Foods aren't unhealthy, diets are.

Most of which will contain things like carbs, fat, sugar, sodium, and not much else that's helpful to you. Compared to say a vegetable that will have a bunch of stuff that's good for you.

Again, this is nonsense. Carbs and fats are two of the three main nutrients. Sugar is a *type* of carb, a subset. Most vegetables contain no fats at all, so it is *very* relevant in context, but completely irrelevant to compare one food to another.

I'm aware sugar's a form of carb - just breaking it out further. I'm also aware carbs and fats are two of the most consumed nutrients. ALSO aware that vegetables don't usually contain fats. None of that has anything to do with my point nor is it relevant to the discussion we're having. It is actually relevant to compare a junk food vs. a non junk food in a discussion about junk food.


People are taking issue with the definition of junk food refering to nutritional values and their argument is to point out that carbs fats and proteins (aka macronutrients) are nutrients. Everyone's aware of that - you need some form of nutrient in order for something to BE food. The point is that nutritional value further distinguishes from there. If your idea of nutritional value is simply something that has a nutrient in it, then that term becomes completely and utterly useless because that's the definition of food.

EXACTLY! Now you are finally getting it!





(MAYBE....

ORLY?!?

Numerous MFP forums threads indicating certain foods are "not actually food and it's so much not food that our bodies don't know what to do with it" would say otherwise.

)


Either way, YES, food is food. The foods each of us will choose each day will vary based on our lifestyle, caloric needs, taste buds, etc. Making the claim that one food is healthier than another, outside of the context of the overall diet/lifestyle, is simply absurd, bordering on food snobbery.

Nutritionally....a Nutter Butter ranks better than celery so....celery is junk food.

OH damn, Oreos. MMMMMMMM:drinker:

Amen....and amen!

Does eliminating carbs put more strain on your kidneys since it is using protein to make the glucose?

Does eliminating carbs put more strain on your kidneys since it is using protein to make the glucose?

As tennisdude said - No, it doesn't.

FYI you don't actually need to synthesize much glucose from protein, depending on your dietary carbohydrate intake. No "low-carb" diet I've ever seen recommends "no-carb" (and I'd vehemently oppose any that did) so typically you're getting 30g at minimum. I tend to get anywhere from 40 to 75g most days, and have the rare 120-150g day when doing intense endurance exercise.

Once keto-adapted it's (basically) just the brain that needs some glucose, and only about 20g for the average person.

There are two reasons why a ketogenic diet is "moderate" protein. The first is to limit the possibility of gluconeogenesis (thus limiting circulating glucose) due to excess protein, the second is as a medical precaution to prevent the kidneys from working more than they need to.

All the evidence shows there's no risk of kidney damage to those with healthy kidney function, but not everybody gets regular checkups and blood tests to determine if they have normal kidney function, thus the second reason for recommending moderate protein.

[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 ?

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.

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.

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 ache