Define "healthy" food...
Options
Replies
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »
Get out of here with you ridiculous argument.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.
You know what? Why not address the question when you get called out instead of attempting to flame yourself out of the question poised to you. It was you that that presented the question.
Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli
Well let's see, where will you get dietary fat and protein from?
Then you said:
It is debatable. the fact that broccoli doesn't have dietary fat doesn't mean it's the worse choice of the two over a month's time.
You really think it's debatable that it's unhealthy to go without protein or fat for a month or 2?
Broccoli has protein. And yet again, you misunderstood the question. The question is this. Which of the two if you ate for a month, would you be better off with at the end of the month. The question isn't if one would be an unhealthy choice. The question is which would be more healthy or unhealthy for you.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »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.
I'm going to sneak in and take some.0 -
What's wrong with ice cream? It's caloric density in relation to it's nutritional value. If a person has made allowances hitting macro and micro targets for the day, go ahead and have the ice cream.
With my calorie restriction it would be a rare day where I could fit it in.
I never said don't eat ice cream! Please read my post before you trash it!!!
Sorry but I am frustrated with how people keep doing this, you may be totally well intentioned but others are not so much and are just looking to argue.0 -
Why..u mad? LoL , I'm proud of my health and the example I set for my children, so you can hate all you want.loljofjltncb6 wrote: »LOL I've worked hard to get in the physical condition I'm in so no need to preach to me lol, and OBVIOUSLY THE MORE YOU EAT HEALTHY AND THE MORE YOU EXERCISE THE HEALTHIER YOU WILL BE. That's all I have to say! interpret it however you want.
So you believe in extra credit for excess nutrition?
Got it.
lol. No one hates you brah. No one cares either.
Find beef elsewhere.0 -
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
It's not a big deal, but how could you possibly know this? I look at diaries on occasion, including my own friends, but have no sense of how "most people" on this site eat, let along most people who get involved in these discussions and might make an argument like that quoted. My impression, actually, is quite a few of those people do care about micros and, for example, if someone posts about how they won't eat veggies the usual advice is "get over it."
For what it's worth, I do care enough and pay close attention to my diet in a variety of ways, although like I said I don't try to count micros, but rely on getting a good diversity of nutrient dense foods (seasonal when possible, but I'll break that rule in the winter). I think it's harder to be really deficient on something if you do this than you seem to.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
Get out of here with you ridiculous argument.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.
You know what? Why not address the question when you get called out instead of attempting to flame yourself out of the question poised to you. It was you that that presented the question.
Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli
Well let's see, where will you get dietary fat and protein from?
Then you said:
It is debatable. the fact that broccoli doesn't have dietary fat doesn't mean it's the worse choice of the two over a month's time.
You really think it's debatable that it's unhealthy to go without protein or fat for a month or 2?
Broccoli has protein
Wow just wow.
Isn't it?
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
Get out of here with you ridiculous argument.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.
You know what? Why not address the question when you get called out instead of attempting to flame yourself out of the question poised to you. It was you that that presented the question.
Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli
Well let's see, where will you get dietary fat and protein from?
Then you said:
It is debatable. the fact that broccoli doesn't have dietary fat doesn't mean it's the worse choice of the two over a month's time.
You really think it's debatable that it's unhealthy to go without protein or fat for a month or 2?
Broccoli has protein
Wow just wow.
hmm ok.0 -
4 grams of protein in 5.25ounces of mast.0
-
The fact that people don't agree on the basic definition is the problem itself. I think 99% of the arguments could be averted if we realize that we are not working from the same definition, and are not talking about the same thing. I might be wrong, but I think the two major "definitions" are:
Food that is correlated with better health outcomes for humans in general in mainstream scientific literature. (i.e. multiple large and diverse population studies that show statistically significant and clinically significant increases in lifespan and decreases in disease risk in groups that eat more or less of particular foods and food groups, especially if there is a dose-dependent effect)
or
Food that serves a particular individual's nutritional or emotional needs at a particular time in the context of their current health and nutritional status.
As long as we are comparing apples and oranges, we can never reach a consensus. Both concepts are important, and are applicable in different situations. The first is a great basis for developing broad guidelines for diverse groups. The second is much more appropriate when dealing with a specific person making a single decision. Both sides are correct, using their definition.
By that I mean that when someone says some foods are clearly healthier than others, when working from the meaning that healthy means "correlated with improved health over broad and diverse populations", and when someone says that what is healthy is entirely based on context, using healthy to mean "appropriate to the health or other needs of the individual in question at a particular point in time", they are both correct.
By the way, I am not saying either definition is right, (though I usually use the phrase in the first sense unless referring to an individual), or that the people who use examples in their definitions are always using the appropriate example. My point is that all of the arguments over "healthy food" are entirely moot if we can't agree on what we are actually discussing. It's literally just semantics.
Perhaps if we stopped assuming that our definition is obvious (as I did until I started to read other members' posts and realized it was open to interpretation), and simply stated our definition rather than use the general word "healthy", we might find that we pretty much agree on most things.
Forgive my long-windedness; I am desperately trying not to say anything that will be misinterpreted.
TL;DR Food that is generally health-promoting for a population is not necessarily going to apply to all individuals in all situations.0 -
So that is 10# daily for 120g of protein.0
-
0 -
The mushrooms have no context.diannethegeek wrote: »
The food doesn't have context. The mushrooms are no less healthy because your mother is allergic them. They remain mushrooms and have not changed in any way.diannethegeek 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.
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.
Your mother shouldn't eat things if she is allergic to them. The food itself remains the same and remains unchanged.
The mushrooms stay the same, true, but the context changes.
People may or may not wish to make health considerations when they eat. None of the things we think about when we make food choices change the actual food.
The food has no context and cannot be changed by thinking. There is no thought process that actually changes the food.
Your choices, my choices, some other guy's choices will be different, based on our health, desires and abilities. But all the thinking we all do - even whether we think the same things! - will have no effect on the food itself.
The food doesn't change.
"Food is different based on context"...It's just a bizarre concept.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
Get out of here with you ridiculous argument.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.
You know what? Why not address the question when you get called out instead of attempting to flame yourself out of the question poised to you. It was you that that presented the question.
Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli
Well let's see, where will you get dietary fat and protein from?
Then you said:
It is debatable. the fact that broccoli doesn't have dietary fat doesn't mean it's the worse choice of the two over a month's time.
You really think it's debatable that it's unhealthy to go without protein or fat for a month or 2?
Broccoli has protein. And yet again, you misunderstood the question. The question is this. Which of the two if you ate for a month, would you be better off with at the end of the month. The question isn't if one would be an unhealthy choice. The question is which would be more healthy or unhealthy for you.
60 cups per day to hit my objective. It's ridiculous to consider it a viable protein source in that context.
The answer is neither. The answer is "the question is stupid."
0 -
so who won?0
-
Everyone lost.fearlessleader104 wrote: »so who won?
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
Get out of here with you ridiculous argument.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.
You know what? Why not address the question when you get called out instead of attempting to flame yourself out of the question poised to you. It was you that that presented the question.
Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli
Well let's see, where will you get dietary fat and protein from?
Then you said:
It is debatable. the fact that broccoli doesn't have dietary fat doesn't mean it's the worse choice of the two over a month's time.
You really think it's debatable that it's unhealthy to go without protein or fat for a month or 2?
Broccoli has protein
Wow just wow.
Isn't it?
Yes, broccoli does have protein. But, this is where context matters. You would have to eat so much broccoli to hit any kind of real protein and calorie numbers that you would be sick before you could get halfway there....
Now, after weighing these two, I'd just like to say we are so lucky to have the resources we have so that we don't have to make such a choice.0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »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?
No, that is absurd. Ice cream is still an unhealthy FOOD, but if it is part of an OVERALL HEALTHY DIET then it is not at all a problem to have it. I'm not sure how you are not getting that, I am not the first person to explain it.
Why is ice cream unhealthy?
Because it is extremely high calorie, high sugar, and high fat for little volume and not a great deal of nutritional value. To be honest I didn't choose the ice cream metaphor, and don't find ice cream to be nearly as unhealthy as, say, a can of coke, but in comparison to a bunch of kale YES ice cream offers less nutritional value.
But my point is not to demonize ice cream (I like ice cream) but to highlight how absurd it is to ask if kale will magically turn the ice cream into something healthy....if you read my post I suggested nothing of the sort. I started that treats are fine in moderation in a diet that is otherwise healthy. I also brought up the fact that for many people seeking to lose weight (not all, but many) moderating a treat like ice cream is incredibly difficult to do, which is a factor I believe is worth mentioning in this debate.
Edited to add: PLEASE actually read my post before you respond and I think you will see why the response makes no sense, and you will also see that HE chose ice cream as the metaphor when I had mentioned donuts and coke. Maybe you guys will think of that as the same, personally I don't find ice cream to be nearly as unhealthy as the things I ACTUALLY mentioned, which I think is why he changed it in his response. But my general point is still the same.
Sorry but your just running of theories. Nice back peddling.
Are you kidding me? I didn't spout any theories whatsoever. If you actually read and comprehended what I wrote you would know that.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
Get out of here with you ridiculous argument.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.
You know what? Why not address the question when you get called out instead of attempting to flame yourself out of the question poised to you. It was you that that presented the question.
Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli
Well let's see, where will you get dietary fat and protein from?
Then you said:
It is debatable. the fact that broccoli doesn't have dietary fat doesn't mean it's the worse choice of the two over a month's time.
You really think it's debatable that it's unhealthy to go without protein or fat for a month or 2?
Broccoli has protein. And yet again, you misunderstood the question. The question is this. Which of the two if you ate for a month, would you be better off with at the end of the month. The question isn't if one would be an unhealthy choice. The question is which would be more healthy or unhealthy for you.
60 cups per day to hit my objective. It's ridiculous to consider it a viable protein source in that context.
The answer is neither. The answer is "the question is stupid."
I didn't poise the question. I only answered it. And the answer isn't "neither". There should be one that is actually going to net you more benefit.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions