Define "healthy" food...

PRMinx wrote: »

jofjltncb6 wrote: »

PRMinx wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

PRMinx wrote: »

JoRocka wrote: »

a month of broccoli?

good lord- i would hate to be the plumber for THAT house!!! OIY

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.

so much sadness and wrongess here.

also this: kale vs ice cream?
seriously?

no questions- the kales' in the trash- it's rubbish awful food. You want to talk about 'unhealthy' anything that tastes that bad before you put int your pie hole should never be considered healthy- much less a "super food"

PS Eff you women's health for making kale a thing.

seriously. die.

I really like kale....*ducks*

That shiz is horrible. Bleh. Sorry :flowerforyou:

Ha. I know I'm in the minority. I don't like it baked, I only like it raw in a chopped salad. It has more bite and crunch than regular lettuce. But I like arugula and endive too - maybe I just like bitter greens!

I actually like it salted and dehydrated into chips. No, it is nothing like potato chips...but it is strangely tasty.

And I'm glad they haven't implemented the "ignore" feature yet as I'm sure this comment would get me ignored...by at least half of the people on my FL.

LOL. Welcome to the dark side...

Oh, I've been there for years...long before it was a "superfood". I still think its primary role is on a plate with steak and potatoes...to provide a nice splash of decorative green.

Kalikel wrote: »

prattiger65 wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

At not wasting my time providing links to people who have no genuine interest in them? Actually, I'm pretty good at that.

But I do have a genuine interest.

If you did, you would research the issue yourself. It's really not that hard. You obviously have internet access. If you don't care enough to research it, why should I do it for you?

Then why did you offer. Again, seems disingenuous.

Also...lulz at the google weak google it yourself ploy. You realize that people can see right through that right? Right?

I think she was calling your bluff. You claimed to have a "genuine interest", but you didn't.

If you were genuinely interested in anything, you would seek out knowledge on the subject and wouldn't even limit yourself to the Internet, much less a discussion board.

If you do not have enough interest to seek out information on your own, there really is no reason someone else to provide you with it.

If you want to learn, go learn. Nobody can stop you.

I am going to step out here and say,. She already knows and would like the other poster to elaborate.

That's not what she said. She had a genuine interest. If her interest was in knowledge, she can go get more. There is always more to get.

If her interest is in mocking or insulting that poster, she doesn't need a link, lol.

My interest was in seeing this mysterious link. Simple as that.

This just in: JoRocka likes the stuffed crust pizza.

JoRocka wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

sweetdixie92 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

sweetdixie92 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

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?

Yes. Just look at the ingredient list.

Where your nutrients, fat, carbs, etc. are coming from do matter.

oh really??? care to elaborate?

so if my macors are 35p/35c/30 fats and I hit them all with eggs, chicken, rice, bread, etc and then filled in rest of day with ice cream and some cookies, you are saying that is an unhealthy day just because I got 500 - 600 from ice cream and cookies...really?

As I said, look at the ingredients. That is, unless you're going with organic or natural. It's not necessarily the food itself that's the problem. Food colorings and artificial flavors? Preservatives and other chemicals they put in a lot of foods? No thank you.

First, all food has "chemicals" so unless you are drinking pure water you are ingesting *gasp* chemiclas.

You're missing it. If you saw the post I made earlier about the ingredients in Dominoes pizza, maybe it'd be easier for you to understand her point.

That post you made actually made no sense. All you did was list ingredients in a pizza and pick what you thought was unhealthy. Which there was absolutely no reason why it would have been healthy.

It's called ingredients that do not have a place in pizza.

Interesting, I wasn't aware that there was a rule on what belongs in a pizza.

There should be. Pepperoni - NO, pineapple - yes.

you're saying pepperoni doesn't belong on a pizza- but pineapple does?

At no point- outside of sauce- does fruit belong on a pizza.

Ever.

Yuck. no.

meat- cheese- sauce.
yes.
fruit? nope nope nope.

Pineapple does not belong anywhere - that shiz is ebil.

prattiger65 wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

prattiger65 wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

At not wasting my time providing links to people who have no genuine interest in them? Actually, I'm pretty good at that.

But I do have a genuine interest.

If you did, you would research the issue yourself. It's really not that hard. You obviously have internet access. If you don't care enough to research it, why should I do it for you?

Then why did you offer. Again, seems disingenuous.

Also...lulz at the google weak google it yourself ploy. You realize that people can see right through that right? Right?

I think she was calling your bluff. You claimed to have a "genuine interest", but you didn't.

If you were genuinely interested in anything, you would seek out knowledge on the subject and wouldn't even limit yourself to the Internet, much less a discussion board.

If you do not have enough interest to seek out information on your own, there really is no reason someone else to provide you with it.

If you want to learn, go learn. Nobody can stop you.

I am going to step out here and say,. She already knows and would like the other poster to elaborate.

That's not what she said. She had a genuine interest. If her interest was in knowledge, she can go get more. There is always more to get.

If her interest is in mocking or insulting that poster, she doesn't need a link, lol.

Do you know anything of Sara's background? You must not.

I do not know her personally. I do not even know what she has said she does. I do not care, not even a little.

You people who put fruit on pizza are sick and need immediate help!

ldrosophila wrote: »

ShinyFuture wrote: »

What confuses me, however, is the constant battle about it. Do you really care that my gauge *for me* is whether it advances *my* overall health and weight loss efforts, and so for me I think m&m's are not healthy?

I care because you hurt little M&M's feelings he cant help it his candy coating has made him unhealthy and sick. He tries to make up for it by putting a little peanut inside, but he just never gets the credit like his big brother chickpea who gets all the kuddos for being able to go into pita bread

snort

JoRocka wrote: »

TR0berts wrote: »

This just in: JoRocka likes the stuffed crust pizza.

actually I'm kind of meh about that- I feel it takes away from my carb load LMAO... I just like sauce- lots of sauce - lightly crusted wtih cheese- and load that puppy up with sausage pepperonie and all bacon if you got it.
Although- stuffed crust makes it more balanced- carbs fats proteins. win win everywhere.

AND banana peppers!

Kalikel wrote: »

I have to take this piece by piece. Please don't think I'm trying to make a huge argument because I'm not. Discussing, not fighting. Not personal.

But the problem is that "healthiness"--at least in the way that I am using it, as in "is beneficial to eat" is not an inherent property of food but depends on the circumstances.

We disagree right there. I cannot get on board with the premise that food is different based on thoughts or circumstances. The thoughts and circumstances might influence decisions, but they do not influence the food.

The food of course is not different, but "healthiness" is not an inherent property of food. Whether something has a positive or negative effect (or a neutral one) on our health depends on circumstances. For the most part, one individual food item will have no meaningful effect at all. The overall diet will, which is why a diet can be called healthy or unhealthy, but a specific food cannot. It's the amount and the other foods eaten and so on that determine whether it adds to your overall health.

If you've eaten nothing but broccoli for a week, broccoli is not healthy.

The broccoli continues to be broccoli. It's nutritive value doesn't change because you've been eating only broccoli. It remains the same.

No one is saying the broccoli changes. But whether it contributes to your health depends on the circumstances. Usually it does (which is why in casual speech I too might call it healthy), but it is not inherent to the broccoli that it will contribute to health. It depends on context.

If you eat only broccoli for a week AND you care about your health AND you're willing to listen to advice about what is better or worse AND you're willing to adjust your diet based on that advice, you should start eating other things.

Yes, because broccoli is not inherently healthy. Instead, it contributes micro nutrients and fiber that are helpful to creating an overall healthy diet. If you don't need those things or have too much already, the broccoli might not be healthy. What is healthy depends on how it actually affects you.

In reality, we are using two different understandings of the term healthy. I think mine makes more sense, but I have grasped yours and am willing to say that both are valid ways of looking at it, even if I think mine is a better way to create an overall diet (but I would, it's mine and what I do). You seem unwilling to even try to understand how I am looking at this, even while maintaining your own preferred way. I don't get that.

Whether a food benefits your health or not depends on the overall diet.

Agree and disagree. The food's benefits, per se, won't change. Whether or not it will benefit you is always something that has to be decided. Your overall diet can play a part in your decision-making process, but doesn't actually have any effect on the food.

That's not an agree/disagree. That's no different than what I was saying.

The broccoli doesn't become an unhealthy food, per se. You just need to eat other healthy foods to get those nutrients.

The broccoli contributes some things that you need, but not everything. Other foods (which you might call "unhealthy") contribute other things. Whether a diet is healthy or not does not depend on getting the most food with high positive qualities (as if the answer were just to eat "healthy" foods and avoid "unhealthy" one), but in getting the right mix of foods. So if you decide that meat is unhealthy and broccoli healthy and then proceed to eat a very low fat and low protein diet made up mainly of broccoli, you might end up feeling worse than if you ate a better diet with a mix of foods, some super nutrient dense (which you (and even I) might call "healthy") and some with, say, saturated fat and protein. (I'm not saying there aren't perfectly healthy vegetarian diets, of course, but simply that eating only broccoli would not be one.)

This is not because broccoli is unhealthy, but because whether it contributes to health or not depends (although it still has all its specific positive qualities).

Similarly, whether skin-on chicken breast is healthy or not (I'm assuming you might say not) depends on context. IMO, it usually is, so long as you aren't overeating the qualities it has that can be overeaten and are benefitting from the positive qualities it contributes.

If we want an "overall healthy diet" then most of our food choices will need to be foods that are healthy.

I might say this casually. But more precisely I'd say that if we want an overall healthy diet than we should include a good variety of foods that are nutrient dense and contribute the correct mix of macros for the person. This generally would include lots of veggies.

I compare chicken and green beans based on the fact that I get enough veggies and fruits. In fact, I get too many fruits and not enough chicken, so I need to put some damn chicken on the plate. If I gave in to what I like, I'd eat green beans and some kind of fruit for dinner.

And this is precisely what I mean. It's not that chicken is healthier than green beans. It's that chicken is something that you would want to add to contribute to the overall mix of your diet. If you just focused on healthy or not, that would not be the case. You could say that green beans are more "nutrient dense" than chicken and have less negative outcomes based on broad population studies (say the China Study, although I have issues with it), and thus that it's "healthier" to eat "healthier foods" like green beans and eschew the chicken. That's how I see a lot of the people doing the labeling like that around here approach it. For example, asking what the "best" foods are and eating mostly them as good for a diet or some such or deciding that if they cut out "white carbs" they are eating healthy and don't need to do anything else. That's why I'm arguing against what seems a blinkered way of looking at foods.

You aren't doing that, so I tend to think this is a silly semantic argument.