Define "healthy" food...
Options
Replies
-
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
So if it's bad for us why hasn't the FDA banned it?
Because the FDA is a sham and health related issues like food should be run by the cdc? I don't know.
But it's banned in other countries, along with other artificial dyes like yellow 6 that are also known carcinogens. You can google it. Today most artificial colors are also made from coal tar. Yum!
Can you direct me to where I can find out about Red Dye #5, I am having problems finding it. And yes, I tried to google it.
Also, I am pretty sure that most artificial colors are not made from coal tar.
I never mentioned red dye 5, but agreed with someone about artificial colors being unhealthy.
And npr.org came up first when I googled 'what are artificial colors made of' “Artificial food dyes are made from petroleum and approved for use by the FDA to enhance the color of processed foods.” http://www.npr.org/2011/03/30/134962888/fda-probes-link-between-food-dyes-kids-behavior
At the end they talk about how labeling in Europe requires a warning label on foods that contain artificial dyes.
But everyone considers different things healthy. That's what I was saying in my first post on this thread. I won't eat foods depending on what's in them and I will consider a lot of stuff unhealthy. But other people might be comfortable with it, and that's fine.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »This has been coming up a lot lately, so I thought that I would combine it all into one thread so that we can have some fun and dig into this one. A lot of people say "I do not want to eat junk" OR "I only eat healthy food", which then naturally sparks the question what is "healthy" food.
My premise is that there is no "healthy" or "junk" food, there is just food that your body uses for energy, and that context of diet is what matters. Different combinations of foods will result in different results for each individuals diet.
For the person that is concerned with strictly fast loss, then it may make sense to get more of their calories from less calorie dense foods like vegetables, and then mix in the ocassional ice cream, cookies, etc.
For the person that is trying to maintain weight and has more calories to play with, they may be able to have a daily serving, or more than one serving, of their favorite treat, and consume more calorie dense foods.
For the person that is bulking/adding weight, they may get 25%, or more, of their calories from calorie dense foods, like pizza, cookies, ice cream, etc, and may fill in as many as 500 calories, or more, to hit their goals.
Is any one strategy more healthy than the other? IMO the answer is no. Vegetables are not more inherently healthy than ice cream.
So if I get 500 to 600 calories from ice cream and cookies to fill in my diet, does that make me less healthy than the person that is getting 75% of their calories from fish, rice, and vegetables?
At the end of the day there is no "healthy" food and a diet composed of 100% "clean" food is no more healthy then a diet composed of 25% ice cream, cookies, pizza, etc….
so feel free to disagree with me and give me a definition of "healthy"….
If you meant to include micronutrients, I don't really see how you meant to include it. Unless you forgot to include entire paragraphs? If that is the case, then you might want to actually put those in because it's the cause of most of the pages in this thread.
Where does he talk only about macros?
I read it as taking the whole diet into context. Which includes Macros and Micros.
I said he doesn't consider the micronutrient factor. Which he doesn't mention and he admits at not including in this original post
i meant to mention micros in OP but did not , so slight over sight on my part...0 -
healthy is a state of being so food can only be healthful that's my Nerd-o definition plus it really annoys people at dinner parties when you correct them0
-
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.
Nope. She doesn't PM me. She ignores my posts but she reads them and I know they get to her so I still address her because I don't need a reply from her. Knowing she rolls her eyes or sucks her teeth or whatever she does is enough for me.
Like she said I called her out every time for that "go see a doctor" comment if I felt like there was no need to in a sense waste your money even if you pay a little copay. It is still a waste of money to go see a doctor sometimes if you do not need to and you might take the place of someone who does need to see the doctor that day.-1 -
KombuchaCat wrote: »For me it means nutrient dense whole and unprocessed.
So you're picking your own food?
If not, then you're relying on processing. Sorry.0 -
KombuchaCat wrote: »For me it means nutrient dense whole and unprocessed.
So you're picking your own food?
If not, then you're relying on processing. Sorry.
You did not check out their fresh veggie garden they got.
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.
In all sincerity, most of us take the advice of national health boards, doctors, and organizations like the Heart Association with a bucket load of salt because they are usually a good decade at least behind current research. That's not a huge deal in areas where there aren't many new discoveries, but in more fast-moving fields it's a problem.
Plus, if you had any idea what a medical center's stats look like for errors with prescriptions (wrong drug or dosage prescribed), diagnoses, procedures, etc ... Let's just say you'd see the sense in making doubly sure your doctor's recommendations pass the sniff test.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.
Whether or not a food is healthy for you depends on context. Not sure why that is a strange concept.
If I've eaten nothing but spinach all day, a Twinkie is going to be better for me than another leaf of spinach.
If I've eaten really low-fat all day, a high fat food would be a better choice than a low fat food.
If I've eaten lots of meat today, a veg would be a better pick than a chicken breast.
This is the great debate though, no? "Healthy for you" vs "Healthy" (in general).
Unless you include pure water, there is no food - none, nada, zip - that is healthy for everyone. That doesn't mean there are no healthy foods in general.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »This has been coming up a lot lately, so I thought that I would combine it all into one thread so that we can have some fun and dig into this one. A lot of people say "I do not want to eat junk" OR "I only eat healthy food", which then naturally sparks the question what is "healthy" food.
My premise is that there is no "healthy" or "junk" food, there is just food that your body uses for energy, and that context of diet is what matters. Different combinations of foods will result in different results for each individuals diet.
For the person that is concerned with strictly fast loss, then it may make sense to get more of their calories from less calorie dense foods like vegetables, and then mix in the ocassional ice cream, cookies, etc.
For the person that is trying to maintain weight and has more calories to play with, they may be able to have a daily serving, or more than one serving, of their favorite treat, and consume more calorie dense foods.
For the person that is bulking/adding weight, they may get 25%, or more, of their calories from calorie dense foods, like pizza, cookies, ice cream, etc, and may fill in as many as 500 calories, or more, to hit their goals.
Is any one strategy more healthy than the other? IMO the answer is no. Vegetables are not more inherently healthy than ice cream.
So if I get 500 to 600 calories from ice cream and cookies to fill in my diet, does that make me less healthy than the person that is getting 75% of their calories from fish, rice, and vegetables?
At the end of the day there is no "healthy" food and a diet composed of 100% "clean" food is no more healthy then a diet composed of 25% ice cream, cookies, pizza, etc….
so feel free to disagree with me and give me a definition of "healthy"….
If you meant to include micronutrients, I don't really see how you meant to include it. Unless you forgot to include entire paragraphs? If that is the case, then you might want to actually put those in because it's the cause of most of the pages in this thread.
Where does he talk only about macros?
I read it as taking the whole diet into context. Which includes Macros and Micros.
I said he doesn't consider the micronutrient factor. Which he doesn't mention and he admits at not including in this original post
i meant to mention micros in OP but did not , so slight over sight on my part...
when I said that "context of diet" needs to be considered I meant that in the context of including micros/macros/and overall calorie goal ....however, I probably should have specifically said that...0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »DesdemonaRose wrote: »Wow, are there people who really don't know what a empty calorie is? Soda is a empty calorie, it gives you zero nutrients that your body can use. Depending on what ice-cream you buy, it can have things like protein and calcium (from the dairy). So, some might consider it empty because it's usually seen as a treat, but it's not a completely empty calorie if it has dairy, soy, or something else in it with some nutritional value.
Don't forget genes, they play a pretty big role in how long you live. That is why grandma can smoke till she's 100 but the guy down the street died from lung cancer at 35.
Obviously what is "healthy," is debatable, but if you only ate Doritos for a month you would probably feel a bit *kitten* by the end of the month and might even have a vitamin deficiency or two. If you don't look outside of Western societies where we tend to eat a variety and everything is fortified then it might seem like it doesn't matter. But, take a look at populations with limited food supplies and it matters to them. You really can have a vitamin or nutrient deficiency. There are people in America who die from malnutrition, just not very many. As long as there is some variety in your life then you are probably good, even if that variety is Taco Bell one day and McDonald's the next. There are a lot of studies that show excessive consumption of some things can cause earlier death in some populations. But, of course, genes play a role and the debate of which matters more is still plenty there. Nutrition is a newer science and there are a lot of variables.
Malnutrition Death Rates by Country:
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/
Ever drank a coke pre or post training? I'm going to assume you haven't.
What ice cream has no calcium or protein?
You used the example that if we only ate Doritos for a month then we would feel bad and have a deficiency or 2. Now, who eats only Doritos all day every day and nothing else. It's amazing how often you people use extreme examples like this to prove no point. A point you don't have. It's ridiculous. Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli. You opened your statement by saying you were surprised at the fact that people don't know what empty calories are but you don't even understand nutrition so should you really be that surprised?
From a nutrient value only, I'd probably be better off eating broccoli than Doritos all month.
Really? Because Broccoli provides us with all of the nutrients we need?
No. Because broccoli will stand a better chance at providing more nutrients we need vs doritos. That's just a guess on my part. But I never said either would provide all nutrients we need and never implied it. The issue here was eating ONE food for a month. Doritos or broccoli.0 -
Need2Exerc1se 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.
Whether or not a food is healthy for you depends on context. Not sure why that is a strange concept.
If I've eaten nothing but spinach all day, a Twinkie is going to be better for me than another leaf of spinach.
If I've eaten really low-fat all day, a high fat food would be a better choice than a low fat food.
If I've eaten lots of meat today, a veg would be a better pick than a chicken breast.
This is the great debate though, no? "Healthy for you" vs "Healthy" (in general).
Unless you include pure water, there is no food - none, nada, zip - that is healthy for everyone. That doesn't mean there are no healthy foods in general.
Bacon - bacon is healthy for everyone!0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »This has been coming up a lot lately, so I thought that I would combine it all into one thread so that we can have some fun and dig into this one. A lot of people say "I do not want to eat junk" OR "I only eat healthy food", which then naturally sparks the question what is "healthy" food.
My premise is that there is no "healthy" or "junk" food, there is just food that your body uses for energy, and that context of diet is what matters. Different combinations of foods will result in different results for each individuals diet.
For the person that is concerned with strictly fast loss, then it may make sense to get more of their calories from less calorie dense foods like vegetables, and then mix in the ocassional ice cream, cookies, etc.
For the person that is trying to maintain weight and has more calories to play with, they may be able to have a daily serving, or more than one serving, of their favorite treat, and consume more calorie dense foods.
For the person that is bulking/adding weight, they may get 25%, or more, of their calories from calorie dense foods, like pizza, cookies, ice cream, etc, and may fill in as many as 500 calories, or more, to hit their goals.
Is any one strategy more healthy than the other? IMO the answer is no. Vegetables are not more inherently healthy than ice cream.
So if I get 500 to 600 calories from ice cream and cookies to fill in my diet, does that make me less healthy than the person that is getting 75% of their calories from fish, rice, and vegetables?
At the end of the day there is no "healthy" food and a diet composed of 100% "clean" food is no more healthy then a diet composed of 25% ice cream, cookies, pizza, etc….
so feel free to disagree with me and give me a definition of "healthy"….
If you meant to include micronutrients, I don't really see how you meant to include it. Unless you forgot to include entire paragraphs? If that is the case, then you might want to actually put those in because it's the cause of most of the pages in this thread.
Where does he talk only about macros?
I read it as taking the whole diet into context. Which includes Macros and Micros.
I said he doesn't consider the micronutrient factor. Which he doesn't mention and he admits at not including in this original post
i meant to mention micros in OP but did not , so slight over sight on my part...
when I said that "context of diet" needs to be considered I meant that in the context of including micros/macros/and overall calorie goal ....however, I probably should have specifically said that...
Understood. But none of your examples include a micronutrient one from which to gain understanding on how you define micronutrient importance.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »DesdemonaRose wrote: »Wow, are there people who really don't know what a empty calorie is? Soda is a empty calorie, it gives you zero nutrients that your body can use. Depending on what ice-cream you buy, it can have things like protein and calcium (from the dairy). So, some might consider it empty because it's usually seen as a treat, but it's not a completely empty calorie if it has dairy, soy, or something else in it with some nutritional value.
Don't forget genes, they play a pretty big role in how long you live. That is why grandma can smoke till she's 100 but the guy down the street died from lung cancer at 35.
Obviously what is "healthy," is debatable, but if you only ate Doritos for a month you would probably feel a bit *kitten* by the end of the month and might even have a vitamin deficiency or two. If you don't look outside of Western societies where we tend to eat a variety and everything is fortified then it might seem like it doesn't matter. But, take a look at populations with limited food supplies and it matters to them. You really can have a vitamin or nutrient deficiency. There are people in America who die from malnutrition, just not very many. As long as there is some variety in your life then you are probably good, even if that variety is Taco Bell one day and McDonald's the next. There are a lot of studies that show excessive consumption of some things can cause earlier death in some populations. But, of course, genes play a role and the debate of which matters more is still plenty there. Nutrition is a newer science and there are a lot of variables.
Malnutrition Death Rates by Country:
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/
Ever drank a coke pre or post training? I'm going to assume you haven't.
What ice cream has no calcium or protein?
You used the example that if we only ate Doritos for a month then we would feel bad and have a deficiency or 2. Now, who eats only Doritos all day every day and nothing else. It's amazing how often you people use extreme examples like this to prove no point. A point you don't have. It's ridiculous. Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli. You opened your statement by saying you were surprised at the fact that people don't know what empty calories are but you don't even understand nutrition so should you really be that surprised?
From a nutrient value only, I'd probably be better off eating broccoli than Doritos all month.
Really? Because Broccoli provides us with all of the nutrients we need?
No. Because broccoli will stand a better chance at providing more nutrients we need vs doritos. That's just a guess on my part. But I never said either would provide all nutrients we need and never implied it. The issue here was eating ONE food for a month. Doritos or broccoli.
Well, that's debatable....where's your dietary fat in broccoli?
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »This has been coming up a lot lately, so I thought that I would combine it all into one thread so that we can have some fun and dig into this one. A lot of people say "I do not want to eat junk" OR "I only eat healthy food", which then naturally sparks the question what is "healthy" food.
My premise is that there is no "healthy" or "junk" food, there is just food that your body uses for energy, and that context of diet is what matters. Different combinations of foods will result in different results for each individuals diet.
For the person that is concerned with strictly fast loss, then it may make sense to get more of their calories from less calorie dense foods like vegetables, and then mix in the ocassional ice cream, cookies, etc.
For the person that is trying to maintain weight and has more calories to play with, they may be able to have a daily serving, or more than one serving, of their favorite treat, and consume more calorie dense foods.
For the person that is bulking/adding weight, they may get 25%, or more, of their calories from calorie dense foods, like pizza, cookies, ice cream, etc, and may fill in as many as 500 calories, or more, to hit their goals.
Is any one strategy more healthy than the other? IMO the answer is no. Vegetables are not more inherently healthy than ice cream.
So if I get 500 to 600 calories from ice cream and cookies to fill in my diet, does that make me less healthy than the person that is getting 75% of their calories from fish, rice, and vegetables?
At the end of the day there is no "healthy" food and a diet composed of 100% "clean" food is no more healthy then a diet composed of 25% ice cream, cookies, pizza, etc….
so feel free to disagree with me and give me a definition of "healthy"….
If you meant to include micronutrients, I don't really see how you meant to include it. Unless you forgot to include entire paragraphs? If that is the case, then you might want to actually put those in because it's the cause of most of the pages in this thread.
Where does he talk only about macros?
I read it as taking the whole diet into context. Which includes Macros and Micros.
I said he doesn't consider the micronutrient factor. Which he doesn't mention and he admits at not including in this original post
i meant to mention micros in OP but did not , so slight over sight on my part...
when I said that "context of diet" needs to be considered I meant that in the context of including micros/macros/and overall calorie goal ....however, I probably should have specifically said that...
Some people need it spelled out to the minute detail and have their hands held.
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.
This thread is hilarious, isn't it? I actually think it's a really interesting discussion if you ignore the bickering, and not about sugar for once!
In case you are interested, I'll repeat my prior post below. It was mainly a response to someone else but incorporated a response to your point (and I warn you that the simple/complex distinction as a substitute for healthy/not that ignores that fruit is a simple carb is a pet peeve of mine, so I had to bring that up).
I said: I would say that one of my own issues with the healthy food label is that it depends on context so much. Like the point was argued early on that complex carbs are healthier than simple carbs, but if one is in the middle of an endurance event simple carbs might be better. And, of course, fruit is a simple carb, and I would definitely not consider wholegrain bread healthier than fruit--at least not for my specific diet....
So whether a particular food is healthy likely depends on what you are trying to achieve (lose weight, gain weight, fuel exercise, sit on the couch) and what else you've eaten that day. That's why traditional diets often are very high in carbs, including carbs (like white rice) that seem basically neutral to me--neither especially healthy or unhealthy other than a source of calories. In the normal human situation adding calories was a huge virtue. For us in the post industrial world or whatever one wants to call it, where obesity is a huge issue and people are relatively sedentary and there is wide access to cheap, low nutrient-dense, high calorie foods, obviously there are different priorities, and I understand why people tend to think of those foods as unhealthy, even if I myself don't particularly see a benefit to labeling a delicious, carefully and lovingly baked pie as "unhealthy." Indulgent, sure. Something that should be eaten in moderation, with attention to overall diet, again, sure.
I will add (not part of the prior post) re simple vs. complex carbs and context that just because something is a complex carb doesn't seem to me to make it super healthy. But it depends on the actual diet still--not everyone needs more fiber. You can easily get too many complex carbs too (McD's fries are complex carbs), and much of this food is primarily different than the simple version based on fiber content, and its not always that big a difference (for example, I see no benefits to brown rice vs. white except that it tastes better in some dishes). Also, the recommendation you cite assumes that someone is eating lots of refined carbs, and gets an average lower fiber diet, so recommends the switch, sure. I think to a certain extent it's individual--for example, I like many foods such as lentils (a complex carbs) and fruits and veggies that have plenty of fiber, so am rarely low on fiber, and I don't care about bread usually. So for me wholegrain bread is fine, but kind of neutral, and I don't think my diet would be healthier if I included it more (I eat it more often than white bread but would just as soon cut out bread, except for naan at an Indian restaurant and the occasional good piece of French or Italian or homemade bread, on other special occasions).
Similarly, if you ask me to pick between wholegrain pasta carbonara and a dish with white flour pasta, chicken, and veggies with some olives and olive oil, I'd say that the latter--in the context of my usual overall diet and goals--would be a better and healthier choice.
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
So if it's bad for us why hasn't the FDA banned it?
Because the FDA is a sham and health related issues like food should be run by the cdc? I don't know.
But it's banned in other countries, along with other artificial dyes like yellow 6 that are also known carcinogens. You can google it. Today most artificial colors are also made from coal tar. Yum!
Can you direct me to where I can find out about Red Dye #5, I am having problems finding it. And yes, I tried to google it.
Also, I am pretty sure that most artificial colors are not made from coal tar.
I never mentioned red dye 5, but agreed with someone about artificial colors being unhealthy.
And npr.org came up first when I googled 'what are artificial colors made of' “Artificial food dyes are made from petroleum and approved for use by the FDA to enhance the color of processed foods.” http://www.npr.org/2011/03/30/134962888/fda-probes-link-between-food-dyes-kids-behavior
At the end they talk about how labeling in Europe requires a warning label on foods that contain artificial dyes.
But everyone considers different things healthy. That's what I was saying in my first post on this thread. I won't eat foods depending on what's in them and I will consider a lot of stuff unhealthy. But other people might be comfortable with it, and that's fine.
E100 and E160 are common food colorings and are not only safe but both are generally recognized with some evidence to improve the immune system.
Whether sourced artificially or naturally - it's incorrect to assume they are bad jut because "artificial", "processed" or "chemical".
One of those it highly present in .... carrots.
0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that some foods are not healthier than others.
It would be similarly ludicrous to suggest that someone cannot be HEALTHY and eat UNHEALTHY foods sometimes.
However, a person cannot be HEALTHY and eat ONLY EXCLUSIVELY UNHEALTHY foods. (capitals for emphasis, not sass.)
Here is my simplified example:
Op said something along the lines of "I've hit my macros/micros for the day, why can't I have a donut?" No one is saying you can't. Go right ahead. Enjoy.
But if donuts were ALL you ate, you'd get pretty sick pretty quickly even if you ate them within a calorie limit. Now, in the context of WEIGHT LOSS, you would still lose weight eating 1000 calories of donuts per day and nothing else. But you would also be hungry, iron deficient, calcium deficient, protein deficient, etc.
If you eat a relatively balanced diet there is absolutely no reason you can't indulge in unhealthy treats. But suggesting that in the abstract a can of coke is as healthy as a bowl of raw kale is downright silly. I think most of the people suggesting this are trying to use semantics to make a controversial argument and fluff some feathers.
Someone a while back brought up the recommend diet for women during pregnancy, and it was dismissed as "well that's one of the only times it is reasonable to consider those things." I understand pregnant women need a greater amount of certain nutrients, like folic acid, etc, but I don't understand the logic of dismissing the implications of eating a better diet during pregnancy. Think about it this way- if you wouldn't want it going into the body of your growing child, why would you want it going into your own body? My personal answer? I don't, but I'm still going to have treats occasionally when I want to.
Also, and this is an aside to the main point, given that this is a weight loss website I think it is important to note that it is MUCH easier to overeat on UNHEALTHY foods for most people. Most (not all, but most) people to not become obese by eating a diet comprised solely of HEALTHY foods. That is something that I think deserves consideration in this debate.
This whole debate is a little like saying the following: Is smoking healthy? NO. Can a smoker BE a healthy person? YES. What determines whether or not that individual ends up dying at a young age of cancer? Who knows, it is a toss up. Some smokers will live to be 100. But many of us feel like we'd rather not take the risk.
why is the healthy eating crews immediate fall back to ALWAYS build a straw man argument about having 100% of your diet from donuts. No one is advocating that.
so if I eat kale, and ice cream and I have fulfilled micro/macro/calorie goals does that convert the ice cream from unhealthy to healthy?
0 -
Our national health boards are medically conservative for a reason. Why is it that they are ready to weigh in on complex carbohydrates?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