad' for health.

No. Just oil.

Oh do tell.

paleojoe

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that oils and fats are 'bad' for health.

No. Just oil.

You realize oil IS fat... or am I missing something?

bcattoes

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.

Uh... No. The car is not good; it is not bad; it just is. It exists and that's all there is to it. The decision of the user does not make the car good or bad.

This logic applies to food as well. Just replace the word "car" with the word "food," and you have the answer.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've seen on these forums. The OP asked for opinions on junk food. Not opinions on whether you thought others opinions on junk food met your criteria for an opinion.

in_the_stars

behind the refrigerator there was a piece of glass...

RivenV

This has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've seen on these forums. The OP asked for opinions on junk food. Not opinions on whether you thought others opinions on junk food met your criteria for an opinion.

Interesting you should say so! I consider most of your arguments ridiculous, as well. It's been so nice catching up with you.

Rocbola

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that oils and fats are 'bad' for health.

No. Just oil.

Why?

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.

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.

paleojoe

Aaah. 7 pages and I still don't know what a junk food is. Good times.

I was trying to get at this... there is no definition. The end user decides if (insert food here) fits or does not fit their health and fitness goals. As always... it depends.

paleojoe

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that oils and fats are 'bad' for health.

No. Just oil.

Why?

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.

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.

You need fat for hormone production...
Comparing olives to olive oil and corn to high fructose corn syrup is a little weird IMO...