Define "healthy" food...
Options
Replies
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
unfortunately, OP has a job that requires work and stuff …
trying to read through the replies …
I agree with what you are saying..however, the coke is not "empty" you still get a benefit from the calories contained within, yes?
Healthy food and junk food have nothing to do with the calories or even the macro nutrients. It is all about micro nutrients only.
With the soda since it has no micro nutrients is consider junk food. Liquid candy was what it was called when I was a kid.
iron and zinc is not a micro??
what about potassium?
0.07mg of iron, 0.04mg of zinc and 11mg of potassium is a negligible amount of each substance and your body wouldn't even notice you drank this much of each.
The same amount of orange juice contains 10x as much iron, 4.75x as much zinc, and over 67x as much potassium as the cola. If you really think that's something worth arguing over, then you're arguing for the sake or arguing.
You should be trying to consume 3500mg of potassium or more. 11mg from 150 calories is not going to have an impact on your overall consumption.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
No, you didn't. The target is always moving and that is why you cant make this blanket statement. If I need those macros/micros that are in a donut to complete my diet, the donut is not unhealthy. If I however, have complete my macros/micros for the day/week/month, whatever your measure (another moving target) then ANYTHING I eat above that would be unhealthy by your definition. Genetics plays so much a larger role in health anyway. You can eat all the "healthy" food you want and I can eat donuts and if you are genetically predisposed to a health issue, you are more likely to be ill. I genuinely hate this argument. There are no unhealthy foods other than the ones that make you ill, like poison or allergy. And I still don't know what is an empty unit of heat is?????
Again, you're talking about your DIET, not an individual food. If we are talking about whether or not an individual food, as a singular item, can be considered healthy or not, then I did define what a "healthy" food is.
You're talking about diet, which is a completely different thing. If you don't NEED (really, how can you tell if you still need more riboflavin or not?) the micronutrients, then go ahead and eat the food. If you're craving it, then eat it. Does that make it any more or less healthy in the overall picture? No, it isn't necessarily any more healthy.
However, if you are comparing an peach to a bag of hard candies, and you ask "which one is healthier?" when directly comparing the two, without any outside variables or a "big picture" to look at, then the peach is clearly a "healthier" food because it has a significantly greater concentration and variety or micronutrients that simply do not exist in the hard candy.
Then there are no unhealthy foods. Only different foods. If donuts don't make me ill and are part of my diet, they are not unhealthy. If kale doesn't make me ill and is a part of my diet it isn't unhealthy. If I eat either of these to excess or to the exclusion of other nutrients, they would both be unhealthy. Therefore, there are no UNHEALTHY FOODS that are consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Period.0 -
What happened with the original question?? I'm lost0
-
chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
no, they are just foods with different calorie content, and micro breakdowns...
Different calorie content, yes, but that doesn't determine how healthy it is. Micro breakdown is completely different in that the Cola does not have any micro nutrients in it, and is therefore, as an individual food, unhealthy because it supplies no significant nutritional benefit to your body.
If you only ever ate food that consisted of purely protein, fat, and carbs, without any micronutrients whatsoever, you would die.
i don't think that is even possible….
Allow me to rephrase myself then:
"If you only ever ate food that consisted of purely protein, fat, and carbs, without a significant amount of micronutrient, you would die. i.e. coke, chips, candy, whey protein isolate, vegetable oil, etc."0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
unfortunately, OP has a job that requires work and stuff …
trying to read through the replies …
I agree with what you are saying..however, the coke is not "empty" you still get a benefit from the calories contained within, yes?
Healthy food and junk food have nothing to do with the calories or even the macro nutrients. It is all about micro nutrients only.
With the soda since it has no micro nutrients is consider junk food. Liquid candy was what it was called when I was a kid.
What's the line between healthy food and junk food? I mean, how many micronutrients does it need and in what percentages to be considered healthy? And is there anything between healthy and junk or are those the only two categories of food?
When talking about vitamins and minerals how can there be a in between. If I remember correctly it was like 10% of a vitamins makes that food healthy which I remember disagreeing with that in class.
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
no, they are just foods with different calorie content, and micro breakdowns...
Different calorie content, yes, but that doesn't determine how healthy it is. Micro breakdown is completely different in that the Cola does not have any micro nutrients in it, and is therefore, as an individual food, unhealthy because it supplies no significant nutritional benefit to your body.
If you only ever ate food that consisted of purely protein, fat, and carbs, without any micronutrients whatsoever, you would die.
i don't think that is even possible….
It's absolutely possible, it's actually how the term earned it's nicknake "rabbit starvation" A group of people ate nothing but rabbit for a while, they died due to protein poisoning (as described above) I could find a source if you wanted (or you could google) it's not very interesting though & just sad, they could have saved themselves the trouble with a miniscule amount of veggies.0 -
prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
No, you didn't. The target is always moving and that is why you cant make this blanket statement. If I need those macros/micros that are in a donut to complete my diet, the donut is not unhealthy. If I however, have complete my macros/micros for the day/week/month, whatever your measure (another moving target) then ANYTHING I eat above that would be unhealthy by your definition. Genetics plays so much a larger role in health anyway. You can eat all the "healthy" food you want and I can eat donuts and if you are genetically predisposed to a health issue, you are more likely to be ill. I genuinely hate this argument. There are no unhealthy foods other than the ones that make you ill, like poison or allergy. And I still don't know what is an empty unit of heat is?????
Again, you're talking about your DIET, not an individual food. If we are talking about whether or not an individual food, as a singular item, can be considered healthy or not, then I did define what a "healthy" food is.
You're talking about diet, which is a completely different thing. If you don't NEED (really, how can you tell if you still need more riboflavin or not?) the micronutrients, then go ahead and eat the food. If you're craving it, then eat it. Does that make it any more or less healthy in the overall picture? No, it isn't necessarily any more healthy.
However, if you are comparing an peach to a bag of hard candies, and you ask "which one is healthier?" when directly comparing the two, without any outside variables or a "big picture" to look at, then the peach is clearly a "healthier" food because it has a significantly greater concentration and variety or micronutrients that simply do not exist in the hard candy.
Then there are no unhealthy foods. Only different foods. If donuts don't make me ill and are part of my diet, they are not unhealthy. If kale doesn't make me ill and is a part of my diet it isn't unhealthy. If I eat either of these to excess or to the exclusion of other nutrients, they would both be unhealthy. Therefore, there are no UNHEALTHY FOODS that are consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Period.
Again, someone missed the point.
If you take DIET out of the question, and ONLY look at FOOD, then there is a separation between healthy and unhealthy food.
If you look at DIET and ALL FOOD TOGETHER, then it's a completely different scenario. What is healthy will depend on the exact situation you are in.
How many times have I repeated myself now?0 -
prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
No, you didn't. The target is always moving and that is why you cant make this blanket statement. If I need those macros/micros that are in a donut to complete my diet, the donut is not unhealthy. If I however, have complete my macros/micros for the day/week/month, whatever your measure (another moving target) then ANYTHING I eat above that would be unhealthy by your definition. Genetics plays so much a larger role in health anyway. You can eat all the "healthy" food you want and I can eat donuts and if you are genetically predisposed to a health issue, you are more likely to be ill. I genuinely hate this argument. There are no unhealthy foods other than the ones that make you ill, like poison or allergy. And I still don't know what is an empty unit of heat is?????
Again, you're talking about your DIET, not an individual food. If we are talking about whether or not an individual food, as a singular item, can be considered healthy or not, then I did define what a "healthy" food is.
You're talking about diet, which is a completely different thing. If you don't NEED (really, how can you tell if you still need more riboflavin or not?) the micronutrients, then go ahead and eat the food. If you're craving it, then eat it. Does that make it any more or less healthy in the overall picture? No, it isn't necessarily any more healthy.
However, if you are comparing an peach to a bag of hard candies, and you ask "which one is healthier?" when directly comparing the two, without any outside variables or a "big picture" to look at, then the peach is clearly a "healthier" food because it has a significantly greater concentration and variety or micronutrients that simply do not exist in the hard candy.
Then there are no unhealthy foods. Only different foods. If donuts don't make me ill and are part of my diet, they are not unhealthy. If kale doesn't make me ill and is a part of my diet it isn't unhealthy. If I eat either of these to excess or to the exclusion of other nutrients, they would both be unhealthy. Therefore, there are no UNHEALTHY FOODS that are consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Period.
And because you feel there are no unhealthy foods, does that mean there can't be healthy foods?0 -
chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
No, you didn't. The target is always moving and that is why you cant make this blanket statement. If I need those macros/micros that are in a donut to complete my diet, the donut is not unhealthy. If I however, have complete my macros/micros for the day/week/month, whatever your measure (another moving target) then ANYTHING I eat above that would be unhealthy by your definition. Genetics plays so much a larger role in health anyway. You can eat all the "healthy" food you want and I can eat donuts and if you are genetically predisposed to a health issue, you are more likely to be ill. I genuinely hate this argument. There are no unhealthy foods other than the ones that make you ill, like poison or allergy. And I still don't know what is an empty unit of heat is?????
Again, you're talking about your DIET, not an individual food. If we are talking about whether or not an individual food, as a singular item, can be considered healthy or not, then I did define what a "healthy" food is.
You're talking about diet, which is a completely different thing. If you don't NEED (really, how can you tell if you still need more riboflavin or not?) the micronutrients, then go ahead and eat the food. If you're craving it, then eat it. Does that make it any more or less healthy in the overall picture? No, it isn't necessarily any more healthy.
However, if you are comparing an peach to a bag of hard candies, and you ask "which one is healthier?" when directly comparing the two, without any outside variables or a "big picture" to look at, then the peach is clearly a "healthier" food because it has a significantly greater concentration and variety or micronutrients that simply do not exist in the hard candy.
Then there are no unhealthy foods. Only different foods. If donuts don't make me ill and are part of my diet, they are not unhealthy. If kale doesn't make me ill and is a part of my diet it isn't unhealthy. If I eat either of these to excess or to the exclusion of other nutrients, they would both be unhealthy. Therefore, there are no UNHEALTHY FOODS that are consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Period.
Again, someone missed the point.
If you take DIET out of the question, and ONLY look at FOOD, then there is a separation between healthy and unhealthy food.
If you look at DIET and ALL FOOD TOGETHER, then it's a completely different scenario. What is healthy will depend on the exact situation you are in.
How many times have I repeated myself now?
Weren't you talking about how only eating junk would cause you to die?0 -
chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
No, you didn't. The target is always moving and that is why you cant make this blanket statement. If I need those macros/micros that are in a donut to complete my diet, the donut is not unhealthy. If I however, have complete my macros/micros for the day/week/month, whatever your measure (another moving target) then ANYTHING I eat above that would be unhealthy by your definition. Genetics plays so much a larger role in health anyway. You can eat all the "healthy" food you want and I can eat donuts and if you are genetically predisposed to a health issue, you are more likely to be ill. I genuinely hate this argument. There are no unhealthy foods other than the ones that make you ill, like poison or allergy. And I still don't know what is an empty unit of heat is?????
Again, you're talking about your DIET, not an individual food. If we are talking about whether or not an individual food, as a singular item, can be considered healthy or not, then I did define what a "healthy" food is.
You're talking about diet, which is a completely different thing. If you don't NEED (really, how can you tell if you still need more riboflavin or not?) the micronutrients, then go ahead and eat the food. If you're craving it, then eat it. Does that make it any more or less healthy in the overall picture? No, it isn't necessarily any more healthy.
However, if you are comparing an peach to a bag of hard candies, and you ask "which one is healthier?" when directly comparing the two, without any outside variables or a "big picture" to look at, then the peach is clearly a "healthier" food because it has a significantly greater concentration and variety or micronutrients that simply do not exist in the hard candy.
Then there are no unhealthy foods. Only different foods. If donuts don't make me ill and are part of my diet, they are not unhealthy. If kale doesn't make me ill and is a part of my diet it isn't unhealthy. If I eat either of these to excess or to the exclusion of other nutrients, they would both be unhealthy. Therefore, there are no UNHEALTHY FOODS that are consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Period.
Again, someone missed the point.
If you take DIET out of the question, and ONLY look at FOOD, then there is a separation between healthy and unhealthy food.
If you look at DIET and ALL FOOD TOGETHER, then it's a completely different scenario. What is healthy will depend on the exact situation you are in.
How many times have I repeated myself now?
Weren't you talking about how only eating junk would cause you to die?
What's your point? You should try reading more.-2 -
chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
No, you didn't. The target is always moving and that is why you cant make this blanket statement. If I need those macros/micros that are in a donut to complete my diet, the donut is not unhealthy. If I however, have complete my macros/micros for the day/week/month, whatever your measure (another moving target) then ANYTHING I eat above that would be unhealthy by your definition. Genetics plays so much a larger role in health anyway. You can eat all the "healthy" food you want and I can eat donuts and if you are genetically predisposed to a health issue, you are more likely to be ill. I genuinely hate this argument. There are no unhealthy foods other than the ones that make you ill, like poison or allergy. And I still don't know what is an empty unit of heat is?????
Again, you're talking about your DIET, not an individual food. If we are talking about whether or not an individual food, as a singular item, can be considered healthy or not, then I did define what a "healthy" food is.
You're talking about diet, which is a completely different thing. If you don't NEED (really, how can you tell if you still need more riboflavin or not?) the micronutrients, then go ahead and eat the food. If you're craving it, then eat it. Does that make it any more or less healthy in the overall picture? No, it isn't necessarily any more healthy.
However, if you are comparing an peach to a bag of hard candies, and you ask "which one is healthier?" when directly comparing the two, without any outside variables or a "big picture" to look at, then the peach is clearly a "healthier" food because it has a significantly greater concentration and variety or micronutrients that simply do not exist in the hard candy.
Then there are no unhealthy foods. Only different foods. If donuts don't make me ill and are part of my diet, they are not unhealthy. If kale doesn't make me ill and is a part of my diet it isn't unhealthy. If I eat either of these to excess or to the exclusion of other nutrients, they would both be unhealthy. Therefore, there are no UNHEALTHY FOODS that are consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Period.
Again, someone missed the point.
If you take DIET out of the question, and ONLY look at FOOD, then there is a separation between healthy and unhealthy food.
If you look at DIET and ALL FOOD TOGETHER, then it's a completely different scenario. What is healthy will depend on the exact situation you are in.
How many times have I repeated myself now?
Weren't you talking about how only eating junk would cause you to die?
If "junk" is defined as a food containing negligible or no micro-nutrients then eating only 'junk' for a prolonged period of time would cause that person to develop nutritional deficiencies, and possibly die from the complications. So that's entirely possible.0 -
I can't wait to read all the comments and reserve the right to revise this answer when I do, but I mostly don't think in terms of "healthy food," but instead an overall healthy diet, which depends on personal goals and such, although of course there are some things that are common for everyone or most people.
At times I might use the term healthy food, but really that just means food that's either nutrient dense or helps me meet my goals (i.e., I'm looking for something healthy meaning "I'm looking for something with some protein"). People don't always talk that precisely, and I don't mean that anything else is actively unhealthy, even if it's not what I'm talking about.
I do think some foods are unhealthy in that they have negative effects on health that tend to outweigh whatever positives they do have. I have been convinced that artificial transfats are in that category, and am concerned enough about HFCS that I personally avoid it, although I don't preach that anyone else should. To the extent that people have negative reactions to food (either physical or psychological) I think it's reasonable to consider those foods unhealthy for them.0 -
No. What is missing is the fat. Rabbits are very lean. You need to reread your sources.chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
no, they are just foods with different calorie content, and micro breakdowns...
Different calorie content, yes, but that doesn't determine how healthy it is. Micro breakdown is completely different in that the Cola does not have any micro nutrients in it, and is therefore, as an individual food, unhealthy because it supplies no significant nutritional benefit to your body.
If you only ever ate food that consisted of purely protein, fat, and carbs, without any micronutrients whatsoever, you would die.
i don't think that is even possible….
It's absolutely possible, it's actually how the term earned it's nicknake "rabbit starvation" A group of people ate nothing but rabbit for a while, they died due to protein poisoning (as described above) I could find a source if you wanted (or you could google) it's not very interesting though & just sad, they could have saved themselves the trouble with a miniscule amount of veggies.
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
No, you didn't. The target is always moving and that is why you cant make this blanket statement. If I need those macros/micros that are in a donut to complete my diet, the donut is not unhealthy. If I however, have complete my macros/micros for the day/week/month, whatever your measure (another moving target) then ANYTHING I eat above that would be unhealthy by your definition. Genetics plays so much a larger role in health anyway. You can eat all the "healthy" food you want and I can eat donuts and if you are genetically predisposed to a health issue, you are more likely to be ill. I genuinely hate this argument. There are no unhealthy foods other than the ones that make you ill, like poison or allergy. And I still don't know what is an empty unit of heat is?????
Again, you're talking about your DIET, not an individual food. If we are talking about whether or not an individual food, as a singular item, can be considered healthy or not, then I did define what a "healthy" food is.
You're talking about diet, which is a completely different thing. If you don't NEED (really, how can you tell if you still need more riboflavin or not?) the micronutrients, then go ahead and eat the food. If you're craving it, then eat it. Does that make it any more or less healthy in the overall picture? No, it isn't necessarily any more healthy.
However, if you are comparing an peach to a bag of hard candies, and you ask "which one is healthier?" when directly comparing the two, without any outside variables or a "big picture" to look at, then the peach is clearly a "healthier" food because it has a significantly greater concentration and variety or micronutrients that simply do not exist in the hard candy.
Then there are no unhealthy foods. Only different foods. If donuts don't make me ill and are part of my diet, they are not unhealthy. If kale doesn't make me ill and is a part of my diet it isn't unhealthy. If I eat either of these to excess or to the exclusion of other nutrients, they would both be unhealthy. Therefore, there are no UNHEALTHY FOODS that are consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Period.
Again, someone missed the point.
If you take DIET out of the question, and ONLY look at FOOD, then there is a separation between healthy and unhealthy food.
If you look at DIET and ALL FOOD TOGETHER, then it's a completely different scenario. What is healthy will depend on the exact situation you are in.
How many times have I repeated myself now?
Weren't you talking about how only eating junk would cause you to die?
What's your point? You should try reading more.
So you can talk about diet but no one else can. Got it.0 -
No. What is missing is the fat. You need to reread your sources.chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
no, they are just foods with different calorie content, and micro breakdowns...
Different calorie content, yes, but that doesn't determine how healthy it is. Micro breakdown is completely different in that the Cola does not have any micro nutrients in it, and is therefore, as an individual food, unhealthy because it supplies no significant nutritional benefit to your body.
If you only ever ate food that consisted of purely protein, fat, and carbs, without any micronutrients whatsoever, you would die.
i don't think that is even possible….
It's absolutely possible, it's actually how the term earned it's nicknake "rabbit starvation" A group of people ate nothing but rabbit for a while, they died due to protein poisoning (as described above) I could find a source if you wanted (or you could google) it's not very interesting though & just sad, they could have saved themselves the trouble with a miniscule amount of veggies.
that would have only saved them the hunger, not the lack of micro-nutrition.0 -
Yes, but it's referencing diet and what people eat more than just one food, and she goes apeshit anytime someone else does.chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
No, you didn't. The target is always moving and that is why you cant make this blanket statement. If I need those macros/micros that are in a donut to complete my diet, the donut is not unhealthy. If I however, have complete my macros/micros for the day/week/month, whatever your measure (another moving target) then ANYTHING I eat above that would be unhealthy by your definition. Genetics plays so much a larger role in health anyway. You can eat all the "healthy" food you want and I can eat donuts and if you are genetically predisposed to a health issue, you are more likely to be ill. I genuinely hate this argument. There are no unhealthy foods other than the ones that make you ill, like poison or allergy. And I still don't know what is an empty unit of heat is?????
Again, you're talking about your DIET, not an individual food. If we are talking about whether or not an individual food, as a singular item, can be considered healthy or not, then I did define what a "healthy" food is.
You're talking about diet, which is a completely different thing. If you don't NEED (really, how can you tell if you still need more riboflavin or not?) the micronutrients, then go ahead and eat the food. If you're craving it, then eat it. Does that make it any more or less healthy in the overall picture? No, it isn't necessarily any more healthy.
However, if you are comparing an peach to a bag of hard candies, and you ask "which one is healthier?" when directly comparing the two, without any outside variables or a "big picture" to look at, then the peach is clearly a "healthier" food because it has a significantly greater concentration and variety or micronutrients that simply do not exist in the hard candy.
Then there are no unhealthy foods. Only different foods. If donuts don't make me ill and are part of my diet, they are not unhealthy. If kale doesn't make me ill and is a part of my diet it isn't unhealthy. If I eat either of these to excess or to the exclusion of other nutrients, they would both be unhealthy. Therefore, there are no UNHEALTHY FOODS that are consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Period.
Again, someone missed the point.
If you take DIET out of the question, and ONLY look at FOOD, then there is a separation between healthy and unhealthy food.
If you look at DIET and ALL FOOD TOGETHER, then it's a completely different scenario. What is healthy will depend on the exact situation you are in.
How many times have I repeated myself now?
Weren't you talking about how only eating junk would cause you to die?
If "junk" is defined as a food containing negligible or no micro-nutrients then eating only 'junk' for a prolonged period of time would cause that person to develop nutritional deficiencies, and possibly die from the complications. So that's entirely possible.
0 -
You gave YOUR definition of an empty calorie which isn't based on science, only opinion. You gave YOUR definition of healthy food, once again, not based on science, but opinion. And if you were referring to my reply I don't think I "agreed" with you. This is such a tiresome argument because it does confuse people who don't know any better. People will cut out entire food groups because someone on the internet said it was unhealthy. I see many, many more stories of success from people who eat what the love in moderation, than those who demonize certain foods as unhealthy. I actually think it is dangerous.chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
No, you didn't. The target is always moving and that is why you cant make this blanket statement. If I need those macros/micros that are in a donut to complete my diet, the donut is not unhealthy. If I however, have complete my macros/micros for the day/week/month, whatever your measure (another moving target) then ANYTHING I eat above that would be unhealthy by your definition. Genetics plays so much a larger role in health anyway. You can eat all the "healthy" food you want and I can eat donuts and if you are genetically predisposed to a health issue, you are more likely to be ill. I genuinely hate this argument. There are no unhealthy foods other than the ones that make you ill, like poison or allergy. And I still don't know what is an empty unit of heat is?????
Completely agree with this, a calorie is a unit of energy that a doughnut will give you a fair few of. I've always heard 'empty' calories used in term of someone on a calorie constricted diet usually meaning that their can't waste their calorie allowance on foods that aren't highly dense in nutrients (as they need to meet all their requirements with a limited number of calories) The more calorie allowance you have the more 'empty' calorie foods you'll be able to eat while still hitting your nutrient needs for everything else.
On an individual level there are certain health conditions that call for the restriction/increased intake of certain nutrients, but this has nothing to do with "what is healthy" it's all individual & relative.
Again, you've missed the point. Foods, on a singular level, when compared to other foods are more healthy than others.
When you take those foods and apply them to your individual diet, it becomes a lot more complex and when you need or desire will determine how healthy the food is for you.
I take it you didn't read my comments.. ok I said:
I did read your comments. I stated I defined what a healthy FOOD was, and that it's different from a healthy DIET. The reply to my post stated I was wrong, then went on and on about how a donut can be healthy in a diet, completely missing my point.
Then you chimed in and stated you agreed with the response and continued to go on the DIET debate, completely missing my point on FOOD =/= DIET.
I was replying to a comment that was (as you stated) talking about diet, and was agreeing with him in the terms he stated. I wasn't actually talking to you at all, or talking about his response to you in particular (which I also agree with, clearly) I wasn't talking about your point at all. Individual foods are either dense in nutrients or not, a fact which you clearly stated beforehand, that's not in question.
The OP and many responders to this thread asked "what is a healthy food." Therefore, I believe it is in question.
The problem is that everyone asked that question, then answered in terms of diet.
Seeing lots of people who answered in terms of individual food initially (including myself), and then just went on to discuss overall diet, which is the next natural step in a conversation about this subject. This is a thread, so it's a discussion that has evolved to this end. Not seeing a problem.
by-the-by "you stated this fact, that isn't in question" means I wasn't minimising your statement.
No hard feelings.
Lots of people (who have apparently abandoned this thread, I assume because they didn't like the response I gave them) asked me to define what an empty calorie is, so I did. People had also asked for the definition of a healthy food, so I tied the two together.
Then the user who replied to my statement made a blanket statement that I was wrong, then went on to talk about diets, and not singular foods, completely missing my point, as I said. I do agree with the fact that a donut is fine, and is not unhealthy for your diet, when the rest of your diet comprises of foods that do not consist of "empty calories." That's what the person replying to my message says, that's what you say, and I agree with it, but the blanket statement that I was wrong (which is odd, considering s/he agreed to the second half of my statement) is what I was arguing against.
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
No, you didn't. The target is always moving and that is why you cant make this blanket statement. If I need those macros/micros that are in a donut to complete my diet, the donut is not unhealthy. If I however, have complete my macros/micros for the day/week/month, whatever your measure (another moving target) then ANYTHING I eat above that would be unhealthy by your definition. Genetics plays so much a larger role in health anyway. You can eat all the "healthy" food you want and I can eat donuts and if you are genetically predisposed to a health issue, you are more likely to be ill. I genuinely hate this argument. There are no unhealthy foods other than the ones that make you ill, like poison or allergy. And I still don't know what is an empty unit of heat is?????
Again, you're talking about your DIET, not an individual food. If we are talking about whether or not an individual food, as a singular item, can be considered healthy or not, then I did define what a "healthy" food is.
You're talking about diet, which is a completely different thing. If you don't NEED (really, how can you tell if you still need more riboflavin or not?) the micronutrients, then go ahead and eat the food. If you're craving it, then eat it. Does that make it any more or less healthy in the overall picture? No, it isn't necessarily any more healthy.
However, if you are comparing an peach to a bag of hard candies, and you ask "which one is healthier?" when directly comparing the two, without any outside variables or a "big picture" to look at, then the peach is clearly a "healthier" food because it has a significantly greater concentration and variety or micronutrients that simply do not exist in the hard candy.
Then there are no unhealthy foods. Only different foods. If donuts don't make me ill and are part of my diet, they are not unhealthy. If kale doesn't make me ill and is a part of my diet it isn't unhealthy. If I eat either of these to excess or to the exclusion of other nutrients, they would both be unhealthy. Therefore, there are no UNHEALTHY FOODS that are consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Period.
Again, someone missed the point.
If you take DIET out of the question, and ONLY look at FOOD, then there is a separation between healthy and unhealthy food.
If you look at DIET and ALL FOOD TOGETHER, then it's a completely different scenario. What is healthy will depend on the exact situation you are in.
How many times have I repeated myself now?
Weren't you talking about how only eating junk would cause you to die?
What's your point? You should try reading more.
So you can talk about diet but no one else can. Got it.
I'm not going to argue against ignorance.
0 -
For me, it's simple. Healthy is relative to my personal goals and macro targets. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know why we always have to beat this to death.0
-
No. What is missing is the fat. You need to reread your sources.chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder 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…?
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.
I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.
Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time
no, they are just foods with different calorie content, and micro breakdowns...
Different calorie content, yes, but that doesn't determine how healthy it is. Micro breakdown is completely different in that the Cola does not have any micro nutrients in it, and is therefore, as an individual food, unhealthy because it supplies no significant nutritional benefit to your body.
If you only ever ate food that consisted of purely protein, fat, and carbs, without any micronutrients whatsoever, you would die.
i don't think that is even possible….
It's absolutely possible, it's actually how the term earned it's nicknake "rabbit starvation" A group of people ate nothing but rabbit for a while, they died due to protein poisoning (as described above) I could find a source if you wanted (or you could google) it's not very interesting though & just sad, they could have saved themselves the trouble with a miniscule amount of veggies.
that would have only saved them the hunger, not the lack of micro-nutrition.
One can last a lot longer without the micronutrition than the fat.
I'm not going to argue with you, you obviously are a First Nations expert or something. Good luck.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions