Define "healthy" food...

Proven Fact:soda cause kidney problems and other health issues so how can anyone say that they are healthy while consuming carbonate drinks which comes from Co2? Poison to your body. LOL

BayBanana wrote: »

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.

That's a good point, actually. I don't tend to eat many processed foods (just out of habit/preference), so I hadn't even considered things like additives that could be harmful.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

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.

Yeah these are two topics all mushed into one... But I'll bite.

1)
Healthy foods: Meats, vegetables, fruits, breads, nuts, dairy.

Junk food: Chips, candy, soda, cookies, donuts, etc.

2)
Now, are they bad? NO. Will I stop eating them? NO. Do I make it fit into my day? HELL YEAH.

That is all. :drinker:

prattiger65 wrote: »

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.

Without talking about diet, or any outside considerations or variables, explain to me how cola is just as healthy, good for you, as nutritional as, and/or consisting of equal or better macro and micronutrients, when compared directly to orange juice, using factual information, at least one criditable source to back up your claim.

ETA: forgot to mention orange juice.

yopeeps025 wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

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

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

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

Please feel free to enlighten us.

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

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

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

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

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.

and OP was never seen again

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.

How is that 10% determined? What I mean by that is: does it have to have 10% of any one given micro? Or do the micros have to add up to 10%? Or what?

And what I mean by an "in between" is that foods are either healthy or junk and that's all there is? There are no neutral foods? Foods that aren't so bad but maybe don't fit into the category of health foods? Anything at all that doesn't reach 10% of vitamins is junk food? That seems unfair.

Lasmartchika wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

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.

Yeah these are two topics all mushed into one... But I'll bite.

1)
Healthy foods: Meats, vegetables, fruits, breads, nuts, dairy.

Junk food: Chips, candy, soda, cookies, donuts, etc.

2)
Now, are they bad? NO. Will I stop eating them? NO. Do I make it fit into my day? HELL YEAH.

That is all. :drinker:

Bread is not healthy in terms of ingredients

diannethegeek wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

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

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

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

Please feel free to enlighten us.

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

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

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

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

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.

and OP was never seen again

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.

How is that 10% determined? What I mean by that is: does it have to have 10% of any one given micro? Or do the micros have to add up to 10%? Or what?

And what I mean by an "in between" is that foods are either healthy or junk and that's all there is? There are no neutral foods? Foods that aren't so bad but maybe don't fit into the category of health foods? Anything at all that doesn't reach 10% of vitamins is junk food? That seems unfair.

I don't know about the 10% thing. Never heard of it before. However, when comparing "junk" to "healthy" as we've been putting it, it's not always a clear cut image. I used cola and orange juice because they're two similar things (soft drinks), but are vastly different in terms of nutritional content.

If you were comparing, say, a premade chicken burger patty and beef patty, both frozen in a box, then it's really a judgement call. There is a lot of grey area in all of this.

IMO (and yes, this is purely my opinion, I'm not going to argue it) I see individual foods like this:

Natural/raw -> home cooked -> factory made, but natural ingredients -> factory made, natural ingredients with chemical additives -> made in a chemical factory

Listed, in Healthiest -> least healthy

I aim for healthier foods, but my actual diet consists of foods from all across the spectrum. This is how I live my life. Your mileage may vary.

BigT555 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

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

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

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

Please feel free to enlighten us.

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

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

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

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

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.

and OP was never seen again

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...

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 terms

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 a very specific diet

This is interesting, and I wonder if it's the crux of the disagreement, or one of them. You seem to be suggesting that because it is very hard to meet all your micro requirements that it is important to maximize them and choose only nutrient dense foods (and presumably choose very carefully).

I didn't follow the Coke vs. orange juice bit, but I personally would consider orange juice not particularly healthy (not particularly unhealthy either, but I don't drink it, and also don't drink Coke, of course, because to me it is less nutritious and more of a calorie bomb than, say, an orange, with no countervailing virtues). If I loved it, I'd probably feel differently (I like it, but like oranges better and various other fruits still better), but then if I really loved Coke I might think it was important to fit into my diet too (although I can't imagine).

However, I guess if you think life is a constant fight to get in adequate micronutrients you might think juice is really healthy and important and be one of those people who juices rather than eating actual fruits and veggies and all that. (Or maybe not--just going from the comment.)

My thoughts are different. It seems to me that humans are pretty darn resilient in environments where food is far more scarce than here. I mean, just imagining the situation of my ancestors a few generations back who were essentially farming and homesteading in climates like that I now live in, and had far less access to fruits and veggies in the winter seems significant. So on the whole I think that if one makes a reasonable effort to get a good variety of nutrient dense foods, such as vegetables, fruits, etc., as well as a good mix of macros, one probably does not have to worry so much about micros, even if one does have a piece of pie on occasion (which typically is not without micros anyway).

To me, the health value of foods is a continuum, not an on/off. If the consumption of a food has been consistently associated with positive health outcomes(i.e. lower incidence of disease and lower all-cause mortality) across several well controlled studies with high N values and low P values, I would consider it "healthy". Foods that are rich in compounds associated with longevity and lower all-cause mortality are probably also healthy (I consider them to be), but because there are so many synergistic compounds that are not yet understood (the carotenoid group for example), I am not confident that enrichment is equivalent to natural levels, which are found within the the context of multiple compounds with potentially synergistic effects.

I realize correlation is not proof of causation, but in the absence of any better explanation for a persistent, reproducible and dose dependent result, I think it can be considered to be evidence thereof.

Foods which have been associated with negative health outcomes (or contain compounds that have been), would be less healthy in my opinion. This doesn't mean they can't be part of an overall healthy diet, in moderation, but I think they could be considered to be suboptimal in terms of health value, ceteris paribus.

Of course there will always be exceptions (the studies don't show perfect correlation), but I think if there is a statistically and clinically significant correlation over large and diverse groups, over long periods of time, that is strong evidence that some foods are, in fact, healthier than others for most human beings, most of the time.

There may be one optimal diet for humans, but if there is, we haven't found it (as far as I know). I think we can use what we do know, though, to improve our health through our food choices.