Junk Food - A Question of Snobbery?
Replies
-
most junk food is generic and bland in comparison to other meals of equal caloric value.
thats where most of the hate comes from.
for example a big mac meal vs and meal of sushi(both having the same cals). that sushi is going to taste a lot better to most people who are over 18 years old.
so if someone blows a ton of cals routinely on bland food like mcdonalds people take notice.0 -
Has nothing to do with class or snobbery. Your logic is somewhat faulty. People who are knowledgeable about food and nutrition call that junk food, not because of the people that eat it, but because of the lack of nutritional value, the added chemicals, and heavy processing. It's almost as if someone needs to approach this from another angle. The reason that junk food is "poor people" food, is that it's cheap. Why is it so cheap? Because it's "junk" food. They eat it because they become addicted to it because it's hyper-flavored, greasy, and cheap. It appeals to the "gut" which craves those things. But, in order for companies to sell meals for $2.00 is by creating the most vile frankenfood, that they can produce em masse. I stopped eating fast food over 10 years ago. I have no desire to eat a burger or chicken sandwich which was frankencooked back in Ohio, and shipped frozen to be "cooked" again locally. If I do eat something "fast" it's from a company that sources real products, and cooks them on the spot, with no freezers on the property.
So the actual take away is that the food is junk food so that it can be cheap. No one is going to be selling grass-fed beef, non-commerically baked rolls, and hand cut fries, and local tomatoes, for 99 cents a pop. Yes, the poor eat that stuff, because it's cheap and easy. But that doesn't make it as healthy as expensive food... the other meals were actually whole foods, and not trucked into the restaurant by the millions, frozen.
"People who are knowledgeable about food and nutrition call that junk food, not because of the people that eat it, but because of the lack of nutritional value, the added chemicals, and heavy processing"
So is all so called modernist cooking junk food?0 -
People who are knowledgeable about food and nutrition call that junk food, not because of the people that eat it, but because of the lack of nutritional value, the added chemicals, and heavy processing.
Yes, but in my example meals 2-5 could arguably fall into those definitions as well (especially if we consider the ratio of calorie to nutrient density despite being "higher" quality ingredients.)
Given they have more calories, more sodium, more sugar, more carbs, and more saturated fat than meal 1 surely they are more of an issue?0 -
Is it ok to rag on junk food perhaps because there is a perception that it is what less affluent people eat and is therefore an easier target?
I kind of feel like you are calling me a snob, and I don't appreciate it.
I'm kinda weird though, so maybe I just have a different of "junk food". I am a slave to my tongue. I rag on "junk food" because it doesn't taste very good. If I'm going to consume calories, I want to enjoy it. A big mac is barely palatable to me, though I acknowledge the tastiness of the McD's fries and McFlurrie. Same thing with Twinkies and fruit juice and soda. Those things just don't taste good to me.
Junk is a combination of flavor/presentation/care taken in the production thereof. In my mind, I would call very little of the food that Acg67 posts "junk food". It would definitely be an indulgence for me, but not junk.0 -
I promote equality for all foods. None, final answer!0
-
I'm hungry!
0 -
I kind of feel like you are calling me a snob, and I don't appreciate it.
Wut? Don't worry mate, I ain't made at ya. Who are you again?
In all seriousness if we are classing junk food was that which lacks palatability then I don't really mind as I can consign that wheatgrass and spirulina smoothie to the bin...0 -
Is it ok to rag on junk food perhaps because there is a perception that it is what less affluent people eat and is therefore an easier target?
Ding ding ding we have a winner here!
Agree 100%.
Let's talk about goose fat potatoes, massive steaks, foie gras, baked macaroni and cheese topped with truffles, 3 pound chocolate cake slices, creamed spinach, and other absurdly high calorie foods served at some of the best steak houses the U.S. has to offer, all washed down with a couple bottles of red and a glass or two or port or Scotch. I think the ice tea, sliced apples and a McDouble or three would compare quite favorably, but instead thread after thread here is on McDonald's. For the record, I got fat on the list of foods above.0 -
Why is it so cheap? Because it's "junk" food. They eat it because they become addicted to it because it's hyper-flavored, greasy, and cheap. It appeals to the "gut" which craves those things.
In my opinion, this is an unfair assessment of people living off of processed foods. Many people don't eat it because they're addicted as much as they eat it because it's what's affordable in the supermarket. Just because chemical-less foods might give you that extra boost doesn't mean that you can't live a healthy lifestyle based on typical, processed supermarket foods.But, in order for companies to sell meals for $2.00 is by creating the most vile frankenfood, that they can produce em masse. I stopped eating fast food over 10 years ago. I have no desire to eat a burger or chicken sandwich which was frankencooked back in Ohio, and shipped frozen to be "cooked" again locally. If I do eat something "fast" it's from a company that sources real products, and cooks them on the spot, with no freezers on the property.
So the actual take away is that the food is junk food so that it can be cheap. No one is going to be selling grass-fed beef, non-commerically baked rolls, and hand cut fries, and local tomatoes, for 99 cents a pop. Yes, the poor eat that stuff, because it's cheap and easy. But that doesn't make it as healthy as expensive food... the other meals were actually whole foods, and not trucked into the restaurant by the millions, frozen.
The benefits of whole foods over processed foods are certainly existent, because obviously, no chemicals is better than chemicals. But in my understanding, the benefits have more to do with potential long-term effects... not obesity. My issue is, whether they admit it or not, most affluent people perceive the difference between processed and non-processed foods to be the difference between a fit and healthy, happy person, and an obese, grease-addicted, pathetic person. THAT'S where the disgust comes in whenever someone mentions McDonald's over breaded calamari, and it's un-called for. It's as though they think that they're more responsible because they can afford food that is less mass-produced.
Yes, the chemicals make a difference. But they don't make ALL the difference, and perhaps not even most of it. Fit and healthy MOSTLY means that you eat your fruits and vegetables, exercise, and resist excess fat, sugar, and calories. That person can come from Whole Foods or the corner grocery store, the same way the obese person can come from McDonald's or the high end restaurant with food that wasn't "trucked into the restaurant by the millions, frozen."
In a nutshell, eating whole foods is great, if you can afford it. But I think some people need to refrain from labeling the entire group of processed-food eaters (not to mention whole-food eaters) as though they all have equal lifestyles... and get on a lower horse.0 -
Call me crazy, but I would much rather eat a salad from Wendy's, McDonald's or Chick-Fil-A, than any One of those choices. Choose your dressing + toppings wisely, and it's really hard to mess up a salad.0
-
Agreed, although I'd take it one step farther. I don't think wheatgrass and spirulina are junk food. They're not food at all. If somebody can prove to me that they nutritious, I would consider calling them supplements, but no - not food.
I kind of feel like you are calling me a snob, and I don't appreciate it.
Wut? Don't worry mate, I ain't made at ya. Who are you again?
In all seriousness if we are classing junk food was that which lacks palatability then I don't really mind as I can consign that wheatgrass and spirulina smoothie to the bin...0 -
In....
...to catch up later.0 -
It's been years since I've had a McDonalds burger because I didn't much like them before, so that doesn't appeal to me. But their fries and a Cadbury McFlurry (!) are another story. I'd gladly eat meal #1 from another restaurant. It doesn't have to be fine dining or a foodie place, just food I actually want to eat. I'd eat it from a local greasy spoon. Or Sonic with tots.
The fine dining options probably have higher calories than the FF and Chinese food, but they all sound delicious. I wouldn't eat these meals regularly, but would look forward to any one as a good dinner out.0 -
Well, I put these meals together with the MFP tool. Obviously there's going to be a wide possible range for everything but meal #1. But here's what I ended up with:
Cals:
1- 1390
2 - 1354
3 - 1327
4 - 1008
5 - 892
Protein:
1 - 37
2 - 112
3 - 41
4 - 41
5 - 48
Fat:
1 - 59
2 - 53
3 - 74
4 - 71
5 - 36
Carb:
1 - 175
2 - 118
3 - 120
4 - 49
5 - 93
Sugar:
1 - 63
2 - 5
3 - 24
4 - 20
5 - 4
Fiber:
1 - 8
2 - 2
3 - 13
4 - 7
5 - 7
Sodium:
1 - 1426
2 - 1280
3 - 1630
4 - 874
5 - 1904
So take away the names, take away the taste, ignore micronutrients, and pick a meal.0 -
SonicIt's been years since I've had a McDonalds burger because I didn't much like them before, so that doesn't appeal to me. But their fries and a Cadbury McFlurry (!) are another story. I'd gladly eat meal #1 from another restaurant. It doesn't have to be fine dining or a foodie place, just food I actually want to eat. I'd eat it from a local greasy spoon. Or Sonic with tots.
The fine dining options probably have higher calories than the FF and Chinese food, but they all sound delicious. I wouldn't eat these meals regularly, but would look forward to any one as a good dinner out.
0 -
People who are knowledgeable about food and nutrition call that junk food, not because of the people that eat it, but because of the lack of nutritional value, the added chemicals, and heavy processing.
Yes, but in my example meals 2-5 could arguably fall into those definitions as well (especially if we consider the ratio of calorie to nutrient density despite being "higher" quality ingredients.)
Given they have more calories, more sodium, more sugar, more carbs, and more saturated fat than meal 1 surely they are more of an issue?
By my calcs the #1 meal has the highest calories, sugar, and carbs (this by over 50 grams). Lowest protein. Fat and sodium are midrange among the options.
Doesn't really fit my macro objectives at all. Rather have any other meal just from that perspective.0 -
By my calcs the #1 meal has the highest calories, sugar, and carbs (this by over 50 grams). Lowest protein. Fat and sodium are midrange among the options.
Yes, it does... but not enough to warrant any real triumph in picking an option other than #1.0 -
By my calcs the #1 meal has the highest calories, sugar, and carbs (this by over 50 grams). Lowest protein. Fat and sodium are midrange among the options.
Yes, it does... but not enough to warrant any real triumph in picking an option other than #1.
Depends on what you value. If price and subsistence calories (with no home cooking option) are a primary concern, meal #1 might be the only viable option among the meals. If you value protein and don't want an entire day's supply of carbs in one meal, meal #1 is an epic fail.
Also, Big Macs are abominations. It's basically everything I don't want in a burger. Thin little patties, 3 buns of meh bread, nasty sauce, meh cheese, bad lettuce/tomato, all squished up. Open the wrapper and wtf bleh. Big Macs are, I believe, the worst flagship burger of any fast food restaurant. They're amazingly half-assed. But that's a personal preference issue.0 -
Yes, it does... but not enough to warrant any real triumph in picking an option other than #1.
Depends on what you value. If price and subsistence calories (with no home cooking option) are a primary concern, meal #1 might be the only viable option among the meals. If you value protein and don't want an entire day's supply of carbs in one meal, meal #1 is an epic fail.
Also, Big Macs are abominations. It's basically everything I don't want in a burger. Thin little patties, 3 buns of meh bread, nasty sauce, meh cheese, bad lettuce/tomato, all squished up. Open the wrapper and wtf bleh. Big Macs are, I believe, the worst flagship burger of any fast food restaurant. They're amazingly half-assed. But that's a personal preference issue.
My point is, ALL of the options are debatably an epic fail. If you compare them to each other, you can nitpick. But really, when you compare them to what's really healthy, it's uncalled for to pass special judgment on someone who prefers number one.0 -
Did someone say McFlurry?
Seriously, I had a hard time interpreting the rest of the post after I read that line. CADBURY CARAMEL McFlurries??! I'm moving to GB like today (I'm assuming OP lives in GB because we don't have Cadbury Caramel McFlurries here in the US).
They've had them in Canada, but I'm not sure if it's a seasonal thing or not.0 -
just an observation, but meals #2-5 are fine dining, which is not intended to be an everyday experience. if you ate them everyday or even a couple of times a week, they would probably make you just as fat as mcdonalds. the problem with mickey d's is that the price of the food makes it a real option for daily eating for the masses. if ruth's chris offered a giant surf and turf meal for $5.99, they would equally be contributing to the obesity epidemic in our country.
it doesn't even matter anyway...people are going to eat what they want and what makes them feel good until they are more educated about the price of their meals on their health over the long term.
I agree with this. You are comparing apples and oranges. Fine dining in gourmet restaurants is something people do for special occasions, so the splurge on high calorie foods is just that, a splurge. Whereas Mickey's D's and other places like that, some people developed the habit to eat there every single day. That is because the food is cheap and easily accessible to people, and it is not viewed as a splurge by some, and it has contributed to the obesity in this country. At least fast food places now offer healthier options to people.
But seriously, to compare a meal freshly made by a chef in a fancy restaurant to deep frozen beef patties and fries is just wrong, dude, lol.
i seriously don't think its snobbery. Its kinda like when you have company you put out the good china, or your best. For everyday you might use something different. Or with clothes, same thing, some clothes are considered "Sunday best" so to speak, and others are just T-shirt and jeans. One is different for different occasions. Same thing with those meals you mention, most are not gonna eat a meal like 2-5 everyday.0 -
I haven't formed an opinion yet but this post is awesome. Well done.0
-
Something else I just thought about and wanted to add. I've noticed that in some cultures, you can get high quality, fresh food for cheap, so that even if you are poor, you do not have to choose McDonald's but get a nice healthy meal. I currently live in the NJ area near a neighborhood that is largely Portuguese, they have awesome food, that is fresh and pretty good quality as well. Like freshly caught fish, steamed vegetables, potatoes, bread, just regular food, but is not expensive. In this area, no fast food places.
Sometimes it angers me to go to some poorer areas and the only food options is the local greasy Chinese, the local pizza place, Burger King or Mickey D's, and way at the other end, some high price place that the average person could not eat at on the regular.
I think this addresses something that I think should be: poorer people SHOULD be able to afford the organic or better quality foods. To me, its not a question of snobbery, but wanting to get the best quality food at the best price.0 -
Very good perspective imo.0
-
I agree. My weight gain was much more due to the thousands of calorie meals and alcohol I had eating at nicer restraunts than fast food joints.0
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9750464/Jamie-and-Nigellas-meals-unhealthy.html
http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/celebrity-chefs-recipes-less-healthy-ready-meals-data
There was a lot of media attention on the above in the UK. I'm not sure I agree with their criteria for what is or isn't healthy (a lot of meals were criticised for having too much protein, and higher calorie doesn't always mean worse) but it is nice to see the 'healthy home-cooked meal' myth questioned.
The problem I have with McD's is the satiety doesn't match the calories as well as it would for the same meal elsewhere.0 -
My point is, ALL of the options are debatably an epic fail.
Are you saying my diet is crap? How rude!
I am however surprised at how little stick I got for eating for want of better words such junk fine food (people here are surprisingly nice after all...) I wonder if I meals 2-5 were all fast food meals of similar calorie and nutritional contents I would have got off so lightly. Somehow I doubt it. Although jwdieter did a great job on getting the nutritional info together I am pretty sure meals 2-5 were much higher due to portion size (the steak was 12oz for example, the chicken was half the bird, the seafood linguine was the size of my face....)
The key arguments against junk food seem to be:
1) lack of quality ingredients and nutrients: but this would less harmful it appears than a fine dining option which is higher in calories and sodium etc and also goes through processing (although on a smaller scale). This can be offset by the rest of your diet.
2) frequency of eating: which can be offset by well, eating it less often
3) cost / availability: tied in with 1& 2 above but makes no real odds to the actually effect it can have on your overall health
4) taste / palatability: clearly this can be simply a matter of perception but again makes no real odds to how it will effect your health
Let's be honest. People aren't going to suddenly give up "junk" food tomorrow and switch to whole foods en masse. That is just fantasy. Whilst we can encourage people to do so it seems evident that people are eating "junk" food for one key reason: they like the taste. A lot.
As such it strikes me that it is a far better idea to get people to consider the nutritional values of the food they are eating for themselves and see if it may be incorporated into their diet (which in all likelihood it can be just in smaller quantities) than saying some food is inherently "rubbish" or should be avoided at all costs.
And for my next trick I will pull a rabbit from a hat....0 -
If all of this is junk:
1) Big Mac with fries followed by a Cadburys Caramel McFlurry
2) Har kau (steamed prawn dumplings) followed by nasi goreng (Indonesian fried rice) served with chicken skewers and satay sauce
3)Steak au poivre with brandy and cream reduction, frites (fries) and aparagus spears tossed in garlic butter followed by salted caramel chocolate torte
4)Poulet Breton (chicken) served with wild mushroom sauce, truffle mash and salade verte followed by crepe with fresh strawberries and Chantilly cream
5)Breaded calamari rings (squid) with tartare sauce and lemon wedges followed by seafood linguine
Then call me the garbage can
YUM0 -
Then call me the garbage can
YUM
Lol - a rather fine looking garbage can?
But that is part of the point. There seems to be a lot of moral and social judgment attached to the food people eat. It seems that a lot of this stigma attaches to "junk" food whereas other foods somehow bypass it completely even though they are of a similar nature but just 10 times the price
This does not seem fair, correct or objectively justifiable.0 -
The term "junk food" doesn't necessarily refer to nutritional value. I beli
eve, and I very well may be mistaken, that it originally referred to the overall quality of the meal.
Comparing fast food menue items to gourmet meals is like comparing a Ford Focus to a Lamborgini. I mean you could but what would be the point.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions