Foods aren't unhealthy, diets are.
Options
Replies
-
I'm losing about 2 lbs a week eating a very high fat diet even the feared "Saturated" variety. Through 2 years of dieting, I've figured out what works best for me. I can either have a high carb, moderate protein and low fat diet, or I can do high fat, moderate protein and low carb. I prefer the ladder. I don't think any diet is wrong, just chose one that suits you best and move your butt. Good things will happen!0
-
[quote/]
Let me TLDR shorten it for you:
If your diet consists of foods that meet all your macros, calories and micros, then you're eating a healthy diet. Eating nothing but pizza and "other crap" as you so eloquently stated, then you're likely not going to meet all those nutrition goals. It's hard to get the daily recommended fiber, calcium, iron, etc if you only ate those foods you deem as crap.
Again, it's the whole diet that has to be considered.
[quote/]
I absolutely agree. But I also wonder about those who claim to cover all their macros/micros and calorie needs by eating 100% " dirty ". Do you think they lie, or know something the rest of us don't ?0 -
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.
I'm not trying to obsess here, but, seriously, I want to be able to poop.0 -
That doesn't change the category a food fall into.
chicken = protein with a bit of fat (unless it's fried)
broccoli = carbs
snack cakes = carbs + fat
You can't claim to categorize foods by nutrients, then ignore the nutritional value of the food. (Well, I guess you can, but you sound silly)
I still would chose broccoli and chicken, because there isn't a snack cake I like ( they are pretty nasty ) better than veggies and chicken. But if someone needs to justify why they eat a snack cake every day.... the food category is as good as any other excuse....not paying attention to macros of course.0 -
That's more about quality-of-life than survival ... :laugh:I'm not trying to obsess here, but, seriously, I want to be able to poop.
I think the other thing that makes "diets" unhealthy, is if people want to "go on a diet" that they intend to "go off" ... This sets one up for simply gaining the weight back.
If a person wants to CHANGE their diet permanently, and go into a caloric deficit for loss then caloric-balance for maintenance, that's awesome. But to change a diet temporarily, then simply drop it altogether is an unhealthy idea - both physically and emotionally.
A diet is something one should have for life, and be both healthy and content with.0 -
Let me TLDR shorten it for you:
If your diet consists of foods that meet all your macros, calories and micros, then you're eating a healthy diet. Eating nothing but pizza and "other crap" as you so eloquently stated, then you're likely not going to meet all those nutrition goals. It's hard to get the daily recommended fiber, calcium, iron, etc if you only ate those foods you deem as crap.
Again, it's the whole diet that has to be considered.
I absolutely agree. But I also wonder about those who claim to cover all their macros/micros and calorie needs by eating 100% " dirty ". Do you think they lie, or know something the rest of us don't ?
I think most people that say they eat 100% dirty are saying it as a sarcastic counter to the dietary trope of people who claim to 'eat clean'. It's not a lie because they don't accept the premise that foods can be clean or dirty to begin with.0 -
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.
I'm not trying to obsess here, but, seriously, I want to be able to poop.
If the highest macro nutrient in your diet if fat, then unless you have an underlying issue you won't have poop issues.0 -
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.
It was actually a friend of mine, who has her degree in nutrition science, who convinced me that "junk food" and "empty calories" are nonsense terms that only serve to make people feel guilty about food choices.
I can't go back now that the curtain is open.0 -
[quote/]
Let me TLDR shorten it for you:
If your diet consists of foods that meet all your macros, calories and micros, then you're eating a healthy diet. Eating nothing but pizza and "other crap" as you so eloquently stated, then you're likely not going to meet all those nutrition goals. It's hard to get the daily recommended fiber, calcium, iron, etc if you only ate those foods you deem as crap.
Again, it's the whole diet that has to be considered.
[quote/]
I absolutely agree. But I also wonder about those who claim to cover all their macros/micros and calorie needs by eating 100% " dirty ". Do you think they lie, or know something the rest of us don't ?
Why do people keep bringing up pizza? What do these people put on their pizzas? I like combination pizzas myself, full of both meat and veggies. Omitting veggies is a surefire way to make it micronutrient deficient, but I thought only Kevin McCallister and other 8 year olds ate like that.
0 -
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.
I'm not trying to obsess here, but, seriously, I want to be able to poop.
If the highest macro nutrient in your diet if fat, then unless you have an underlying issue you won't have poop issues.
Fiber + Water = Poop
Too many fats = stomach ache0 -
I still find myself falling into the "good food"/"bad food" mindset and I'm trying very hard to divert that thinking. I agree with you, OP.0
-
Hitting the correct macros and micros while eating 100% "dirty" can be done. Staying within calorie limits is going to be the problem.
I just make sure I eat enough nutrient dense food and mix in "dirty" food to stay sane on a daily basis.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
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.
It was actually a friend of mine, who has her degree in nutrition science, who convinced me that "junk food" and "empty calories" are nonsense terms that only serve to make people feel guilty about food choices.
I can't go back now that the curtain is open.
IMO it's people with an unhealthy obsession with food that dislike the word.
For me words are just words and I think the term junk fits just right.
I don't purposefully avoid that sort of food. It's not a food that I NEED in my diet, but when it hits high on my personal WANT scale I will have some.
I don't think of junk food as bad - I see it as second choice to a beneficial diet (but non the less it is still a choice).0 -
In for later.0
-
But if you're focusing on the total nutrition of your diet, you're going to be looking at the components of different foods in order to make sure that those goals are met. This would automatically push individuals to seek out foods, nutritionally dense, that allow for that to happen, while still allowing for them to enjoy those nutritionally sparse foods.
This should be stickied and should be the mantra of MFP and anybody trying to get their weight and/or health under control. It is succint, logical and easy to comprehend. People make this simple concept a lot more complicated than it needs to be.
Page after page of multiquoted debates over minutae and word definitions totally overshadow the point of the OP and the logic and accuracy of the quoted post (also by the OP).0 -
Page after page of multiquoted debates over minutae and word definitions totally overshadow the point of the OP and the logic and accuracy of the quoted post (also by the OP).
^^^This...0 -
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.
It was actually a friend of mine, who has her degree in nutrition science, who convinced me that "junk food" and "empty calories" are nonsense terms that only serve to make people feel guilty about food choices.
I can't go back now that the curtain is open.
IMO it's people with an unhealthy obsession with food that dislike the word.
For me words are just words and I think the term junk fits just right.
I don't purposefully avoid that sort of food. It's not a food that I NEED in my diet, but when it hits high on my personal WANT scale I will have some.
I don't think of junk food as bad - I see it as second choice to a beneficial diet (but non the less it is still a choice).
There is no particular food *at all* that anyone needs in their diet. That's kinda the whole point.0 -
Yes there is - chilli! (No kidney beans though - ewwwww yuk)0
-
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.
It was actually a friend of mine, who has her degree in nutrition science, who convinced me that "junk food" and "empty calories" are nonsense terms that only serve to make people feel guilty about food choices.
I can't go back now that the curtain is open.
IMO it's people with an unhealthy obsession with food that dislike the word.
For me words are just words and I think the term junk fits just right.
I don't purposefully avoid that sort of food. It's not a food that I NEED in my diet, but when it hits high on my personal WANT scale I will have some.
I don't think of junk food as bad - I see it as second choice to a beneficial diet (but non the less it is still a choice).
if it is not bad then why label it "junk" food...
that would be like saying a BMW is not a bad car but it is a junk car...0 -
Lol - are you an Audi driver!
I think it's really down to how sensitive you are about words.
Personally when I think of the term junk food, I think of high cal, low nutrient - great tasting food and something to have as a treat, mmmmm BBQ meat feast pizza.
If you have a negative association with the term junk food - that's your issue not mine!
I think maybe your problem with this whole junk food issue is you assume that just because someone (me in this instance) doesn't refers to something as good then I must mean that it's bad - not true.
Food that is not healthy is not necessarily unhealthy!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions