Foods aren't unhealthy, diets are.
Replies
-
And what do you think is happening when people use terms like "healthy relationship with food", "food shaming", and "demonizing of food"?
^^^ Honesty?
(That'd be my guess)0 -
It certainly wouldn't be optimal but it is possible to build muscle on a low carb or keto diet.
I agree some level of carbs (based on individuals goals) is optimal, but for survival not essential.
Some level of carbs would include the micro-nutrient rich foods known as vegetables and fruits! Avoiding those makes it difficult to have a healthy diet.0 -
That's debatable.
The soda fuels the athletes body to complete the race, which in itself is probably detrimental the that athletes health.
Extreme example, but ultra fitness in elite athletes is generally attained by a cost in their overall health.
Not sure how that soda will be detrimental to their health....0 -
Well said OP, people serious about weight loss and developing a healthy / maintainable lifestyle for life should hold onto this post.0
-
All terms are made up! It's whether they are popularised and taken up as acceptable and well used terms in our daily vocabulary, which Junk Food is.
Ask most westernised people if they have heard of the term and I should think a majority have.
The term Junk Food is even Alan Aragon Approved.
It is not WendyTerry420 approved.
It's a meaningless term.0 -
Some level of carbs would include the micro-nutrient rich foods known as vegetables and fruits! Avoiding those makes it difficult to have a healthy diet.
Agreed, I'm not a no carb advocate, I eat about 50g - 150g of carbs. Depending on what fitness I am doing any one day.
I'm not saying no carbs would give someone optimal health, but they could survive quite well and build muscle.0 -
FWIW...
I eat a whole cup of ice cream, sometimes a cup and a half, and often I add peanuts to it and/or flavored syrup. You don't *have* to stick to 1/2 cup, just make it fit.
Sometimes I have logged my dessert first, then see what I need to eat through the day to make it work.
Same...especially now that I'm recently back at maintenance. I usually figure out my macros/micros first and then calculate how much ice cream that leaves me at the end of the day. With my higher-than-in-the-winter activity level, it's usually a substantial amount (to the point that I'll add another "meal" because even I have limits on how much ice cream I should be eating every night).0 -
It means a lot of things to a lot of people.
I appreciate it is not WendyTerry approved and I will aim to keep my use of the term to a minimum when you are present. lol
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It means a lot of things to a lot of people.
I appreciate it is not WendyTerry approved and I will aim to keep my use of the term to a minimum when you are present. lol
It's an oxymoron. If it's food, then it isn't junk. If it's junk, then it isn't food.0 -
Not sure how that soda will be detrimental to their health....
The bit bolded above - actually participating in the race and likely the chronic training leading up to the race - also fuelled by soda's.
Plus excessive sugar in an athletes diet (whilst being used by them for fuelling and not stored, it will still have more inflammatory effects on the body than a standard healthy diet).
I'm not saying people shouldn't do this - each to their own. I've damaged my overall health by 23 years of martial arts and I probably wouldn't change a thing - I'm just making an observation on your health comment of a cyclist drinking the soda - I just wouldn't tag the word it with the word health.
If people want soda's I've no beef with that.0 -
It's an oxymoron. If it's food, then it isn't junk. If it's junk, then it isn't food.
There are lots of words and terms which over the years have evolved from meaning one thing into meaning another - this is one of those terms.
You disagree and that's your right to do so.
We may in this instance have to draw a line under it and agree to disagree - I'm cool with that. 0 -
Carbs aren't bad - they're just not essential.
They are nice and have a place in a healthy diet IMOOn a diet high in carbs yes the Brain will function on about 130g of glucose.
On a diet low in carbs the brain will run just as efficiently on less than a quarter of that amount.
Plus the body can cater for that quantity without dietary carbs.
you either need them or you don't.
Stop back pedaling or using words you don't understand.
Carbs are not evil- they are essential for human life- they are essential for building muscle.
It is not a MICRO nutrient- it's a MACRO- you only have 3 of them to chose to fill your diet. you cannot just live (for very long anyway) on fat and protein with 0 carbs. it's not possible healthy or feasible.There are lots of words and terms which over the years have evolved from meaning one thing into meaning another - this is one of those terms.
you seem to lack a grasp of the fundamentals of how words work- so I'm going to opt out of trusting you on the evolution of words. Sorry.
not sorry.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>
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?0 -
you either need them or you don't.
Stop back pedaling or using words you don't understand.
Carbs are not evil- they are essential for human life- they are essential for building muscle.
It is not a MICRO nutrient- it's a MACRO- you only have 3 of them to chose to fill your diet. you cannot just live (for very long anyway) on fat and protein with 0 carbs. it's not possible healthy or feasible.
you seem to lack a grasp of the fundamentals of how words work- so I'm going to opt out of trusting you on the evolution of words. Sorry.
not sorry.
Nope not essential - the word you are looking for is optimal.
You are right carbs aren't evil and I incorporate and sufficient amount of them into my diet.
Maybe it is you who needs to do a bit of understanding. If carbs are available the brain will use them, if carbs are limited the brain will limit its amount and run on a mixture of glucose and ketones.
Not sure at which point I am back pedalling as I've never had an anti carb stance! The are not essential, but I do like them.
Additionally, you can live on zero DIETARY carbs. Your health may not be as optimal as when eating carbs, but the body will cope effectively.0 -
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?
no- low calorie diets are defined as 20% or less of your diet's being carbs.
Ketosis itself has no fixed number (meaning its different for every person)- but generally below 40/50 grams is the rule.
The lowest I ever got doing a carb deplete was 12/15 grams- and I was trying to get below that and couldn't. (severally restricted my greens intake as well for this)Not sure at which point I am back pedalling as I've never had an anti carb stance! The are not essential, but I do like them.
essential:
4. Biochemistry Being a substance that is required for normal functioning but cannot be synthesized by the body and therefore must be included in the diet: essential amino acids.
first they are not essential- then it's okay if they are only "certain types"
you MUST have carbs in your life- one way or the other- you just prefer you'rs from green leafy things. They are still required and essential- it's a macro nutrient.0 -
no- low calorie diets are defined as 20% or less of your diet's being carbs.
Ketosis itself has no fixed number (meaning its different for every person)- but generally below 40/50 grams is the rule.
The lowest I ever got doing a carb deplete was 12/15 grams- and I was trying to get below that and couldn't.
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).0 -
no- low calorie diets are defined as 20% or less of your diet's being carbs.
Ketosis itself has no fixed number (meaning its different for every person)- but generally below 40/50 grams is the rule.
The lowest I ever got doing a carb deplete was 12/15 grams- and I was trying to get below that and couldn't. (severally restricted my greens intake as well for this)
essential:
4. Biochemistry Being a substance that is required for normal functioning but cannot be synthesized by the body and therefore must be included in the diet: essential amino acids.
first they are not essential- then it's okay if they are only "certain types"
you MUST have carbs in your life- one way or the other- you just prefer you'rs from green leafy things. They are still required and essential- it's a macro nutrient.
You only eat carbs for glucose - your body makes it's own glycogen.
Dietary carbs are optimal - not essential.0 -
Since we are throwing out definitions....
Macronutrient = : a substance (as protein or carbohydrate) essential in large amounts to the growth and health of an animal — compare0 -
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.
0 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.1K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions