Define "healthy" food...
Options
Replies
-
Hey, lemurcat. This runaway thread is too hard to follow to find your response, but thank you. My particular argument, now well-buried, was around complex carbohydrates being "healthier" than simple ones. Our national health boards recommend eating more of them. So I'm ready to back complex carbohydrates as being better for us than their simpler cousins. The oatmeal cookie is better than the Twinkie, all other things being equal.
And my particular annoyance is with the OP, who zipped right past my response (too busy working apparently) in favour of flaming other responses.
OP, if you plan on kicking the hornet's nest, do it on your free time, eh?
So now OPs are required to respond to every comment in threads?
Man, the rules for proper forumming are getting way too complicated for me to follow.
Meanwhile, did you also believe these same national health boards when they were preaching (and continue to preach) the benefits of low fat?0 -
chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
No, for 99.9% of the population, it doesn't matter. For the 0.1% of the population (or less) that is seriously training to compete at an elite level of athletic competition, then yes, it would matter.tiffaniedemayo wrote: »I have to agree with "Goldthistime": I define healthy food as nutrient dense foods, with limited amounts of salt, sugar and fat. Meaning vegetables, lean meats, fruits and whole grains. I define junk as nutrient sparse food with lots of salt sugar or fat. Meaning chips, cheezies, candy, donuts, onion rings etc.
ok - so here is the question ...if you had a diet containing both and hit your goals does that mean that buy eating chips, cheezies, or whatever combination thereof then makes your day "unhealthy"?
I don't believe anyone here fits into the latter.
No one?yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »The problem is that health and nutrition cannot be considered or discussed in a vacuum...context and dosage are incredibly important to the discussion. As individual food items are concerned, I do think there are obviously "healthier" choices and lesser choices and I do think that getting overall proper nutrition is very important to one's overall health...but I also think that some Doritos can easily fit into an overall balanced and overwhelmingly "healthful" diet without consequence.
That to me seems to be where people get so hung up...it's like they think if they have a soda that somehow negates the 6-8 servings of vegetables they had earlier or something. Context and dosage, context and dosage....
I am with you wolf man..
like I pointed out in my original OP ..if I hit my calorie/micro/macro goal for the day but within that day I had about 400-500 calories of ice cream cookies, etc, does that mean it was unhealthy?? No, it just means that I used those foods to round out my day ...
ice cream has some micro nutrients. Cookies umm I have to see the labels.
but if you already hit the micros what difference does it make???
I would be surprised if people really hit all there micro nutrients alot. If you did and you still had calories to spare I guess why not eat something with little to no nutrients in it.
Ummm multi vitamin?
Lets not go there, please. Multi-Vitamins are recently controversial on how effective they are, compared to actual food. They also don't supply you will all the micro nutrients you need. They're designed to supplement a well balanced diet, not to fix it.
Oh you mean that study that was done where the people that ran the study stated that the results were not valid due to the fact that the subject didn't even follow the plan. That study?
Does it matter? We're talking about food, and it should be a known fact that multi-vitamins are supplements, not a replacement, and that no generic mix-up of various micro nutrients are going to give you exactly what you need. Multi vitamins are a completely different subject.
Yes it matters. You made a claim that multi vitamins have been proven to blah blah blah. I pointed out the study you're quoting. Is it not that one? Did you have another one to show us? No one is saying to purely rely on a vitamin. Don't turn our back and forth into an all or nothing debate. I don't argue in extremes. I argue in moderation. Just like I eat.
Fair enough. I don't know enough about mutli vitmains to make a worth while debate on it, and I don't have enough interest in them to do the research so I can debate them, therefore, I'm not going to talk about them. I made a statement about them from something I heard somewhere, some time. I didn't do my research on the subject and with that, I will withdraw my statement.
That being said, multi-vitamins should be left to another thread. It's not on-topic for this thread.0 -
Please, no logic. That does not belong in this thread.Not sure who is worse or more annoying the hysterical "sugar is the devil" crowd or the "ermagerd processed, chemicalz, toxins" in the food hypochondriacs.
But there are ingredients we use in the U.S. that are banned in other countries because they've been proven harmful. Does it really make someone a hypochondriac to say 'I don't want to eat that' or 'that is an unhealthy food' simply because it contains known carcinogens, or other toxic chemicals (or ermagerd chemicalz). I don't think it's bad to have a healthy fear of unnatural things in food.
This is not sarcasm or whatever you want to call it but whI have ingredients is it you're speaking of. That's a real question. Don't worry I still have plenty of time to be sarcastic and condescending in other posts. But not this one. So please tell me which toxic chemicals those are.
BVO is linked to growth defects and hearing loss and is in a lot of citrus flavored soda. That's the first that comes to mind. I would consider that to be toxic.
I realize there are 'toxic' substances in all food. Even natural food, even water. But there are some that I personally would consider more dangerous than others. I still don't think that avoiding something even the FDA (which I have very little faith in) claims can be hazardous, makes me a hypochondriac.
Got any more?
How many need to be listed before it's socially acceptable to worry about what's in your food? How many are ok? Does it just have to do with how they affect you? I kind of feel like not having deformed babies is important. Call me crazy
There were babies born deformed hundreds of years ago also, explain that??
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »The problem is that health and nutrition cannot be considered or discussed in a vacuum...context and dosage are incredibly important to the discussion. As individual food items are concerned, I do think there are obviously "healthier" choices and lesser choices and I do think that getting overall proper nutrition is very important to one's overall health...but I also think that some Doritos can easily fit into an overall balanced and overwhelmingly "healthful" diet without consequence.
That to me seems to be where people get so hung up...it's like they think if they have a soda that somehow negates the 6-8 servings of vegetables they had earlier or something. Context and dosage, context and dosage....
I am with you wolf man..
like I pointed out in my original OP ..if I hit my calorie/micro/macro goal for the day but within that day I had about 400-500 calories of ice cream cookies, etc, does that mean it was unhealthy?? No, it just means that I used those foods to round out my day ...
ice cream has some micro nutrients. Cookies umm I have to see the labels.
but if you already hit the micros what difference does it make???
I would be surprised if people really hit all there micro nutrients alot. If you did and you still had calories to spare I guess why not eat something with little to no nutrients in it.
I actually do much of the time.
The only one I am sometimes short on is iron (being a vegetarian it's more common)- but I do not have an iron deficiency so I am not too concerned.
How much riboflavin did you consume yesterday?0 -
Hey, lemurcat. This runaway thread is too hard to follow to find your response, but thank you. My particular argument, now well-buried, was around complex carbohydrates being "healthier" than simple ones. Our national health boards recommend eating more of them. So I'm ready to back complex carbohydrates as being better for us than their simpler cousins. The oatmeal cookie is better than the Twinkie, all other things being equal.
And my particular annoyance is with the OP, who zipped right past my response (too busy working apparently) in favour of flaming other responses.
OP, if you plan on kicking the hornet's nest, do it on your free time, eh?
They don't believe national health boards because the government lies.
They don't believe doctors because doctors aren't smart.
They don't believe organizations like the Heart Association because that stuff only applies if you already have a problem.
They believe people who google because that is science and researching...unless the people who google disagree with them, in which case it is a "My link is better than your link" issue.
0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »Not sure who is worse or more annoying the hysterical "sugar is the devil" crowd or the "ermagerd processed, chemicalz, toxins" in the food hypochondriacs.
But there are ingredients we use in the U.S. that are banned in other countries because they've been proven harmful. Does it really make someone a hypochondriac to say 'I don't want to eat that' or 'that is an unhealthy food' simply because it contains known carcinogens, or other toxic chemicals (or ermagerd chemicalz). I don't think it's bad to have a healthy fear of unnatural things in food.
The problem when this is discussed here is that you will now get the "EVERYTHING HAS CHEMICALS!" people who proceed to show you what, exactly is in a blueberry and how "you can't pronounce it so it's bad for you!" It's nit-picky really when you think about it. I personally stay away from things like Red Dye #5, BPA, rBGH/rBST and the like but that's just me and it in no way makes me a "food hypochondriac".
How is Red Dye #5 bad for you?
Because it contains known carcinogens. Red Dye #3 has been acknowledged by the FDA to be a carcinogen but it's still in foods
What is Red Dye #5?. I google's it and honestly could not find it.
I think she meant #3. She might have made a mistake by stating #5.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/30/science/fda-limits-red-dye-no-3.html
I don't know if it's actually bad or not but that's one thing that came up via google0 -
Speaking of dietary fat, I'm out to have a delicious Chipotle steak bowl with sour cream, cheese, and guacamole...(and yes, Chipotle burrito-maker, I know that the guacamole costs extra).0
-
Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.0 -
Not sure who is worse or more annoying the hysterical "sugar is the devil" crowd or the "ermagerd processed, chemicalz, toxins" in the food hypochondriacs.
But there are ingredients we use in the U.S. that are banned in other countries because they've been proven harmful. Does it really make someone a hypochondriac to say 'I don't want to eat that' or 'that is an unhealthy food' simply because it contains known carcinogens, or other toxic chemicals (or ermagerd chemicalz). I don't think it's bad to have a healthy fear of unnatural things in food.
This is not sarcasm or whatever you want to call it but whI have ingredients is it you're speaking of. That's a real question. Don't worry I still have plenty of time to be sarcastic and condescending in other posts. But not this one. So please tell me which toxic chemicals those are.
BVO is linked to growth defects and hearing loss and is in a lot of citrus flavored soda. That's the first that comes to mind. I would consider that to be toxic.
I realize there are 'toxic' substances in all food. Even natural food, even water. But there are some that I personally would consider more dangerous than others. I still don't think that avoiding something even the FDA (which I have very little faith in) claims can be hazardous, makes me a hypochondriac.
Got any more?
How many need to be listed before it's socially acceptable to worry about what's in your food? How many are ok? Does it just have to do with how they affect you? I kind of feel like not having deformed babies is important. Call me crazy
There were babies born deformed hundreds of years ago also, explain that??
What? Your question makes it sound like I said all deformities are linked to food. I was referencing a post I already made about BOV being linked to hearing loss and birth defects.0 -
http://dynamicduotraining.com/ask-the-experts-round-table-discussions/15-nutrition-myths-you-want-to-knowallow-the-experts-to-tell/
Apologies for the copy pasta:
Eric Helms-
The Myth of “Good” and “Bad” Foods
I think one of the most pervasive, and possibly detrimental mind sets is that of seeing foods as either “good” or “bad”. This is a rather seductive way of looking at foods because it is simplistic. Look at a food, identify it as friend or foe, and then go with the “good” option not the “bad” option and you’ll be healthy, fit, lean and sexy! It’s that easy! But of course, that’s not the case.
One of the problems with this mindset is that it fits perfectly into the behavioral paradigm that leads to obesity in the first place; the all or nothing mindset. One thing I find to be a commonality among folks who struggle with weight gain and permanent weight loss, is that they lose the middle ground. They bounce between being “on the diet” and falling off the band wagon and lapsing into cycles of overeating. We have no problem losing weight, we have trouble keeping the weight off. We crash diet and lose 20-30lbs in a few months, and then it all comes back on when we can’t maintain the crash diet approach.
All or nothing Black and white mindsets ignore the concepts of magnitude and frequency which are all important when it comes to long term change. Of course 1g of sugar eaten every 2 weeks will not have the same effect as 100g of sugar eaten daily, but we love to label sugar as “bad”. Even water consumed in massive excess can lead to hyponatremia and death. Sugar is not good or bad, and neither is water, they just are what they are and without attention to magnitude or frequency, labels like “good” or “bad” are misleading.
We tend to be overly reductionist in our approach to nutrition. Originally, we believed fat was the singular cause of the obesity epidemic. When the low fat craze had no impact on preventing the worsening of the obesity epidemic, we went the way of the low carb craze, and folks started consuming fat with abandon. When this didn’t turn the trend of waist expansion around, we decided that it’s not just fat or carbs, the causes are specific types of carbs and fat; specifically sugar, high fructose corn syrup and trans fat are the culprits!
The need to blame singular nutrients highlights the all or nothing, black or white attitude that is in and of itself one of the roots of unhealthy eating behavior and consequently obesity. Again, it comes down to seeking balance. The concept of balance in nutrition is inclusive of the concepts of magnitude and frequency that are needed for long term lifestyle change. Balance recognizes that it is not the small piece of chocolate that you had that wasn’t on your diet plan that was the problem, it was the carton of ice cream you had afterward!
The meal plan foods are “good”, and a piece of chocolate is “bad” and once you’d crossed over from “good” to “bad”, you said: “Screw it! I already blew it, I might as well just have cookie dough ice cream until I puke!” That is the all too common result of the all or nothing mindset in action. On the other hand, a balanced approach realizes that a small piece of chocolate is only ~100 calories, and will make a minuscule difference in terms of weight loss over time. In fact, a balanced meal plan might even allow for a daily range of calories, so that the following day could be reduced by 100 calories. Even more shockingly, a balanced meal plan might even include a piece of chocolate (blasphemy I know)!
There are truly VERY few foods that are actively bad for you. Most of the foods that we identify as “bad”, are simply low or devoid of micro-nutrients, minerals, fiber and other things like phytochemicals and protein that can be beneficial for you. These foods only become a problem when they occur frequently and with enough magnitude (frequency and magnitude!) to replace a significant enough portion of your diet that you become deficient in beneficial nutrients.
Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! It’s not as though we have a health food critic living in our esophagus that has a control box that he switches from “get leaner and healthier” to “get fatter and unhealthier” every time he spots “good” or “bad” food. Thus, a healthy diet should be inclusionary vs. exclusionary; focused around including healthy foods, not excluding “unhealthy” foods. Meet your nutrient needs, and feel free to eat things that you may have traditionally seen as “bad” in moderation; so that you are still meeting your allotted caloric intake for your weight loss goals. Don’t make the mistake of looking at foods as “good” or “bad!” Good diets can include “bad” foods and bad diets can include “good” foods. Don’t get too caught up with what you have for lunch, because it is not a singular choice that will determine the success of your health and fitness goals, it is the balanced lifestyle you commit to long term!
This!! ^^^
the only problem with this is interpretation. people use this as an excuse to eat a bowl of ice cream everyday (not that there is anything inherently wrong with that) when they have deficiencies in other areas, because MA ACE CREME! how much is too much is what it comes down to, and no one really knows, so why not minimize the stuff that has less of a micro profile as much as possible?
Why are you making assumptions as to what other people do? I think it's more likely that people who have deficiencies aren't thoughtfully justifying it, as with the article quoted, but simply don't care much. People know if they are eating an overall nutritious diet or an overall deficient diet, most likely. I've never known anyone who survived mostly on Whoppers, fries, Coke, and candy bars or the like who really thought they were eating well.
But back in the fall I ate pretty much as I currently am (which I consider pretty healthy), and yet added in a half cup of ice cream most nights. Part of that was that I like it, part of it was getting used to having more calories again and that I personally see no great benefit to adding in another piece of bread or some such (when I had plenty of fiber) vs some ice cream. But also for many people it might make their overall diet more pleasurable (because of the overall mix) and thus more sustainable--they feel like they can eat in a healthy fashion without cutting out anything they love or without deprivation vs. thinking that if I want a bit more something before bed my only choice is to roast a sweet potato or (as that's not maximum nutrient density, depending on how defined) eat some more broccoli (which is a really hard way to get 200 more calories, too).0 -
The overall diet is composed of all the individual food choices. Since the individual food choices make up the diet, attention to them is obviously important.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »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.
I am the OP and I said define healthy, but I also said that you have to take into consideration context of overall diet...
at least, I am pretty sure that is what I said..
I meant 'original post' more than 'original poster'. The subject is "Define 'healthy' food". In the original post it says "which then naturally sparks the question what is "healthy" food." then you go on to tell us your opinion.
yes, and I clearly said in my first post that context of diet matters....
And some disagree. Context matters when discussing a healthy diet. For many 'healthy food' implies a discussion of individual foods, not diet.
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
The food has no context.
If you're trying to decide whether or not you should eat something, then you might want to consider your overall diet and your overall health in that decision-making process. However, your overall diet will not make that particular thing any better or worse for you. If you have eaten nothing but Twinkies for six months, that doesn't make the asparagus any healthier. If you have eaten nothing but asparagus for six months, that doesn't make the Twinkie any healthier. The asparagus and the Twinkie are still just asparagus and Twinkies. They have no context.
This concept of "Food is different depending on context" is just strange.
Not surprising you find such an elementary concept strange.
I am sure you get a lot of PM from her. I used to myself because I would always call her out on her doctor comment. You know what happen. She stopped saying go see a doctor as much. Kind of like how I used to use t-nation a lot on here.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »Not sure who is worse or more annoying the hysterical "sugar is the devil" crowd or the "ermagerd processed, chemicalz, toxins" in the food hypochondriacs.
But there are ingredients we use in the U.S. that are banned in other countries because they've been proven harmful. Does it really make someone a hypochondriac to say 'I don't want to eat that' or 'that is an unhealthy food' simply because it contains known carcinogens, or other toxic chemicals (or ermagerd chemicalz). I don't think it's bad to have a healthy fear of unnatural things in food.
The problem when this is discussed here is that you will now get the "EVERYTHING HAS CHEMICALS!" people who proceed to show you what, exactly is in a blueberry and how "you can't pronounce it so it's bad for you!" It's nit-picky really when you think about it. I personally stay away from things like Red Dye #5, BPA, rBGH/rBST and the like but that's just me and it in no way makes me a "food hypochondriac".
How is Red Dye #5 bad for you?
Because it contains known carcinogens. Red Dye #3 has been acknowledged by the FDA to be a carcinogen but it's still in foods
What is Red Dye #5?. I google's it and honestly could not find it.
I think she meant #3. She might have made a mistake by stating #5.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/30/science/fda-limits-red-dye-no-3.html
I don't know if it's actually bad or not but that's one thing that came up via google
If #1 and #2 are fine and #3 is being limited, then obviously #5 would be much worse.
Just to be safe, I'm going to avoid consuming any red #5.
0 -
Please, no logic. That does not belong in this thread.Not sure who is worse or more annoying the hysterical "sugar is the devil" crowd or the "ermagerd processed, chemicalz, toxins" in the food hypochondriacs.
But there are ingredients we use in the U.S. that are banned in other countries because they've been proven harmful. Does it really make someone a hypochondriac to say 'I don't want to eat that' or 'that is an unhealthy food' simply because it contains known carcinogens, or other toxic chemicals (or ermagerd chemicalz). I don't think it's bad to have a healthy fear of unnatural things in food.
This is not sarcasm or whatever you want to call it but whI have ingredients is it you're speaking of. That's a real question. Don't worry I still have plenty of time to be sarcastic and condescending in other posts. But not this one. So please tell me which toxic chemicals those are.
BVO is linked to growth defects and hearing loss and is in a lot of citrus flavored soda. That's the first that comes to mind. I would consider that to be toxic.
I realize there are 'toxic' substances in all food. Even natural food, even water. But there are some that I personally would consider more dangerous than others. I still don't think that avoiding something even the FDA (which I have very little faith in) claims can be hazardous, makes me a hypochondriac.
Got any more?
How many need to be listed before it's socially acceptable to worry about what's in your food? How many are ok? Does it just have to do with how they affect you? I kind of feel like not having deformed babies is important. Call me crazy
There were babies born deformed hundreds of years ago also, explain that??
that is one of my most FAVORITE arguments about pre-natals ever.
I simple cannot understand how we as a species survived without all this extra flourish- I hate when people bring up babies.
Come off it- women were dropping babies between sprints way back when.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Two pages left...
...and I still don't know if we get extra credit for exceeding any of our micronutrient requirements.
Water soluble micro nutrients no.
For fat soluble micro nutrients it can become dangerous.
So more micronutrients isn't always a good thing then?
Or in other words, sometimes more micronutrients aren't inherently healthier? And may actually be unhealthy?
Selenium is water soluble.
Selenium is a micronutrient.
Selenium in excess is not a good idea.
Balance and context, in all things.
Was just about to post this. Plus, selenium is toxic in pretty small doses.
0 -
The overall diet is composed of all the individual food choices. Since the individual food choices make up the diet, attention to them is obviously important.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »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.
I am the OP and I said define healthy, but I also said that you have to take into consideration context of overall diet...
at least, I am pretty sure that is what I said..
I meant 'original post' more than 'original poster'. The subject is "Define 'healthy' food". In the original post it says "which then naturally sparks the question what is "healthy" food." then you go on to tell us your opinion.
yes, and I clearly said in my first post that context of diet matters....
And some disagree. Context matters when discussing a healthy diet. For many 'healthy food' implies a discussion of individual foods, not diet.
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
The food has no context.
If you're trying to decide whether or not you should eat something, then you might want to consider your overall diet and your overall health in that decision-making process. However, your overall diet will not make that particular thing any better or worse for you. If you have eaten nothing but Twinkies for six months, that doesn't make the asparagus any healthier. If you have eaten nothing but asparagus for six months, that doesn't make the Twinkie any healthier. The asparagus and the Twinkie are still just asparagus and Twinkies. They have no context.
This concept of "Food is different depending on context" is just strange.
My mother is allergic to mushrooms. In this context, are mushrooms healthy or unhealthy?
My mother is allergic to wine. In this context, is wine healthy or unhealthy?
My mother is allergic to cheese. In this context, is cheese healthy or unhealthy?
My mother has to avoid yeast for her autoimmune disease. In this context, is yeast healthy or unhealthy?
Of course food has a context. It doesn't sit in a vacuum until it goes bad, but rather it interacts with the other foods being eaten and the person doing the eating.
0 -
You got one, which asked that you stop replying to every single post of mine with nastiness and that maybe we could just agree to disagree without clogging up the forums with nastiness. I suggested that you could send the nastiness to me via PM instead of putting it on the boards, because it wouldn't bother me at all and nobody else would have to read it. When you explained that you felt it was "important" to "call people out" on the Internet, I wished you well.yopeeps025 wrote: »
The overall diet is composed of all the individual food choices. Since the individual food choices make up the diet, attention to them is obviously important.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »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.
I am the OP and I said define healthy, but I also said that you have to take into consideration context of overall diet...
at least, I am pretty sure that is what I said..
I meant 'original post' more than 'original poster'. The subject is "Define 'healthy' food". In the original post it says "which then naturally sparks the question what is "healthy" food." then you go on to tell us your opinion.
yes, and I clearly said in my first post that context of diet matters....
And some disagree. Context matters when discussing a healthy diet. For many 'healthy food' implies a discussion of individual foods, not diet.
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
The food has no context.
If you're trying to decide whether or not you should eat something, then you might want to consider your overall diet and your overall health in that decision-making process. However, your overall diet will not make that particular thing any better or worse for you. If you have eaten nothing but Twinkies for six months, that doesn't make the asparagus any healthier. If you have eaten nothing but asparagus for six months, that doesn't make the Twinkie any healthier. The asparagus and the Twinkie are still just asparagus and Twinkies. They have no context.
This concept of "Food is different depending on context" is just strange.
Not surprising you find such an elementary concept strange.
I am sure you get a lot of PM from her. I used to myself because I would always call her out on her doctor comment. You know what happen. She stopped saying go see a doctor as much. Kind of like how I used to use t-nation a lot on here.
You never got "a lot" and they weren't mean at all, but intended to create some peace.
MrM will not be receiving any PMs from me and if she/he says that I sent one, it won't be true.
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Speaking of dietary fat, I'm out to have a delicious Chipotle steak bowl with sour cream, cheese, and guacamole...(and yes, Chipotle burrito-maker, I know that the guacamole costs extra).
Be warned; there may be extra guacamole there...
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »http://dynamicduotraining.com/ask-the-experts-round-table-discussions/15-nutrition-myths-you-want-to-knowallow-the-experts-to-tell/
Apologies for the copy pasta:
Eric Helms-
The Myth of “Good” and “Bad” Foods
I think one of the most pervasive, and possibly detrimental mind sets is that of seeing foods as either “good” or “bad”. This is a rather seductive way of looking at foods because it is simplistic. Look at a food, identify it as friend or foe, and then go with the “good” option not the “bad” option and you’ll be healthy, fit, lean and sexy! It’s that easy! But of course, that’s not the case.
One of the problems with this mindset is that it fits perfectly into the behavioral paradigm that leads to obesity in the first place; the all or nothing mindset. One thing I find to be a commonality among folks who struggle with weight gain and permanent weight loss, is that they lose the middle ground. They bounce between being “on the diet” and falling off the band wagon and lapsing into cycles of overeating. We have no problem losing weight, we have trouble keeping the weight off. We crash diet and lose 20-30lbs in a few months, and then it all comes back on when we can’t maintain the crash diet approach.
All or nothing Black and white mindsets ignore the concepts of magnitude and frequency which are all important when it comes to long term change. Of course 1g of sugar eaten every 2 weeks will not have the same effect as 100g of sugar eaten daily, but we love to label sugar as “bad”. Even water consumed in massive excess can lead to hyponatremia and death. Sugar is not good or bad, and neither is water, they just are what they are and without attention to magnitude or frequency, labels like “good” or “bad” are misleading.
We tend to be overly reductionist in our approach to nutrition. Originally, we believed fat was the singular cause of the obesity epidemic. When the low fat craze had no impact on preventing the worsening of the obesity epidemic, we went the way of the low carb craze, and folks started consuming fat with abandon. When this didn’t turn the trend of waist expansion around, we decided that it’s not just fat or carbs, the causes are specific types of carbs and fat; specifically sugar, high fructose corn syrup and trans fat are the culprits!
The need to blame singular nutrients highlights the all or nothing, black or white attitude that is in and of itself one of the roots of unhealthy eating behavior and consequently obesity. Again, it comes down to seeking balance. The concept of balance in nutrition is inclusive of the concepts of magnitude and frequency that are needed for long term lifestyle change. Balance recognizes that it is not the small piece of chocolate that you had that wasn’t on your diet plan that was the problem, it was the carton of ice cream you had afterward!
The meal plan foods are “good”, and a piece of chocolate is “bad” and once you’d crossed over from “good” to “bad”, you said: “Screw it! I already blew it, I might as well just have cookie dough ice cream until I puke!” That is the all too common result of the all or nothing mindset in action. On the other hand, a balanced approach realizes that a small piece of chocolate is only ~100 calories, and will make a minuscule difference in terms of weight loss over time. In fact, a balanced meal plan might even allow for a daily range of calories, so that the following day could be reduced by 100 calories. Even more shockingly, a balanced meal plan might even include a piece of chocolate (blasphemy I know)!
There are truly VERY few foods that are actively bad for you. Most of the foods that we identify as “bad”, are simply low or devoid of micro-nutrients, minerals, fiber and other things like phytochemicals and protein that can be beneficial for you. These foods only become a problem when they occur frequently and with enough magnitude (frequency and magnitude!) to replace a significant enough portion of your diet that you become deficient in beneficial nutrients.
Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! It’s not as though we have a health food critic living in our esophagus that has a control box that he switches from “get leaner and healthier” to “get fatter and unhealthier” every time he spots “good” or “bad” food. Thus, a healthy diet should be inclusionary vs. exclusionary; focused around including healthy foods, not excluding “unhealthy” foods. Meet your nutrient needs, and feel free to eat things that you may have traditionally seen as “bad” in moderation; so that you are still meeting your allotted caloric intake for your weight loss goals. Don’t make the mistake of looking at foods as “good” or “bad!” Good diets can include “bad” foods and bad diets can include “good” foods. Don’t get too caught up with what you have for lunch, because it is not a singular choice that will determine the success of your health and fitness goals, it is the balanced lifestyle you commit to long term!
This!! ^^^
the only problem with this is interpretation. people use this as an excuse to eat a bowl of ice cream everyday (not that there is anything inherently wrong with that) when they have deficiencies in other areas, because MA ACE CREME! how much is too much is what it comes down to, and no one really knows, so why not minimize the stuff that has less of a micro profile as much as possible?
Why are you making assumptions as to what other people do? I think it's more likely that people who have deficiencies aren't thoughtfully justifying it, as with the article quoted, but simply don't care much. People know if they are eating an overall nutritious diet or an overall deficient diet, most likely. I've never known anyone who survived mostly on Whoppers, fries, Coke, and candy bars or the like who really thought they were eating well.
But back in the fall I ate pretty much as I currently am (which I consider pretty healthy), and yet added in a half cup of ice cream most nights. Part of that was that I like it, part of it was getting used to having more calories again and that I personally see no great benefit to adding in another piece of bread or some such (when I had plenty of fiber) vs some ice cream. But also for many people it might make their overall diet more pleasurable (because of the overall mix) and thus more sustainable--they feel like they can eat in a healthy fashion without cutting out anything they love or without deprivation vs. thinking that if I want a bit more something before bed my only choice is to roast a sweet potato or (as that's not maximum nutrient density, depending on how defined) eat some more broccoli (which is a really hard way to get 200 more calories, too).
im not making assumptions, its a fact. i dont mean it insultingly, most people (including myself) dont care enough to pay that close of attention to their diet. Im referring to people specifically on this site, they use the iffym approach to justify eating crap. after hitting protein and fat goals some people think they can eat a bag of doritos just because they need to carb up, when in reality they are still short on vitamin C or something else essential. they dont even do it consciously, because the attitude on these forums is wayyy too geared toward eat what you want within your macros
ETA; reading back now i suppose its more of a lack of knowledge than abuse of the premise, but the end result is the same0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »Not sure who is worse or more annoying the hysterical "sugar is the devil" crowd or the "ermagerd processed, chemicalz, toxins" in the food hypochondriacs.
But there are ingredients we use in the U.S. that are banned in other countries because they've been proven harmful. Does it really make someone a hypochondriac to say 'I don't want to eat that' or 'that is an unhealthy food' simply because it contains known carcinogens, or other toxic chemicals (or ermagerd chemicalz). I don't think it's bad to have a healthy fear of unnatural things in food.
The problem when this is discussed here is that you will now get the "EVERYTHING HAS CHEMICALS!" people who proceed to show you what, exactly is in a blueberry and how "you can't pronounce it so it's bad for you!" It's nit-picky really when you think about it. I personally stay away from things like Red Dye #5, BPA, rBGH/rBST and the like but that's just me and it in no way makes me a "food hypochondriac".
How is Red Dye #5 bad for you?
Because it contains known carcinogens. Red Dye #3 has been acknowledged by the FDA to be a carcinogen but it's still in foods
An apple contains arsenic - it is a know carcinogen - are you telling me an apple is bad?
Since I don't eat apple seeds and one would have to consume them in such a large quantity to actually die from it I'm not too concerned about apples. Since dyes are in pretty much everything packaged I'm more concerned about that.
But how much would you need to have a lethal dose?? context matters here.
And was used in the example of apples. Not sure why it is relevant for one thing and not another.
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
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions