Define "healthy" food...
Options
Replies
-
prattiger65 wrote: »Health food definition= refined sugar, saturated fat, salt etc. Healthy food examples: egg yolks, pizza, cake, bacon, chicharone, cheese, icecream, hot pockets, frozen burritos, all microwave foods, canned fruit in heavy syrup, heavy cream, white bread, cheesecake, cookies including cookie dough, brownies, candy, cake again, soda, alcohol, beer, BUTTER, icing, hot dogs, sausages, etc. This is foods that will get you health and strong! No need for exercise as these foods alone will get you RIPPED!
Are you saying you cant eat any of these foods and get "RIPPED" as you say? Are you saying someone who isn't "RIPPED" is not as healthy as someone who is? Do you believe everyone has the goal of getting "ripped"? Hard work is what gets anyone "RIPPED", diet plays a role, it doesn't make or break.prattiger65 wrote: »Health food definition= refined sugar, saturated fat, salt etc. Healthy food examples: egg yolks, pizza, cake, bacon, chicharone, cheese, icecream, hot pockets, frozen burritos, all microwave foods, canned fruit in heavy syrup, heavy cream, white bread, cheesecake, cookies including cookie dough, brownies, candy, cake again, soda, alcohol, beer, BUTTER, icing, hot dogs, sausages, etc. This is foods that will get you health and strong! No need for exercise as these foods alone will get you RIPPED!
Are you saying you cant eat any of these foods and get "RIPPED" as you say? Are you saying someone who isn't "RIPPED" is not as healthy as someone who is? Do you believe everyone has the goal of getting "ripped"? Hard work is what gets anyone "RIPPED", diet plays a role, it doesn't make or break.
I'm saying you MUST EAT ONLY THESE FOOD TO SURVIVE!0 -
Here's my current view, I'm open to other opinions;
I think it depends on context; i.e. the individual's overall diet, goals and macro/micro requirements. Without any context, just comparing two individual food items I think it's difficult to argue whether any food is inherently healthier than another. I think it's difficult to argue that any particular food item, on it's own is inherently unhealthy. I'm fairly sure they all get broken down into the same base components anyway.
HOWEVER.
Point a)
Some foods might be more likely to fit a random persons macros/micros than others.
E.g. Unless they need a pretty large calorie and fat intake, a deep fried donner kebab with mayo is unlikely to fit into most people's macros easily (I suspect - certainly wouldn't fit mine right now), whereas a similar amount of calories from 'healthy foods' (you know what I mean... veg, lean meat, grains etc.) would have macro ratios that would be more likely to fit more easily.
So I would be inclined to argue that, for the general population, with an average diet, a greasy takeaway kebab is less likely to fit an average person's requirements and could therefore be considered an 'unhealthy food' as it would have negative effects on their health.
If it does fit a persons macros/micros, and they are meeting all their requirements overall, then it is not an unhealthy food, for that individual... in the context of their overall diet, goals and requirements... It would not have any negative effects on their health.
Point b)
Some foods have more micro nutrient density than others, and without any other context, I would probably consider these foods better quality, i.e. healthier.
As soon as you add in context this can change very easily though.
0 -
allright..back to work ..I will check in during lunch to see where this has gone….
good debate!
keep it up!0 -
prattiger65 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?
Your condescending tone when challenged says something. Also, repeating something over and over doesn't make it truth.
I repeating myself because the people responding to my posts are completely missing the point. They're going on and on and on about diet, when one of the original question was about food, not diet.
I'm not saying they're wrong that a healthy diet is about moderation of all foods, but everyone is claiming that no one food is inherently unhealthy when compared to another, because of diet. That's where they are missing the point I've been making. Food =/= diet.
I'm not repeating myself to try to force that it's the truth, I'm repeating myself because no one on here seems capable of reading with a critical mind.0 -
you seem to understand the premise but are stuck on the fact that there is no hard definition of healthy, or clean, or even an empty calorie. these are all relative termschivalryder 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...
2 direct comparisons in front of you showing calorie vs micro count, you should be able to clearly state which is better for you. and short of some minor mental aspect that you could consider, the OJ wipes the table over coke any day
that is exactly my point..
there is just food that your body uses for energy ..combine them in certain ways, for certain goals…
if someone wants to drink a cola to get in their calories for the day then so be it…does not mean that one is better than another...
your still missing the micronutrient point. yes, if you have all micros in for a day then it makes no difference but how often does that ever happen without extreme planning and diligence to an very specific diet
well again, context of diet has to be considered? If you have hit micros and drink the coke then what is the issue?
no issue, but again how often does that ever really happen?
and also, thats why chivalryder tried to separate the food from the diet, attempting to get rid of that context needed. without doing that, this whole conversation is one giant circle jerk0 -
prattiger65 wrote: »Health food definition= refined sugar, saturated fat, salt etc. Healthy food examples: egg yolks, pizza, cake, bacon, chicharone, cheese, icecream, hot pockets, frozen burritos, all microwave foods, canned fruit in heavy syrup, heavy cream, white bread, cheesecake, cookies including cookie dough, brownies, candy, cake again, soda, alcohol, beer, BUTTER, icing, hot dogs, sausages, etc. This is foods that will get you health and strong! No need for exercise as these foods alone will get you RIPPED!
Are you saying you cant eat any of these foods and get "RIPPED" as you say? Are you saying someone who isn't "RIPPED" is not as healthy as someone who is? Do you believe everyone has the goal of getting "ripped"? Hard work is what gets anyone "RIPPED", diet plays a role, it doesn't make or break.prattiger65 wrote: »Health food definition= refined sugar, saturated fat, salt etc. Healthy food examples: egg yolks, pizza, cake, bacon, chicharone, cheese, icecream, hot pockets, frozen burritos, all microwave foods, canned fruit in heavy syrup, heavy cream, white bread, cheesecake, cookies including cookie dough, brownies, candy, cake again, soda, alcohol, beer, BUTTER, icing, hot dogs, sausages, etc. This is foods that will get you health and strong! No need for exercise as these foods alone will get you RIPPED!
Are you saying you cant eat any of these foods and get "RIPPED" as you say? Are you saying someone who isn't "RIPPED" is not as healthy as someone who is? Do you believe everyone has the goal of getting "ripped"? Hard work is what gets anyone "RIPPED", diet plays a role, it doesn't make or break.
I'm saying you MUST EAT ONLY FOOD TO SURVIVE!
I fixed that for you.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?
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.
that's wholy possible with ANY single food group- so it's a completely specious argument.
ANY food- no matter how "healthy" eaten as one's whole diet is completely bad.
If all you ate were veggies- guess what- you'd have problems.
if all you ate were sweet potatoes- guess what- you'd have problems.
If all you eat is meat- your' gonna have some problems.
So saying- well if you only eat twinkies you're going to die... is just a ridiculously absurd argument.
There's only two categories there though, food which falls into this "junk" category, and food which doesn't. Not talking actual food groups (grains, meats etc) If you were to neglect certain nutrients you risk developing a deficiency of them that's all. It wasn't an 'argument' it was just a direct answer to the above question. (junk is not a food group)
Anyway - out for now, evening shift.0 -
chivalryder 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.
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.
again - previous person said coke contains ZEERO micros, which is not correct...
I like to know where you find those micro nutrients numbers for coke? Are they on any coke nutrition facts? I have never seeing coke have any values of vitamins or minerals. Not a significant source of those vitamins =/= mean none which I will correct my statement. It still does not change the fact that coke is consider junk food.0 -
prattiger65 wrote: »Health food definition= refined sugar, saturated fat, salt etc. Healthy food examples: egg yolks, pizza, cake, bacon, chicharone, cheese, icecream, hot pockets, frozen burritos, all microwave foods, canned fruit in heavy syrup, heavy cream, white bread, cheesecake, cookies including cookie dough, brownies, candy, cake again, soda, alcohol, beer, BUTTER, icing, hot dogs, sausages, etc. This is foods that will get you health and strong! No need for exercise as these foods alone will get you RIPPED!
Are you saying you cant eat any of these foods and get "RIPPED" as you say? Are you saying someone who isn't "RIPPED" is not as healthy as someone who is? Do you believe everyone has the goal of getting "ripped"? Hard work is what gets anyone "RIPPED", diet plays a role, it doesn't make or break.prattiger65 wrote: »Health food definition= refined sugar, saturated fat, salt etc. Healthy food examples: egg yolks, pizza, cake, bacon, chicharone, cheese, icecream, hot pockets, frozen burritos, all microwave foods, canned fruit in heavy syrup, heavy cream, white bread, cheesecake, cookies including cookie dough, brownies, candy, cake again, soda, alcohol, beer, BUTTER, icing, hot dogs, sausages, etc. This is foods that will get you health and strong! No need for exercise as these foods alone will get you RIPPED!
Are you saying you cant eat any of these foods and get "RIPPED" as you say? Are you saying someone who isn't "RIPPED" is not as healthy as someone who is? Do you believe everyone has the goal of getting "ripped"? Hard work is what gets anyone "RIPPED", diet plays a role, it doesn't make or break.
I'm saying you MUST EAT ONLY THESE FOOD TO SURVIVE!
0 -
-
you seem to understand the premise but are stuck on the fact that there is no hard definition of healthy, or clean, or even an empty calorie. these are all relative termschivalryder 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...
2 direct comparisons in front of you showing calorie vs micro count, you should be able to clearly state which is better for you. and short of some minor mental aspect that you could consider, the OJ wipes the table over coke any day
that is exactly my point..
there is just food that your body uses for energy ..combine them in certain ways, for certain goals…
if someone wants to drink a cola to get in their calories for the day then so be it…does not mean that one is better than another...
your still missing the micronutrient point. yes, if you have all micros in for a day then it makes no difference but how often does that ever happen without extreme planning and diligence to an very specific diet
well again, context of diet has to be considered? If you have hit micros and drink the coke then what is the issue?
The issue is that the OP asked about healthy foods yet you are talking about a healthy diet. I get your point, but you are really mixing topics.0 -
LOL I've worked hard to get in the physical condition I'm in so no need to preach to me lol, and OBVIOUSLY THE MORE YOU EAT HEALTHY AND THE MORE YOU EXERCISE THE HEALTHIER YOU WILL BE. That's all I have to say! interpret it however you want.0
-
I agree with the posters saying that it's a personal preference.
I worry a lot about ingredients in food. A lot of processed food has ingredients that I'm not comfortable eating; artificial colors, a lot of chemical additives, gmo soy, refined sugar, saturated fat, stuff like that I would consider junk food.
If I got 'junk food' that wasn't full of ingredients that I consider bad, then I wouldn't feel bad about getting a certain amount of my daily calories from that. But even with 'healthy' junk food, I still look at how much protein, fiber, and vitamins I'm getting compared to sugar, simple carbs, sodium. And would feel better about eating foods with higher nutritional value, even if I already hit my nutrition needs for the day.
I am definitely someone who would consider some foods unhealthy based on the ingredients used. Some I even consider dangerous lol.0 -
you seem to understand the premise but are stuck on the fact that there is no hard definition of healthy, or clean, or even an empty calorie. these are all relative termschivalryder 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...
2 direct comparisons in front of you showing calorie vs micro count, you should be able to clearly state which is better for you. and short of some minor mental aspect that you could consider, the OJ wipes the table over coke any day
that is exactly my point..
there is just food that your body uses for energy ..combine them in certain ways, for certain goals…
if someone wants to drink a cola to get in their calories for the day then so be it…does not mean that one is better than another...
your still missing the micronutrient point. yes, if you have all micros in for a day then it makes no difference but how often does that ever happen without extreme planning and diligence to an very specific diet
well again, context of diet has to be considered? If you have hit micros and drink the coke then what is the issue?
If you go back to my original post, defining what an "empty calorie" is, and go to the first post I made after that, you will see I made two clear statements.
The first one, where the context of diet was NOT considered, therefore claiming that OJ is indeed healthier than Cola.
The second on where the context of diet WAS considered, therefore claiming that, if the diet as a whole contains plenty of what would be considered "healthy" food, if the diet was not taken into account, then the cola would be a healthy food to eat, should you need or desire the sugar contained within the beverage.0 -
.0
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »chivalryder 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.
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.
again - previous person said coke contains ZEERO micros, which is not correct...
I like to know where you find those micro nutrients numbers for coke? Are they on any coke nutrition facts? I have never seeing coke have any values of vitamins or minerals. Not a significant source of those vitamins =/= mean none which I will correct my statement. It still does not change the fact that coke is consider junk food.
USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Basic Report: 14148, Carbonated beverage, cola0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
you seem to understand the premise but are stuck on the fact that there is no hard definition of healthy, or clean, or even an empty calorie. these are all relative termschivalryder 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...
2 direct comparisons in front of you showing calorie vs micro count, you should be able to clearly state which is better for you. and short of some minor mental aspect that you could consider, the OJ wipes the table over coke any day
that is exactly my point..
there is just food that your body uses for energy ..combine them in certain ways, for certain goals…
if someone wants to drink a cola to get in their calories for the day then so be it…does not mean that one is better than another...
your still missing the micronutrient point. yes, if you have all micros in for a day then it makes no difference but how often does that ever happen without extreme planning and diligence to an very specific diet
well again, context of diet has to be considered? If you have hit micros and drink the coke then what is the issue?
The issue is that the OP asked about healthy foods yet you are talking about a healthy diet. I get your point, but you are really mixing topics.
This.0 -
I agree with the posters saying that it's a personal preference.
I worry a lot about ingredients in food. A lot of processed food has ingredients that I'm not comfortable eating; artificial colors, a lot of chemical additives, gmo soy, refined sugar, saturated fat, stuff like that I would consider junk food.
If I got 'junk food' that wasn't full of ingredients that I consider bad, then I wouldn't feel bad about getting a certain amount of my daily calories from that. But even with 'healthy' junk food, I still look at how much protein, fiber, and vitamins I'm getting compared to sugar, simple carbs, sodium. And would feel better about eating foods with higher nutritional value, even if I already hit my nutrition needs for the day.
I am definitely someone who would consider some foods unhealthy based on the ingredients used. Some I even consider dangerous lol.chivalryder wrote: »
you seem to understand the premise but are stuck on the fact that there is no hard definition of healthy, or clean, or even an empty calorie. these are all relative termschivalryder 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...
2 direct comparisons in front of you showing calorie vs micro count, you should be able to clearly state which is better for you. and short of some minor mental aspect that you could consider, the OJ wipes the table over coke any day
that is exactly my point..
there is just food that your body uses for energy ..combine them in certain ways, for certain goals…
if someone wants to drink a cola to get in their calories for the day then so be it…does not mean that one is better than another...
your still missing the micronutrient point. yes, if you have all micros in for a day then it makes no difference but how often does that ever happen without extreme planning and diligence to an very specific diet
well again, context of diet has to be considered? If you have hit micros and drink the coke then what is the issue?
If you go back to my original post, defining what an "empty calorie" is, and go to the first post I made after that, you will see I made two clear statements.
The first one, where the context of diet was NOT considered, therefore claiming that OJ is indeed healthier than Cola.
The second on where the context of diet WAS considered, therefore claiming that, if the diet as a whole contains plenty of what would be considered "healthy" food, if the diet was not taken into account, then the cola would be a healthy food to eat, should you need or desire the sugar contained within the beverage.Need2Exerc1se wrote: ».Need2Exerc1se wrote: ».
0 -
Orange juice is not one bit healthier than Cola. Is that clear cut enough. Repeating someone else's opinion doesn't make it fact, in fact, it makes your argument weaker. I can drop some Alan Aragon and Bret Contraras quotes that dispute your opinion. You keep telling people that they have a reading problem, it seems you have a problem understanding correlation. No food can singularly be called healthy or unhealthy outside of the diet it is a part of. Your argument is void otherwise.0
-
I agree with the posters saying that it's a personal preference.
I worry a lot about ingredients in food. A lot of processed food has ingredients that I'm not comfortable eating; artificial colors, a lot of chemical additives, gmo soy, refined sugar, saturated fat, stuff like that I would consider junk food.
If I got 'junk food' that wasn't full of ingredients that I consider bad, then I wouldn't feel bad about getting a certain amount of my daily calories from that. But even with 'healthy' junk food, I still look at how much protein, fiber, and vitamins I'm getting compared to sugar, simple carbs, sodium. And would feel better about eating foods with higher nutritional value, even if I already hit my nutrition needs for the day.
I am definitely someone who would consider some foods unhealthy based on the ingredients used. Some I even consider dangerous lol.
I agree with this and I try to do the same. When I go to the store I pretty much perimeter shop and only go down other aisles if I need certain things -- coffee, tea, olive oil etc.
What I consider "unhealthy" someone else might not and vice versa.
I'm just blown away by the amount of people who actually care.
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