Foods aren't unhealthy, diets are.
Options
Replies
-
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>
ETA:
Curious.. isn't Keto 0 carbs?? or nearly 0 carbs?? And aren't there people who are healthy that have been doing keto for extended periods?
Yes, I always look to Webster's for nutrition info.
I'll bet you can also find definitions for military intelligence and Great Depression as well.
Not sure *where* i suggest nutrition info or even specific foods for that matter?? I simply provided the definition of junk food as it is understood and accepted. Since it's being debated in here. It *is* a real term that is accepted and used in common language and has been since the 60s. It's in the dictionary. If you use it in conversation, most people know what sort of food you are alluding too, even if their idea of "junk food" is slightly different than mine. But isn't that a basic need in any conversation? To fist *know* what the accepted definition of a term is, then you can move on to debate it?
ETA: This means that a little debbie snack, by definition, is junk food. Where it fits into your specific personal diet is a completely different story. And that is why there will always be debates on this stuff. (same with a plethora of other subjects)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 mislead0 -
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
Interesting. Sounds an awful lot like what happens when people refuse to accept a common and well known term or terms.
Also known as the get your stupid facts out of my reality distortion field argument.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!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
This also comes to mind:How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
~Samuel Adams0 -
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>
ETA:
Curious.. isn't Keto 0 carbs?? or nearly 0 carbs?? And aren't there people who are healthy that have been doing keto for extended periods?
Yes, I always look to Webster's for nutrition info.
I'll bet you can also find definitions for military intelligence and Great Depression as well.
Not sure *where* i suggest nutrition info or even specific foods for that matter?? I simply provided the definition of junk food as it is understood and accepted. Since it's being debated in here. It *is* a real term that is accepted and used in common language and has been since the 60s. It's in the dictionary. If you use it in conversation, most people know what sort of food you are alluding too, even if their idea of "junk food" is slightly different than mine. But isn't that a basic need in any conversation? To fist *know* what the accepted definition of a term is, then you can move on to debate it?
ETA: This means that a little debbie snack, by definition, is junk food. Where it fits into your specific personal diet is a completely different story. And that is why there will always be debates on this stuff. (same with a plethora of other subjects)
"Great Depression" is "real" also, but it's still an oxymoron. My grandparents were there. It wasn't so great. :laugh:
ETA: A snack cake has carbs and fats, which are nutrients. Claiming that any food has "little" or "no" nutrients is *actually* stating that it isn't food.
Food = proteins, fats, carbohydrates
The amount of proteins, fats, and/or carbohydrates determines the number of calories. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. :smokin: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.0 -
Tyrant: an oppressive leader - your quote doesn't fit this discussion..
Great has many meanings to it. It also means Large, remarkable, eminent, long. So in fact the term "great depression" is correct. Just not using the definition you are assigning it.
I did not say little debbies are not food. I said they are junk food. Using the commonly accepted definition you just learned means that this is actually a correct statement. Their perceived "health" can be debated and if they are "good for your diet or not". But, by definition, they do fall under the category of junk food.ETA: A snack cake has carbs and fats, which are nutrients. Claiming that any food has "little" or "no" nutrients is *actually* stating that it isn't food.0 -
Tyrant: an oppressive leader - your quote doesn't fit this discussion..
Great has many meanings to it. It also means Large, remarkable, eminent, long. So in fact the term "great depression" is correct. Just not using the definition you are assigning it.
A snack cake has carbs and fats, which are nutrients. Claiming that any food has "little" or "no" nutrients is *actually* stating that it isn't food.
Food = proteins, fats, carbohydrates
The amount of proteins, fats, and/or carbohydrates determines the number of calories. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. :smokin: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.0 -
A lot of people look at a single food and make quickly designate that food as either healthy or unhealthy. Their definitions range the gamut. Does it have a lot of sugar or better yet added sugar? Does it have a lot of fat? Is it calorically dense while simultaneously nutrient sparse? Is it processed? Does it contain more than five ingredients? The list goes on.
If those criteria define a food as unhealthy, that would mean that if you eat it, you will be unhealthy. After all, if it's unhealthy wouldn't it, by the nature of its definition, make the person that eats it unhealthy? That doesn't seem to be the case. With the exception of individuals with medical reasons to avoid certain foods, people are able to eat those foods while maintaining a clean bill of health immediately after consumption, a day after consumption, a week after consumption, a year after consumption and even a decade after consumption.
'But if they eat enough of it, they'll be unhealthy!' you say. In a sense, that's true and leads me to my final point.
If a person eats nothing but pop tarts, his diet (the sum total of foods he consumes over a period of time) will not be healthy. The same can be said for any food, even foods that are classically seen as healthy. Take broccoli for example. No one ever claims that broccoli is an unhealthy food. It's filled with vitamins and minerals that the human body can use to help it function properly. However, a diet that consisted of nothing but broccoli would be unhealthy because it alone cannot support the human body and its needs.
It's the diet as whole that matters, the sum of its parts, not parts by themselves. It's myopic to look at single foods and put a health label on it. It's the bigger picture that has to be the focus if health is goal. A diet that satisfies the bodies needs for calories (neither too far over nor too far under), protein, carbs, fats and the vital micro nutrients is healthy whether it contains the occasional processed, sugar added chocolate chip cookie or not.
Healthy diets make healthy people, not healthy foods.
I love this post!!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
Interesting. Sounds an awful lot like what happens when people refuse to accept a common and well known term or terms.
Also known as the get your stupid facts out of my reality distortion field argument.
Oh good, the guy that doesn't have meaning rebuttals and adds nothing to the debate. Plenty of people here have disagreed with my premise (tennisdude and others) and that's great. They engaged in an exchange of ideas while you seem incapable of doing so. Thanks for stopping by.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
Interesting. Sounds an awful lot like what happens when people refuse to accept a common and well known term or terms.
Also known as the get your stupid facts out of my reality distortion field argument.
Oh good, the guy that doesn't have meaning rebuttals and adds nothing to the debate. Plenty of people here have disagreed with my premise (tennisdude and others) and that's great. They engaged in an exchange of ideas while you seem incapable of doing so. Thanks for stopping by.
Well I'm not sure what meaningful debate can be had if all you're going to do is deny the existance of anything that doesn't fit into your little manufactured world. ____ don't real! Only feels! is a real good argument tactic if you're on Tumblr, but otherwise it's just silly.
For your next trick will you be denying the existance of Canada? I've always been skeptical myself.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
Interesting. Sounds an awful lot like what happens when people refuse to accept a common and well known term or terms.
Also known as the get your stupid facts out of my reality distortion field argument.
Oh good, the guy that doesn't have meaning rebuttals and adds nothing to the debate. Plenty of people here have disagreed with my premise (tennisdude and others) and that's great. They engaged in an exchange of ideas while you seem incapable of doing so. Thanks for stopping by.
Well I'm not sure what meaningful debate can be had if all you're going to do is deny the existance of anything that doesn't fit into your little manufactured world. ____ don't real! Only feels! is a real good argument tactic if you're on Tumblr, but otherwise it's just silly.
For your next trick will you be denying the existance of Canada? I've always been skeptical myself.
Again, thanks for stopping by.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
If that is the case then we can call any term into question. Pink. Why is that pink?: I say it's green. The pink ball is now green because i reject your representation of the color pink.
For this debate specifically. I do not think the term "junk food" is unhelpful. By and large American are sorely uneducated about nutrition. Strictly speaking broccoli is a better choice over snack cakes. Simple labels makes it easy for a typical person to say "I want to eat better so I will avoid junk food" You can't argue that eating a bunch of foods that would fall under the term "junk food" is healthier or better for you then eating a bunch of foods that do not fall under this heading. Id' be hard pressed to eat a healthy, balanced diet that was comprised even half way of junk food.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.
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.0 -
Clearly the problem is that some people are unaware that proteins, fats, and carbohydrates are nutrients. (Either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge)0
-
Clearly the problem is that some people are unaware that proteins, fats, and carbohydrates are nutrients. (Either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge)
It's also pretty clear that the term "essential" is not fully understood...0 -
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.0 -
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.
^^^This...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions