Define "healthy" food...
Options
Replies
-
I am dead serious on this: If you think it makes you less foolish because you know what certain people on a message board have said they do, think again.prattiger65 wrote: »
Lol. She's telling her to go learn. Priceless.
I think she was calling your bluff. You claimed to have a "genuine interest", but you didn't.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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?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.
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?
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 was attempting to help her out, but she insists on looking foolish
Also quite serious on this: I really don't know what she says she does. I really do not care.
It's all irrelevant. She hadn't the "genuine interest" she claimed to have. She wanted something to be said so that she could make yet another nasty reply. If you think that's Genius At Work, think again.
Oh, f it, I'll bite.
Sara and her cohort (who many/most here know, but I don't want to drag him into this unnecessarily) have helped I don't know just how many people here at MFP - hundreds, possibly thousands (or at least over 1000). How? By gaining knowledge by looking at countless studies and research and using experience. In short, if Sara is asking for a link, it's because she'd like to read it, possibly gain more knowledge, and apply that.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
It's called ingredients that do not have a place in pizza.ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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.
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.
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 and cream cheese pizza.
Pepperoni would be my second choice.
chicken, feta, pineapple, black olives, sliced tomato ….BOOM …
0 -
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.prattiger65 wrote: »
I think she was calling your bluff. You claimed to have a "genuine interest", but you didn't.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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?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.
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?
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.
If her interest is in mocking or insulting that poster, she doesn't need a link, lol.
just because you LOL something does not making it funny.
The poster made a claim about a study linking sugar to heart disease. Some of us would like to see said study as we are curious if this is a study about obese people, average people, in shape people, study methods etc…
It is not our job to go find said study when the other person is making the assumption ..
here I will put five smile faces to make you feel better
and an LOL so you feel like we are laughing together…LOL0 -
I didn't know what you meant because I didn't read the majority of the thread. There's way too much! I didn't see that post and I was shooting in the dark.lemurcat12 wrote: »Kalikel--
One thing I missed and want to address.
Me:But thanks to another poster I now get how you are using the term and it makes more sense to me, although I don't really think of food so much that way, but in connection with an overall diet. (This is because I think the desire to rank foods and all that is really bizarre and impossible. How on earth do you even start to compare chicken and zucchini or some such. And why?)
You:I assume the word you're referencing is "context" and I use it the way the majority of people outside this forum use it.
I'm not really following your answer. But to be clear, I'm talking about the post from MakePeas, who helpfully explained that you (or those on your side of this discussion) were using "healthy" to mean "studies indicate that eating this food generally has positive effects on the overall health of a population" or some such, whereas "unhealthy" would mean "eating more of this food generally has negative effects on the health of a population" (I'm extrapolating the unhealthy definition from his or her definition of healthy).
That was helpful, because as MakePeas correctly noted, those of us on the other side of the discussion are using "healthy" and "unhealthy" to mean "has a negative effect on the health of an individual given the circumstances" or something like that. I think that's the sensible thing to discuss, since that's what matters. For example, the issue of whole grains were brought up, and the argument made that it's recommended for the US population as a whole to eat more whole grains in place of refined grains, because of fiber, mostly, or an excessive consumption of refined carbs. But if I eat almost no refined carbs and get lots of fiber, is it unhealthy for me to eat a piece of French bread? Presumably not. Is the French bread "unhealthy"? No, not in and of itself. However, it might be considered such for someone who (like the hypothetical average American that the recommendation is made with consideration of) eats a great deal of refined carbs and gets an inadequate amount of fiber already.
Beyond this, I do think there's a tendency to speak about food with lots of positive qualities (nutrient dense foods) as "healthy" and I have no problem with that really, although I think it's incomplete or imprecise. My bigger issue is with calling foods that have a mix of qualities, some more questionable (like high calories) or less ideal than some others (lower nutrient density, especially when compared with calories) unhealthy. That's where you and I disagree the most, I think, as you seem to refer to higher fat foods as "unhealthy" on the whole (presumably with the exception of stuff like avocado and maybe nuts). But I don't think that fat is all that bad, so I'm skeptical of considering something like butter or even whole milk yogurt "unhealthy." I'd say that really does depend on the context, especially how much you eat, what else you eat, etc.
But on the whole I just think this comes down to whether you think it is useful to think of foods as bad and good or healthy and not. I think it's fine to think of foods as especially healthy, but I don't really see the point of thinking of something as unhealthy if it doesn't actually hurt your health, at least not in moderation. My homemade apple pie is indulgent, or calorie dense, sure, but unless you have some sort of preexisting health issue not unhealthy in the sense that it will hurt you. Is it better to focus on incorporating vegetables in your meals and not pie? Sure, a diet shouldn't be built around pie, but I don't think that means that it has to be considered a bad food.
(It's kind of funny given how much I seem to talk about pie around here that I had it maybe 3 times last year. But it certainly did not hurt my health any of those three times!)
If the definition of healthy is "whatever you want it to be", then those who say no food is healthy are right.
If "health" and "healthy" are defined, then some foods will fit the definition and some won't.
Insisting that "healthy" cannot be defined will not stop others from defining words and using them according to the definitions. I'm not saying you, personally, insist that the word cannot be defined. I do routinely dismiss the idea that the word cannot be defined or applied to diets (and, by extension, individual foods, as individual foods comprise diets.)
What I eat has nothing to do with what I think you should eat. We don't disagree about your diet. If you say it's healthy, I believe you. I'm not on a mission to make everyone eat what I eat. I don't even enjoy some of what I eat. For a long time, i didn't enjoy any of what I ate except fruit and granola, lol. I eat it because that's what I need to do. Me. Not you.
I really (honest to God!) don't care what anyone on this board eats. I barely care about what the people I love eat, lol. It is kind of fun to discuss choices, struggles and recipes, though...especially with those who have the same goals.
Either you or Sabine eats some kind of bread that I keep meaning to try and keep forgetting what it was. I go look for the thread, but can't find it. I think it's a monosyllabic name. Next time I see it, I'm writing it down. That, to me, is far more interesting than whether or not some individual poster eats too much fat or manganese or whatever.0 -
A www, c'mon...JeffseekingV wrote: »They might not be interested in what you think they are interested in
I dunno, I am pretty hairy... lol. I have stories from my undergrad days in SF. Not for this website though. lol.
0 -
call it heretical if you will, but figs, olives, caper berries, preserved lemons, and even apricots are welcome on my pizzas.
I felt something.
Well, except for capers. Those are pickled monkey snot.
And I'm behind, but I'm glad I had my pizza. And it had fresh peppers, and I believe I personally added some E116b directly. I like cumin.
Lol @ person telling Sara to educate herself.
0 -
So you're telling me if someone wanted to gain weight they could eat at McDonald's every day and still be healthy? Wash down their grease infested fries down with coke and ice cream and still be healthy?? Sounds like a one way ticket to a heart attack. No sir, that's not healthy. Your diet does matter.
google the "twinkie diet"
guy ate nothing but twinkies maintained a calorie deficit, lost weight, and had better health markers..
so yea, you can eat mcdonalds and lose weight …however, it would not be best option for body comp purposes but for fat loss it would work.0 -
I am dead serious on this: If you think it makes you less foolish because you know what certain people on a message board have said they do, think again.prattiger65 wrote: »
Lol. She's telling her to go learn. Priceless.
I think she was calling your bluff. You claimed to have a "genuine interest", but you didn't.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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?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.
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?
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 was attempting to help her out, but she insists on looking foolish
Also quite serious on this: I really don't know what she says she does. I really do not care.
It's all irrelevant. She hadn't the "genuine interest" she claimed to have. She wanted something to be said so that she could make yet another nasty reply. If you think that's Genius At Work, think again.
Oh, f it, I'll bite.
Sara and her cohort (who many/most here know, but I don't want to drag him into this unnecessarily) have helped I don't know just how many people here at MFP - hundreds, possibly thousands (or at least over 1000). How? By gaining knowledge by looking at countless studies and research and using experience. In short, if Sara is asking for a link, it's because she'd like to read it, possibly gain more knowledge, and apply that.
agree…
they have helped me too and I am a member of their group here and on FB...0 -
So you're telling me if someone wanted to gain weight they could eat at McDonald's every day and still be healthy? Wash down their grease infested fries down with coke and ice cream and still be healthy?? Sounds like a one way ticket to a heart attack. No sir, that's not healthy. Your diet does matter.
google the "twinkie diet"
guy ate nothing but twinkies maintained a calorie deficit, lost weight, and had better health markers..
so yea, you can eat mcdonalds and lose weight …however, it would not be best option for body comp purposes but for fat loss it would work.
Not exactly
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.0 -
Yes, it does,
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.prattiger65 wrote: »
I think she was calling your bluff. You claimed to have a "genuine interest", but you didn't.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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?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.
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?
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.
If her interest is in mocking or insulting that poster, she doesn't need a link, lol.
just because you LOL something does not making it funny.
If you have some scholarly interest, go study the subject. Then you'll know whether or not she's right and won't have to ask People Who Google for information. No links will need to posted. No "My link is better than your link!", "Nuh-uh! My link is better than your link! It's Science!" conversation will need to take place.
The poster made a claim about a study linking sugar to heart disease. Some of us would like to see said study as we are curious if this is a study about obese people, average people, in shape people, study methods etc…
It is not our job to go find said study when the other person is making the assumption ..
here I will put five smile faces to make you feel better
and an LOL so you feel like we are laughing together…LOL
She already posted her ideas and her links and was mocked and insulted. If she feels no need to repeat the process, I don't blame her.
Whether she's right or wrong, she isn't deserving of being mocked or insulted.0 -
When you say "health markers", what, exactly do you mean?So you're telling me if someone wanted to gain weight they could eat at McDonald's every day and still be healthy? Wash down their grease infested fries down with coke and ice cream and still be healthy?? Sounds like a one way ticket to a heart attack. No sir, that's not healthy. Your diet does matter.
google the "twinkie diet"
guy ate nothing but twinkies maintained a calorie deficit, lost weight, and had better health markers..
so yea, you can eat mcdonalds and lose weight …however, it would not be best option for body comp purposes but for fat loss it would work.
I keep asking this, people keep not telling me, lol.
I assume you mean blood tests. Which tests, specifically, constitute "health markers"?
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
It's called ingredients that do not have a place in pizza.ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.sweetdixie92 wrote: »sweetdixie92 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.
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.
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 and cream cheese pizza.
Pepperoni would be my second choice.
chicken, feta, pineapple, black olives, sliced tomato ….BOOM …
OMG, add banana peppers and I'm in love!0 -
When you say "health markers", what, exactly do you mean?So you're telling me if someone wanted to gain weight they could eat at McDonald's every day and still be healthy? Wash down their grease infested fries down with coke and ice cream and still be healthy?? Sounds like a one way ticket to a heart attack. No sir, that's not healthy. Your diet does matter.
google the "twinkie diet"
guy ate nothing but twinkies maintained a calorie deficit, lost weight, and had better health markers..
so yea, you can eat mcdonalds and lose weight …however, it would not be best option for body comp purposes but for fat loss it would work.
I keep asking this, people keep not telling me, lol.
I assume you mean blood tests. Which tests, specifically, constitute "health markers"?
blood work ..cholesterol and what not …
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
go ahead and read for yourself...0 -
Yes, it does,
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.prattiger65 wrote: »
I think she was calling your bluff. You claimed to have a "genuine interest", but you didn't.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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?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.
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?
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.
If her interest is in mocking or insulting that poster, she doesn't need a link, lol.
just because you LOL something does not making it funny.
If you have some scholarly interest, go study the subject. Then you'll know whether or not she's right and won't have to ask People Who Google for information. No links will need to posted. No "My link is better than your link!", "Nuh-uh! My link is better than your link! It's Science!" conversation will need to take place.
The poster made a claim about a study linking sugar to heart disease. Some of us would like to see said study as we are curious if this is a study about obese people, average people, in shape people, study methods etc…
It is not our job to go find said study when the other person is making the assumption ..
here I will put five smile faces to make you feel better
and an LOL so you feel like we are laughing together…LOL
She already posted her ideas and her links and was mocked and insulted. If she feels no need to repeat the process, I don't blame her.
Whether she's right or wrong, she isn't deserving of being mocked or insulted.
ummm no that person posted a link to google, not a link to the specific study..
it has nothing to about saying "my study is better than yours", it is a genuine interest in the methods used and what the conclusion were. But you would not care about because you are too busy supporting the downtrodden of MFP 0 -
Yes, it does,
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.prattiger65 wrote: »
I think she was calling your bluff. You claimed to have a "genuine interest", but you didn't.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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?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.
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?
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.
If her interest is in mocking or insulting that poster, she doesn't need a link, lol.
just because you LOL something does not making it funny.
If you have some scholarly interest, go study the subject. Then you'll know whether or not she's right and won't have to ask People Who Google for information. No links will need to posted. No "My link is better than your link!", "Nuh-uh! My link is better than your link! It's Science!" conversation will need to take place.
The poster made a claim about a study linking sugar to heart disease. Some of us would like to see said study as we are curious if this is a study about obese people, average people, in shape people, study methods etc…
It is not our job to go find said study when the other person is making the assumption ..
here I will put five smile faces to make you feel better
and an LOL so you feel like we are laughing together…LOL
She already posted her ideas and her links and was mocked and insulted. If she feels no need to repeat the process, I don't blame her.
Whether she's right or wrong, she isn't deserving of being mocked or insulted.
Nope, no link has been posted in this thread. Nor has she posted a link the thread where the link was supposedly posted.
Oh, and "white knight" bingo box is now covered, people.0 -
Could quite possibly win for derp comment of the year. And are only 6 days in.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »call it heretical if you will, but figs, olives, caper berries, preserved lemons, and even apricots are welcome on my pizzas.
I felt something.
Well, except for capers. Those are pickled monkey snot.
And I'm behind, but I'm glad I had my pizza. And it had fresh peppers, and I believe I personally added some E116b directly. I like cumin.
Lol @ person telling Sara to educate herself.
The year is young and I expect MFP will rise to the occasion.0 -
I'm not asking about the Twinkie diet.
When you say "health markers", what, exactly do you mean?So you're telling me if someone wanted to gain weight they could eat at McDonald's every day and still be healthy? Wash down their grease infested fries down with coke and ice cream and still be healthy?? Sounds like a one way ticket to a heart attack. No sir, that's not healthy. Your diet does matter.
google the "twinkie diet"
guy ate nothing but twinkies maintained a calorie deficit, lost weight, and had better health markers..
so yea, you can eat mcdonalds and lose weight …however, it would not be best option for body comp purposes but for fat loss it would work.
I keep asking this, people keep not telling me, lol.
I assume you mean blood tests. Which tests, specifically, constitute "health markers"?
blood work ..cholesterol and what not …
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
go ahead and read for yourself...
I'm asking if this "health markers" phrase has some kind of agreed upon definition. "Cholesterol and whatnot" would lead me to believe it does not. Please let me know if I'm wrong.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions