Foods aren't unhealthy, diets are.

runner475

Can we have team colors here? Healthy Foods vs UnHealthy Foods

I want to wear my team color and flaunt it....

WendyTerry420

Most of which will contain things like carbs, fat, sugar, sodium, and not much else that's helpful to you. Compared to say a vegetable that will have a bunch of stuff that's good for you.

Again, this is nonsense. Carbs and fats are two of the three main nutrients. Sugar is a *type* of carb, a subset. Most vegetables contain no fats at all, so it is *very* relevant in context, but completely irrelevant to compare one food to another.

I'm aware sugar's a form of carb - just breaking it out further. I'm also aware carbs and fats are two of the most consumed nutrients. ALSO aware that vegetables don't usually contain fats. None of that has anything to do with my point nor is it relevant to the discussion we're having. It is actually relevant to compare a junk food vs. a non junk food in a discussion about junk food.


People are taking issue with the definition of junk food refering to nutritional values and their argument is to point out that carbs fats and proteins (aka macronutrients) are nutrients. Everyone's aware of that - you need some form of nutrient in order for something to BE food. The point is that nutritional value further distinguishes from there. If your idea of nutritional value is simply something that has a nutrient in it, then that term becomes completely and utterly useless because that's the definition of food.

EXACTLY! Now you are finally getting it!





(MAYBE....

ORLY?!?

Numerous MFP forums threads indicating certain foods are "not actually food and it's so much not food that our bodies don't know what to do with it" would say otherwise.

)


Either way, YES, food is food. The foods each of us will choose each day will vary based on our lifestyle, caloric needs, taste buds, etc. Making the claim that one food is healthier than another, outside of the context of the overall diet/lifestyle, is simply absurd, bordering on food snobbery.

WendyTerry420

Can we have team colors here? Healthy Foods vs UnHealthy Foods

I want to wear my team color and flaunt it....

What color for the "Food is food" team? I vote purple!

Hornsby

Nutritionally....a Nutter Butter ranks better than celery so....celery is junk food.

runner475

Can we have team colors here? Healthy Foods vs UnHealthy Foods

I want to wear my team color and flaunt it....

What color for the "Food is food" team? I vote purple!

YES!!!YES!!! Eggplant is purple ... let's make that the official color for Food is food team.

But I still don't have color for my team ....

stevencloser

Strictly speaking broccoli is a better choice over snack cakes.

...Not if you've already eaten a plate of broccoli. Too much broccoli can cause flatulence and/or gas pains. I absolutely LOVE broccoli, but I have to eat it in moderation, the same as everything else.


This is the inherent problem in declaring food as "healthy" or "junk." EVERYthing we eat is relevant to our lifestyle and to everything ELSE we eat. We do not eat single food items in a vacuum.

Right.. and there are about a million other "what if" scenarios you can throw out there to prove or disprove any part of what I said based no your personal opinion and vica versa.

The point being.. junk food is what it is.. if it fits into *your* diet, then good for you. it is still junk food by definition. Personally? I'd choose broccoli over the snack cake every time and if I get bored of broccoli i'd eat chicken breast over a snack cake. But you are free to do what you want. That doesn't change the category a food fall into.

I don't know about you, but broccoli and chicken breasts aren't really snack foods to me. If I wanted to eat chicken breast or broccoli I would have made them for lunch. Vice versa, I wouldn't open up a cake for dinner. Those foods are for different occasions and saying one is better than the other is like saying suits are better clothes than shorts... when going to the pool.

WendyTerry420

Nutritionally....a Nutter Butter ranks better than celery so....celery is junk food.

If we are ranking, that actually makes sense.

Celery has almost no nutrients at all. Like lettuce, it's mostly just water.

Total Fat 0.1 g 0%
Saturated fat 0 g 0%
Polyunsaturated fat 0 g
Monounsaturated fat 0 g
Cholesterol 0 mg 0%
Sodium 32 mg 1%
Potassium 104 mg 2%
Total Carbohydrate 1.2 g 0%
Dietary fiber 0.6 g 2%
Sugar 0.7 g
Protein 0.3 g 0%


Vitamin A 3%
Vitamin C 2%
Calcium 1%
Iron 0%
Vitamin D 0%
Vitamin B-6 0%
Vitamin B-12 0%
Magnesium 1%



Little Debbie Nutty Bar:





A valid point *and* a reason that side-by-side comparisons of food are irrelevant if done out of context.




Also this:

I don't know about you, but broccoli and chicken breasts aren't really snack foods to me. If I wanted to eat chicken breast or broccoli I would have made them for lunch. Vice versa, I wouldn't open up a cake for dinner. Those foods are for different occasions and saying one is better than the other is like saying suits are better clothes than shorts... when going to the pool.

JoRocka

I don't know about you, but broccoli and chicken breasts aren't really snack foods to me. If I wanted to eat chicken breast or broccoli I would have made them for lunch. Vice versa, I wouldn't open up a cake for dinner. Those foods are for different occasions and saying one is better than the other is like saying suits are better clothes than shorts... when going to the pool.

cake and pie for breakfast are the best things EVER.... I don't put my foods in a box!!!!!

Nobody puts baclava in a box!!!!!!



.... in other news....

Those of you arguing the less than stellar nutritional value of "junk food And why they aren't good options because bang for buck they offer little "nutrionally" but are yet very high in calories.

I guess none of you have come home with over 1000 calories to eat- exhausted and you MUST eat... clearly eating another 3 chicken breasts and bags of steamable veggies is the answer.

or you could just crumble up those highly processed delicious nuggets called oreo's on top of your favorite ice cream and a tall glass of milk- and relax, enjoy your favorite short episode of Futurama and know that you'll be safe on your quest for bulking.

asdowe13

I don't know about you, but broccoli and chicken breasts aren't really snack foods to me. If I wanted to eat chicken breast or broccoli I would have made them for lunch. Vice versa, I wouldn't open up a cake for dinner. Those foods are for different occasions and saying one is better than the other is like saying suits are better clothes than shorts... when going to the pool.

cake and pie for breakfast are the best things EVER.... I don't put my foods in a box!!!!!

Nobody puts baclava in a box!!!!!!



.... in other news....

Those of you arguing the less than stellar nutritional value of "junk food And why they aren't good options because bang for buck they offer little "nutrionally" but are yet very high in calories.

I guess none of you have come home with over 1000 calories to eat- exhausted and you MUST eat... clearly eating another 3 chicken breasts and bags of steamable veggies is the answer.

or you could just crumble up those highly processed delicious nuggets called oreo's on top of your favorite ice cream and a tall glass of milk- and relax, enjoy your favorite short episode of Futurama and know that you'll be safe on your quest for bulking.

That statement alone makes me want you on my FL!

ChoiceNotChance

OH damn, Oreos. MMMMMMMM:drinker:

tennisdude2004

Breaking news JoRocka,

When you are doing keto - your brain is not using 130g of glucose! It will probably only be using about 30g and the rest ketones (and if available lactose).

you are tripping around the point by trying to drown it out with tiny details to obscure your first initial- huge broad paintbrush of a point.

carb = macro nutrient= you said NONE ESSENTIAL.

YOU NEED them to survive. YOU NEED a form of carb to survive. I am honestly not sure how this point could be made ANY more clear.

You DO NOT NEED dietary carbs to survive, therefore they are optimal and not essential.

If you are so insistent on this point please cough up the evidence.

tennisdude2004

Just for clarity:

junk food
noun
food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation.

is is an accepted term.

From merriam webster:
junk food noun
: food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar

Full Definition of JUNK FOOD

1
: food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content
2
: something that is appealing or enjoyable but of little or no real value <video junk food>

It shouldn't be an accepted term. Just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't mean it should have a place in the nutrition debate. In fact, it's unwise to do so. It's called semantic infiltration. When a skillful or persistent semanticist can persuade an opponent to accept his/her terms of debate, the opponent knowingly or unknowingly adopts those distortions and by extension, adopts the perception of that term. In this case, it's distorting the idea of the relative value of different foods by using unhelpful terms like "junk" or "unhealthy". If we accept those definitions and use them, then we are admitting that a food with no negative effects on the diet as a whole, is still in some way going to have a negative impact on an otherwise healthy person.


Semantic infiltration: the systematic distortion of meaning of certain words to confuse or mislead

But junk food is a term used by some of the most well respected nutritionist!

Any nutritionist with an actual degree in nutrition science will know that protein, fats, and carbs are nutrients.

Not sure what your point is here - no one is disputing that protein, fat and carbs are macro nutrients!

Junk food is a term to describe a high calorific, low micro nutrient value food.

And most nutritionist will use the term in the way it it understood by most of westernised society.

J72FIT

You DO NOT NEED dietary carbs to survive, therefore they are optimal and not essential.

If you are so insistent on this point please cough up the evidence.

I think there is a bit of confusion with the term non-essential as to mean non-important.

MelanieMamaof5

Amen....and amen!

tennisdude2004

Breaking news JoRocka,

When you are doing keto - your brain is not using 130g of glucose! It will probably only be using about 30g and the rest ketones (and if available lactose).

you are tripping around the point by trying to drown it out with tiny details to obscure your first initial- huge broad paintbrush of a point.

carb = macro nutrient= you said NONE ESSENTIAL.

YOU NEED them to survive. YOU NEED a form of carb to survive. I am honestly not sure how this point could be made ANY more clear.

Actually not to nitpick this but carbs are not an essential nutrient in the sense that the body can manufacture its own glucose when it has too. IMO this is not optimal but it can none the less.

I get that. I get keto- and that you can survive off your body processing protein for your brain to keep functioning (I won't say live because from what I have researched- uber low carb diets with rigorous testing has shown a decline in performance out put at the end of the test that involved low carbs compared to counterparts with med/high quantities) but yes you can survive.

Being said: I still haven't seen a single person who says "carbs aren't essential" who isn't consuming significant quantities of vegetables.

I guess that's my biggest beef- people are saying you don't need it- and it's not that big of a deal to cut it out- when they aren't cutting it out at all- veggies have a TON of carbs in them- just not 'potatoe/grain/pasta' carbs.

You can't just make a blanket statement about something like that and turn around and say - oh well that doesn't count because it's a veggie.

I think you missed part of the discussion here. No one was arguing in favour of eating 0 carbs - the ones pointing out that strictly speaking carbs aren't essential and that a human could live (however sub-optimally) without any carbs said they ate carbs and that they believed some carb intake was preferable, specifically mentioning vegetables for instance. They're not saying that eating vegetables doesn't count as eating carbs - you mixed up parts of their argument.

I don't think you disagree at all here actually - you also acknowledge carbs are non-essential for human survival, but that it's probably better to have at least some, like veggies.

Thank you - someone who isn't so focused on there owns that they've actually read the words of others!

I'm not anti carb, I eat carbs, carbs are optimal for health and growth. I was simply pointing out that of the three macro nutrients carbs are not on the essential list - it seems to be a common misconception on this forum.

tennisdude2004

You DO NOT NEED dietary carbs to survive, therefore they are optimal and not essential.

If you are so insistent on this point please cough up the evidence.

I think there is a bit of confusion with the term non-essential as to mean non-important.

Not sure why, in each of my threads I have stated that carb intake is optimal. I've also stated that a person could survive but therir health would not be optimal.

The member I was discussing this with was 'I think' under the misunderstanding that they were essential because the body was unable to produce them natural I.e Glucose.

neanderthin

Nutritionally....a Nutter Butter ranks better than celery so....celery is junk food.

Hornsby

Does eliminating carbs put more strain on your kidneys since it is using protein to make the glucose?

tennisdude2004

Does eliminating carbs put more strain on your kidneys since it is using protein to make the glucose?

If you have healthy functioning kidneys - no.

I have yet to see a study that proves otherwise - I'm sure they've looked into it.

Plus your kidneys get a good workout on a low carb diet anyway, or anyone in IF.

albertabeefy

Does eliminating carbs put more strain on your kidneys since it is using protein to make the glucose?

As tennisdude said - No, it doesn't.

FYI you don't actually need to synthesize much glucose from protein, depending on your dietary carbohydrate intake. No "low-carb" diet I've ever seen recommends "no-carb" (and I'd vehemently oppose any that did) so typically you're getting 30g at minimum. I tend to get anywhere from 40 to 75g most days, and have the rare 120-150g day when doing intense endurance exercise.

Once keto-adapted it's (basically) just the brain that needs some glucose, and only about 20g for the average person.

There are two reasons why a ketogenic diet is "moderate" protein. The first is to limit the possibility of gluconeogenesis (thus limiting circulating glucose) due to excess protein, the second is as a medical precaution to prevent the kidneys from working more than they need to.

All the evidence shows there's no risk of kidney damage to those with healthy kidney function, but not everybody gets regular checkups and blood tests to determine if they have normal kidney function, thus the second reason for recommending moderate protein.