How Do You Define "Junk Food"?

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.

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

No. Just oil.

Oh do tell.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Snipped.

Your original quote confused me because it has a logical fallacy in it. I'm not so much arguing with you as I am trying to understand how you think it's a complete statement (that doesn't contradict itself). Whether or not a food fits someone's goals is one thing; it's quite another to essentially state that, "Well, any food that doesn't fit your goals is junk." I disagree with that because food that is junk on Monday could be just perfect on Tuesday.

From The Way To Cook, written by Julia Child and published in 1989. It's one of my favorites.

"Because of media hype and woefully inadequate information, too many people nowadays are deathly afraid of their food, and what does fear of food do to the digestive system? ... I, for one, would much rather swoon over a few thin slices of prime beefsteak, or one small serving of chocolate mousse, or a sliver of foie gras than indulge to the full on such nonentities as fat-free gelatin puddings."

"The pleasures of the table — that lovely old-fashioned phrase — depict food as an art form, as a delightful part of civilized life. In spite of food fads, fitness programs, and health concerns, we must never lose sight of a beautifully conceived meal."


and....

“Life itself is the proper binge.” ― Julia Child

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.

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.

Snipped.

Your original quote confused me because it has a logical fallacy in it. I'm not so much arguing with you as I am trying to understand how you think it's a complete statement (that doesn't contradict itself). Whether or not a food fits someone's goals is one thing; it's quite another to essentially state that, "Well, any food that doesn't fit your goals is junk." I disagree with that because food that is junk on Monday could be just perfect on Tuesday.

I am at a loss...

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.

My recommendation is that you let go of your need to be right, and decide not to let the eating choices of others bother you. You can get plenty of healthy fats from whole foods like avocados, or you can also choose to saute vegetables in coconut oil or add olive oil to a salad because you like the way it tastes. The end result is the same. People have different ways of doing things and there is no right way. Some folks don't like avocado or olives, and many people cannot afford to switch to a diet where most of the protein is sourced from nuts. It's a bad idea to turn your diet choices (or your definition of junk food) into a ministry that you must verbally defend. It's great if you have found something that works for you in your life. Be happy about that. Share recipes you like, and be helpful if people are interested. You can't expect everybody on a silly fitness website to agree on what the definition of "junk food" is. We have different lives and different perspectives. As an example, I personally consider any kind of crackers (even whole wheat/ stone ground/ gluten free, or whatever) to be a "junk food". Eating them does nothing for me other than make me want to keep eating them. It's just a waste to me, so I don't buy the damn things. (From time to time I have a run in, because my boyfriend buys some though!) However, somebody else might include crackers in a lunch, or with a protein or piece of fruit as a snack , and be just fine. I wouldn't get upset if they didn't view crackers as being "junk food." I have to focus on what feels right for my body, and what it takes for me to function well and at my best. Quarreling on the mfp forums will only raise your blood pressure. I recommend golfing or bird watching instead.

Wow didn't think anyone would consider oil junk food. Just because it is high in fat? lol weird. To each their own I guess.

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

It was in the very first post as defined by Websters and the Oxford dictionary.

Websters defines it as: "food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar"

Oxford Dictionary defines it as: "food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation."

Physical health is all that matters? My mental health is important to me. Emotional. If I want to eat a cupcake, I eat one. Not much nutritional value there.
My diet consists of approx 40% fat, if I didn't have whole fat milk and cheese and so on, I wouldn't feel healthy. And I LOVE sugar.

I'm gonna say these two come closest to how *I* define junk food. And I eat some junk food. I eat it sparingly. And when I do, it's usually made by fritolay (or an copycat food product I can find at my local organic market.
To my definition I would also add: fast food made following the same basic criteria. I also eat that sparingly.
We all my our choices. I'd rather use my small allotment of middle age discretionary calories on a good wine than a two pop tarts.

Oxford Dictionary defines it as: "food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation."

What's your definition?

When I say "junk food" I mean packaged snacks, candy, processed pre-packaged baked goods. Things that have a lot of non-food additives and usually too much fat, sugar and/or salt and too little micronutrients. Cheetos, pop-tarts, Snickers, Funyuns, M&Ms, things made by Frito-Lay or Little Debbie and such.

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 did NOT just compare olive oil to high fructose corn syrup! That's, ummm, well, ABSURD.

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

It was in the very first post as defined by Websters and the Oxford dictionary.

those are terrible definitions BTW.

only people with food phobias would accept either one at face value.

They seem like perfect definitions to me... Pretty much what I think junk food is.

LOL. so food in a package is automatically a "junk" food. :laugh:

if you can't see the inherent biases built in to those definitions, you might be blind.

You must be blind, or your reading comprehension is poor, cause no where does it say that if your food is in a package, it's bad for you.