Define "healthy" food...

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

By definition of my nutrition book since I took a class at my college, healthy foods have more micro nutrients than the so call junk food "empty calories", foods with no micro nutrients, was what it was called in the book.

OK - so if I hit my macros/micors and calorie goals for the day, but I got 500-600 calories from ice cream and cookies is that then not healthy? Because empty calories??? (whatever those are)

This line alone shows just how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

Please feel free to enlighten us.

The point trying to be made is that you can only absorb so many micronutrients. If you eat a majority of nutrient dense food (or at least sufficient amounts), and fill the rest with pizza, chocolate, ice cream, or whatever, how is that bad.

*And keep in mind that this thread is being argued by people who eat a hell of a lot more than 1200 calories a day. It's hard to fit in treats when you only eat a little every day. When your goal is 2000 calories or even 3500 calories, you can easily work in more calorie dense food and still get proper nutrition.

"Empty calories (whatever that is)" was the line I was going at.

The credibility of the original post was lost when the OP admitted she doesn't know what an empty calorie is.

While I agree that there are a lot of foods which are less calorie dense but still satisfy hunger and there are foods with smaller nutritional value, it's all about what fits into your lifestyle and your goals ultimately.

However, I will say I find that certain foods - for me - make me feel better than others. Like pasta used to make me crash, which was because I was eating way too much of it. Once I learned how to portion properly I can eat it without crashing, but the actual amount I get is small compared to other less calorie dense foods. Also, foods with high fat content and certain raw vegetables I don't eat because I have IBS and it will irritate my body. It's all about what works for you - so if you are bulking, lets say, you can't get your results still eating the same basic foods someone who is looking for fat loss is . . .

The reality is that most people are looking to loss fat and very few, in comparison, are looking to bulk. With this in mind, those who are looking to lose fat often need the same quantity of food but with foods that provide them with a deficit in caloric intake. It's all about understanding what goes into your body and how to manage you daily allotment with all calorie-dense foods our bodies tend to crave.

goldthistime wrote: »

Okay, I will be the one to give you the definition you want to debate. I define healthy food as nutrient dense foods, with limited amounts of salt, sugar and fat. Meaning vegetables, lean meats, fruits and whole grains. I define junk as nutrient sparse food with lots of salt sugar or fat. Meaning chips, cheezies, candy, donuts, onion rings etc.

But nutrient sparse food can fit into a otherwise nutrient dense diet. And just because a diet is nutrient dense doesnt mean it will prevent weight gain/loss, or otherwise help you meet your fitness goals.

ndj1979 wrote: »

This has been coming up a lot lately, so I thought that I would combine it all into one thread so that we can have some fun and dig into this one. A lot of people say "I do not want to eat junk" OR "I only eat healthy food", which then naturally sparks the question what is "healthy" food.

My premise is that there is no "healthy" or "junk" food, there is just food that your body uses for energy, and that context of diet is what matters. Different combinations of foods will result in different results for each individuals diet.

None of this addresses micronutrient requirements and nutrient density.

A diet rich in processed/refined sugars, pre-packaged and prepared foods with large amounts of sodium, sugars and highly saturated fats and low in raw or lightly cooking vegetables, fruits, grains and lean proteins is unhealthy. Especially in the realm of micronutrients.

ndj1979 wrote: »

For the person that is concerned with strictly fast loss, then it may make sense to get more of their calories from less calorie dense foods like vegetables, and then mix in the ocassional ice cream, cookies, etc.

For the person that is trying to maintain weight and has more calories to play with, they may be able to have a daily serving, or more than one serving, of their favorite treat, and consume more calorie dense foods.

For the person that is bulking/adding weight, they may get 25%, or more, of their calories from calorie dense foods, like pizza, cookies, ice cream, etc, and may fill in as many as 500 calories, or more, to hit their goals.

The quality of your calories is as important as the quantity. It seems disingenuous and a little naive to believe otherwise.

You also use the term "occasional" (albeit spelled improperly) but if you're going to break down the definition of the word "healthy" then you have to do the same for "occasional". I have a friend that eats one serving of sweets once every two weeks. I have another that has 2-3 pieces of dark chocolate every night and a "cheat" day at the end of the week. Clearly they have different definitions of "occasional" and by the same measure different definitions of "healthy".

ndj1979 wrote: »

Is any one strategy more healthy than the other? IMO the answer is no. Vegetables are not more inherently healthy than ice cream.

So if I get 500 to 600 calories from ice cream and cookies to fill in my diet, does that make me less healthy than the person that is getting 75% of their calories from fish, rice, and vegetables?

At the end of the day there is no "healthy" food and a diet composed of 100% "clean" food is no more healthy then a diet composed of 25% ice cream, cookies, pizza, etc….

so feel free to disagree with me and give me a definition of "healthy"….

"Vegetables are not more inherently healthy than ice cream." <-- possible the dumbest thing I've read in a very long time.

I say again: quality and quantity are not equivalent.

Calcium, iron, Vitamins A, D, K, E, etc. are naturally occurring parts of nutrition in whole, unprocessed foods. You aren't going to find those quality micronutrients in pizza, ice cream, funnel cakes, candy bars, soda, etc. And, even if you do get some micronutrients in the ingredients used to make those foods, you will also get a huge dose of sodium (implicated in high blood pressure), saturated fats (implicated in cardiovascular diseases) and sugar (which has a whole slew of diet related health issues attributed with it).

A bonus: what sort of education or research do you have to assert this position? I'd love to know.

billieljaime wrote: »

a wise man once said is there really such thing as a bad hand job?

so really is there really such thing as bad food?
if it provides energy then it isnt that bad for you! Just count the calories and fill in the holes with "healthy" items the rest of the day..........

Yes, you want my ex gf's number?

my son's pediatrician says its the overall day/week/year that counts, not every individual component of every meal.

J72FIT wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

By definition of my nutrition book since I took a class at my college, healthy foods have more micro nutrients than the so call junk food "empty calories", foods with no micro nutrients, was what it was called in the book.

OK - so if I hit my macros/micors and calorie goals for the day, but I got 500-600 calories from ice cream and cookies is that then not healthy? Because empty calories??? (whatever those are)

This line alone shows just how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

Please feel free to enlighten us.

The point trying to be made is that you can only absorb so many micronutrients. If you eat a majority of nutrient dense food (or at least sufficient amounts), and fill the rest with pizza, chocolate, ice cream, or whatever, how is that bad.

*And keep in mind that this thread is being argued by people who eat a hell of a lot more than 1200 calories a day. It's hard to fit in treats when you only eat a little every day. When your goal is 2000 calories or even 3500 calories, you can easily work in more calorie dense food and still get proper nutrition.

"Empty calories (whatever that is)" was the line I was going at.

The credibility of the original post was lost when the OP admitted she doesn't know what an empty calorie is.

I think HE knows what is considered an "empty" calorie. I think HE was being sarcastic with the term...

Agreed. I'm pretty sure he knows what an "empty" calorie is. Drama, drama, drama...

avskk wrote: »

I define healthy food as food that fits within my calorie goals, helps me meet my macronutrient goals, and has a noticeable positive effect on my energy, mood, and physical sense of well-being. A LOT of things that most people consider junk fall comfortably within these metrics; on the other hand, focusing on this definition of health ensures that I eat well and support my health while I achieve my weight goals. It's the best of both worlds, because I get to eat what I like for the most part and I feel a lot better than I did a couple of years ago.

Pretty much all of this.

I don't really think in terms of "healthy" or "unhealthy" foods, because I think all food provides energy.

There are foods that make it easier for me to reach my macro's, and foods that make it slightly less easier. I prefer a combo of both. Sometimes I don't get the balance right. Sometimes I do.

Though I don't like donuts. *hangs head in shame*