Define "healthy" food...
Options
Replies
-
TheVirgoddess wrote: »colejkeene 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.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".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.
Okay, I'll bite.
What constitutes an unhealthy person? Weight? A medical condition? High blood pressure? Blood work?
I'm genuinely curious. If we have a definition of healthy vs unhealthy foods, we must also have one for healthy vs unhealthy people.
I feel like this gets a little more difficult and takes a lot more factors into consideration like genetics, broken or disfigured body parts, medical conditions that influence requirements for a variety of parts of nutrition.
In this context I would say "healthy" is an average human body, that is capable of a full range of motion, that requires the recommended amounts of macro and micronutrients on a daily basis.
I mean, a person with a broken leg, that cannot exercise, is going to require a different amount of calories than a person working on 45-60 minutes 4-5 days a week.
It's difficult though. Each body is different, and medical conditions play a huge role.
0 -
martyqueen52 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder 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.
for the record I am a male…
please feel free to explain what an empty calorie is..? I assume a calorie with zero units of energy…?
People with no to little knowledge about nutrition, or die hard Keto / paleo / "clean" eaters refer to pizza, chips, cookies, ice cream, cake, pop-tarts, etc. as empty calories claiming they give the body no real energy or benefit of nutrition consumption, which is total horse-*kitten*.
Ate pop-tarts last night before I hit 661 on my DL and 544 on my squat. Guess they were empty calories?
we all know that throwing out squat numbers means nothing to clean eaters. That's like saying you can't do math because the color purple.
that being said- nice job on both lifts.0 -
I think healthy and unhealthy foods have nothing to do with calories. It's the composition of the food that matters.
I would say ice cream is definitely less healthy than a carrot - not because ice cream has more calories, but because its composition is inferior ... no vitamins, minerals, ...the kind of stuff your body depends on0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
So you would consider avocado or nuts "healthy food"? Both are high in fat.
Clearly, those are only considered healthy foods by the devil...
I wasn't trying to be flip, just drawing attention to how hard it can be to define "healthy food".0 -
I regret responding to this thread. Holy notifications!0
-
a calorie accompanied by little/no micro nutrient profile. which was said in the first replychivalryder wrote: »OP: Are you asking people to define a healthy food or a healthy diet? The title says healthy food, you say healthy food, but the entire thread is talking about a healthy diet. There is a difference. Which is the subject on hand?
i am still waiting for your definition of what an empty calorie is….
0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »colejkeene wrote: »colejkeene 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.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".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.
That's going to depend on the context of what the rest of your diet consists of. If I eat 2000 calories a day, and I have already eaten 1800 calories of nutrient dense food and hit my daily values for all my micronutrients, eating more of those aren't going to benefit me. You excrete what you can't absorb; you don't get bonus points for being "extra healthy". In that context, why is it healthier to eat veggies over ice cream?
This is not about eating ice cream and nothing else. It's trying to figure out why moderate amounts of calorie dense foods are demonized and considered "junk" food.
On the other hand, does eating foods with little to no nutrient density do your body any favors?
I'm not saying that I don't have some of these foods once in a while, but I find, personally, that steering clear of what is traditionally called "junk food" I tend to feel better, sleep better, work out better. I don't have sugar highs, I don't suffer from caffeine withdrawals, etc.
I'm down over 100 pounds and it was the reduction and elimination of the "junk foods" that got me there. Anecdotal, but true.
Additionally, the research I've done, working toward my RD, has led me to believe that high calorie, low nutrient dense foods have an overall negative effect on health and wellness.
I don't know. I think mental health and sticking to my diet (as in way of eating) is important.
Once you've hit your macro/micro goals, you don't get extra credit. So eating some "junk" isn't going to hurt.
It makes me happier to be able to eat ice cream or chocolate instead of thinking I can never or rarely ever eat it again --> good mental health.
It also makes me more likely to stick to my diet and finish losing this weight. If I feel deprived all the time, I'm just going to give up.
So, yes, eating a little bit of junk food is healthy for me.
^This.0 -
Was my response too good or too bland to deserve a response?0
-
I suddenly remember why I quit posting on the MFP forums, lol.
0 -
imho, there is no "bad" food, just bad eating decisions - like eating an entire bag of chips or box of Twinkies in one sitting. Chips and Twinkies aren't bad by definition; Eating the entire bag is. Of course, this also applies to eating the entire bag of those "healthy" nuts.0
-
a calorie accompanied by little/no micro nutrient profile. which was said in the first replychivalryder wrote: »OP: Are you asking people to define a healthy food or a healthy diet? The title says healthy food, you say healthy food, but the entire thread is talking about a healthy diet. There is a difference. Which is the subject on hand?
i am still waiting for your definition of what an empty calorie is….
exactly
0 -
Even though I don't believe in food being "junk", it would be silly to claim that lard is just as healthy as spinach. There are various degree of healthy.
A simple tests would be "if I ate just this one single food and nothing else, how long before I start getting deficiencies and how many deficiencies would I get?" The food that would create the least deficiencies would be the healthiest. In other words, healthy foods are nutrient rich per a reasonable serving - I'm not going to eat 5 pounds of honey a day to get the benefit of trace vitamins.
That said, I tend not to focus on individual foods. A more accurate comparison would be looking at the whole diet. A person who eats a variety of nutrients from a variety of foods, including ice cream and all the other "evil" foods", would be healthier than someone who eats a limited variety of "healthy" foods that does not satisfy the needs of their body.0 -
I personally believe there is such a thing as "better" food than others - only because the food in question is more efficient in terms of having a denser macro + micro nutrient value. As for 'healthier' that is a matter of overall diet & individual circumstance/conditions.0
-
colejkeene wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »colejkeene 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.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".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.
Okay, I'll bite.
What constitutes an unhealthy person? Weight? A medical condition? High blood pressure? Blood work?
I'm genuinely curious. If we have a definition of healthy vs unhealthy foods, we must also have one for healthy vs unhealthy people.
I feel like this gets a little more difficult and takes a lot more factors into consideration like genetics, broken or disfigured body parts, medical conditions that influence requirements for a variety of parts of nutrition.
In this context I would say "healthy" is an average human body, that is capable of a full range of motion, that requires the recommended amounts of macro and micronutrients on a daily basis.
I mean, a person with a broken leg, that cannot exercise, is going to require a different amount of calories than a person working on 45-60 minutes 4-5 days a week.
It's difficult though. Each body is different, and medical conditions play a huge role.
So if a person's diet is unhealthy, does it then follow that they will be unhealthy?
0 -
A calorie is a calorie!! I'm coming to the conclusion that know one is arsed what is healthy anymore!! and if i say healthy, calorie, or anything of the sort if front of my bf once more, he's gonna leave!! or ram a pizza down my throat!!
Just eat within your goals and enjoy!! simples 
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Even though I don't believe in food being "junk", it would be silly to claim that lard is just as healthy as spinach. There are various degree of healthy.
A simple tests would be "if I ate just this one single food and nothing else, how long before I start getting deficiencies and how many deficiencies would I get?" The food that would create the least deficiencies would be the healthiest. In other words, healthy foods are nutrient rich per a reasonable serving - I'm not going to eat 5 pounds of honey a day to get the benefit of trace vitamins.
That said, I tend not to focus on individual foods. A more accurate comparison would be looking at the whole diet. A person who eats a variety of nutrients from a variety of foods, including ice cream and all the other "evil" foods", would be healthier than someone who eats a limited variety of "healthy" foods that does not satisfy the needs of their body.
I agree with this whole post.
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder 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.
for the record I am a male…
please feel free to explain what an empty calorie is..? I assume a calorie with zero units of energy…?
No. An empty calorie is where you eat or drink a substance that has little to no nutritional value on a micronutrient level.
Take 12 fl oz of Cola vs freshly squeezed Orange Juice for example. The orange juice contains 41mg of calcium, 0.74 mg of iron, 41mg of magnesium, 63mg of phosphorus, 744mg of potassium, 4mg of sodium, 0.19mg of zinc, 186mg of Vitamin C, 0.335mg of Thiamin, 0.112mg of Riboflavin, 1.488mg of Niacin, 0.149mg of Vitamin B-6, 112 ug of Folate, 37ug of Vitamin A, RAE, 744IU of Vitamin A, IU, 0.15mg of Vitamin E, and 0.4 ug of Vitamin K. That's all in 328 total calories.
The Cola, on the other hand, contains 7 mg of Calcium, 0.07 mg of Iron, 41 mg of Phosphorus, 11mg of Potassium, 15mg of Sodium, 0.04 mg of Zinc, and absolutely nothing else. From 12 fl oz, that is basically nothing, for 152 calories. These are called empty calories. Calories you consume that have minimal nutritional significance, beyond the macro level.0 -
I have a history of EDNOS, and for me food falls into two categories: triggering foods and everything else. The list of triggering foods contains what would be labelled as 'junk' and also unexpected items like cereal, potatoes, crackers, (cow) cheese, etc.... Everyone forms some sort of food dichotomy, but is it really conducive to long term health and fitness goals?
Is it not more likely that you would adhere to your long term fitness goals and have better mental health allowing yourself to have the occasional ice cream, crackers, candy, or whatever? Or does having overly restrictive eating patterns? (see orthorexia, another component of my illness).
I submit that 'healthy' foods should be defined as those that allow you to: (i) meet your macro and micro nutrient minimums, (ii) stay within your calorie goal, and (iii) maintain mental health. The latter is achieved by not becoming overly restrictive or fearful of food.0 -
Junk food has little or no nutritional value, which is what I would consider "empty calories".
And yes, one can eat pizza and ice cream but I think the issue is that's what many people ate when they gained their weight. Not everyone can eat those things in moderation. For some people it's a trigger to overeat therefore those foods, to them, are defined as "junk" or "bad".0 -
melimomTARDIS wrote: »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.
Agreed!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions