Define "healthy" food...
Options
Replies
-
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.0 -
So you assumed, Drea? You assumed and cast unfair aspersions at fat people.
y u got to throw shade at those who create shade?0 -
do what I did, get a job in the industry. You'll almost never be able to play a game for fun in your life again.
I warned my kids about this when they considered it as a future career. Enjoying your work is important, but probably best not to pursue what you love as a career.
What do professional golfers do in the offseason to relax?0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »do what I did, get a job in the industry. You'll almost never be able to play a game for fun in your life again.
I warned my kids about this when they considered it as a future career. Enjoying your work is important, but probably best not to pursue what you love as a career.
What do professional golfers do in the offseason to relax?
well if Tiger is any indicator...
0 -
I almost blew out coffee reading that one.... 1st the mini trampoline that made them lose then the dating....
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »do what I did, get a job in the industry. You'll almost never be able to play a game for fun in your life again.
I warned my kids about this when they considered it as a future career. Enjoying your work is important, but probably best not to pursue what you love as a career.
What do professional golfers do in the offseason to relax?
well if Tiger is any indicator...
I think he used some of that dem dar Tiger Balm.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time
One time I ate 14 slices of dominos medium pizza in one sitting. I am not sure of the time limit. Even better I did not gain any weight for the next weigh in after that.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time
One time I ate 14 slices of dominos medium pizza in one sitting. I am not sure of the time limit. Even better I did not gain any weight for the next weigh in after that.
I can crush a whole medium pizza by myself...hell I could probably still crush a large by myself..
my eating skillzzz are legendary ...0 -
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.
I used to think this, too. Then one of my buddies brought over Hawaiian pizza. I changed my mind.
epic dislike. no way. do.not.like.
canadian bacon usually accompanies pineapple too.
<shudder>
insert dirty joke
I want my pizza loaded with meat.
Yet another reason why we are friends... Pepperoni and Sausage all the way baby!
At the risk of sounding Jof-like, I am about 8 pages behind because I fell asleep trying to read through this last night and got lulled to sleep by the one word quote responses in the upper 20's.
Yes.
No.
Ok.
Should I keep going over my lunch hour or can someone give me cliff's notes of what happened in the 30's? Is it just a pizza topping debate? Did anyone ever actually post the link to that thread and that study? Did we ever realize that actually about 80% of the people posting here in this thread agree with each other, it is extremely subtle semantics and the inability to understand the meanings of context and dosage that makes it sound like we are still having a vigorous debate...
0 -
Amazing how different people's perception of what's a lot is. I've eaten 4 slices of a large Dominoes pizza in one sitting (more than once actually) and my family members thought it was too much. Granted though, those of you that can eat a lot more most likely have a higher appetite overall.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »Amazing how different people's perception of what's a lot is. I've eaten 4 slices of a large Dominoes pizza in one sitting (more than once actually) and my family members thought it was too much. Granted though, those of you that can eat a lot more most likely have a higher appetite overall.
After my friend and cousin saw me eat 14 medium slices. They were mind boggle. Pizza is a food I have to trick myself to eating in moderation or eat very very slowly or it will be gone in my belly.
Appetite for me is a psychological thing over physiological thing. If I do not tell myself stop I would probably weigh way more than I do right now.0 -
I asked my parents what they think is healthier: traditional Vietnamese diet or american diet. They claim Vietnamese.
Before moving to the USA, they were lean and had minimal health problems. After living here for a few years, it was the start of weight gain, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels. You can debate all you want and defend certain foods, but in my book, there a line that must be drawn when it comes to what is considered healthier or not when comparing two types of food. 0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »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!
I'm a little slow at these things, but I'm getting a sense you like banana peppers?
0 -
Swiftlet66 wrote: »I asked my parents what they think is healthier: traditional Vietnamese diet or american diet. They claim Vietnamese. Before moving to the USA, they were lean and had minimal health problems. After living here for a few years, it was the start of weight gain, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels. You can debate all you want and defend certain foods, but in my book, there a line that must be drawn when it comes to what is considered healthier or not when comparing two types of food.
Would you like to elaborate on that line?
0 -
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.
I used to think this, too. Then one of my buddies brought over Hawaiian pizza. I changed my mind.
epic dislike. no way. do.not.like.
canadian bacon usually accompanies pineapple too.
<shudder>
insert dirty joke
I want my pizza loaded with meat.
Yet another reason why we are friends... Pepperoni and Sausage all the way baby!
At the risk of sounding Jof-like, I am about 8 pages behind because I fell asleep trying to read through this last night and got lulled to sleep by the one word quote responses in the upper 20's.
Yes.
No.
Ok.
Should I keep going over my lunch hour or can someone give me cliff's notes of what happened in the 30's? Is it just a pizza topping debate? Did anyone ever actually post the link to that thread and that study? Did we ever realize that actually about 80% of the people posting here in this thread agree with each other, it is extremely subtle semantics and the inability to understand the meanings of context and dosage that makes it sound like we are still having a vigorous debate...
I actually have what I assume is the study (although who knows if its the one they were referring to as we got no help in narrowing the field from Ms Google It)...but if people want to see it, they should google it - otherwise I will assume that they just want to see it to (continue??) being mean and do not want to actually learn anything.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time
One time I ate 14 slices of dominos medium pizza in one sitting. I am not sure of the time limit. Even better I did not gain any weight for the next weigh in after that.
I can crush a whole medium pizza by myself...hell I could probably still crush a large by myself..
my eating skillzzz are legendary ...
A common meal for me a few years ago was a large Papa John's Hawaiian pizza...with that awful garlic butter sauce. And that was back when I was a scrawny 160ish pounds.
Probably not much different than a current common meal of two Freddy's double cheeseburgers and a cup of frozen custard. (I've had three a couple of times, but that was pushing even my limits.)
Wait. What was this thread about again?0 -
Swiftlet66 wrote: »I asked my parents what they think is healthier: traditional Vietnamese diet or american diet. They claim Vietnamese. Before moving to the USA, they were lean and had minimal health problems. After living here for a few years, it was the start of weight gain, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels. You can debate all you want and defend certain foods, but in my book, there a line that must be drawn when it comes to what is considered healthier or not when comparing two types of food.
They didn't over eat on a vietnamese diet, they did/are on a american diet.
The line to draw is don't overeat!0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »murphyocean wrote: »whole foods...
in relation to what…???
I love the people that just drive by with a two word response that makes no sense...
It seems that rather than defining "healthy foods", a lot of people are giving examples of foods that fit their definition of healthy. This confounds the issue because often the examples do not actually exemplify the definition they use.
When I think "healthy foods", I think of foods that have been identified as strongly correlated with greater longevity and lower incidence of disease in humans. I use it as a general guideline for menu planning, rather than case by case for individual food decisions.
I can only speak for myself, but I think of healthy food as that which is statistically most likely to improve my health. I don't try to rank every possible pair of foods or anything, I just try to prioritize "healthy" food and eat less useful foods in moderation. And yes, I make sure to meet my macros every day, they are not mutually exclusive. If I find I am meaningfully short on fat one day, I will try to find a fat source that has been linked to longevity or disease prevention, and if that's not feasible, I will at least try to find something that is neutral.
By the way, I am specifically not giving examples because I don't want to confound the definition. I have been doing as much research as I can, but I realize that I haven't seen all the available evidence yet, so while I am satisfied enough with my current knowledge to make dietary changes for myself, I'm not convinced enough to assert my opinions as fact, or as a completely balanced viewpoint.
As it relates to whole foods, they probably tend to fit my definition, as the human nutrition textbook I am currently reading describes the synergistic benefits of phytochemicals, which are lost when nutrients are stripped and then restored in isolation, and the loss of certain nutrients that occurs with different types of processing.
I still don't know the full risks and benefits of each type of processing (I.e. relative risks of organism growth vs nutrient depletion) for each type of food, so I can't say with certainty, but I think that eating most plant foods whole, shortly after harvest (to minimize time for bacteria growth) probably maximizes the risk/reward ratio.
I'm referring to foods that are safe to eat raw, by the way. I don't recommend eating raw meat or potatoes. Even in the case of foods that must be processed for safety, though, the minimum amount of processing required to make it safe would likely be optimal, from a nutritional standpoint.
You didn't want a two word answer. Be careful what you wish for
ETA: for those of you with "long winded but oddly insecure know-it-all" on your bingo cards, you're welcome.
you say that you don't "rank" your foods based on priority but then go on to say that you hit your macros. Isn't that what hitting macros is; i.e. ranking foods for your particular goals...?
I would also be curious as to what some of these foods are that promote longevity....
I'd like to know even one.
Please be patient. I'm moving in 2 days and my home wifi got cut off some time during the writing of another long and excessively detailed reply. Currently trying to get my phone's hotspot working, before I try typing the opus out on an iPhone.
I'm not trying to argue with anyone, fwiw. Just trying to explain how I make my choices, not trying to impose them on anybody else.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????
This thread is huge, terrible and epic and is making my head hurt!! Wow.
I don't know how to properly answer your second question, sir. I thought it was self-evident. It wasn't intended as a straw-man argument. I was actually conceding the CICO theory re: weight loss, while responding to the OPs request to provide a definition of healthy food.
And why do you think that nobody eats a meal full of Twinkies??? Not been fat enough to eat a box full of snack food I guess...or a tub of ice cream in one sitting. Or a huge serving of fries and cheese. All of these would be defined as meals. *Each of these would likely come in to close to 1000 calories. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you can't have more than 3 meals a day...
I myself have eaten 3 cupcakes for lunch...or a huge slice of cake, because that is all I want, and I love cake more than the average fat kid. Is this concept really what is causing you concern?
*ETA
Wait. There's a minimum fatness required to eat a full carton of ice cream at once?
It wasn't a "meal", though, so maybe I'm still okay.
I assumed there was, based on his assertion that nobody would actually eat a meal of Twinkies or any food that some people (definitely not me - not even being facetious here, I wouldn't) would class as junk food or comprising empty calories or unhealthy food. I was trying to think of a reason that someone wouldn't understand that that is an actual possibility in real life and not a made-up concept, and that's the best I could come up with on short notice.
Little known fact about me - I have eaten a 2L tub of chocolate ice cream in one sitting. In 7 minutes. With no spoon. I would do it again. although a spoon would be most beneficial next time
One time I ate 14 slices of dominos medium pizza in one sitting. I am not sure of the time limit. Even better I did not gain any weight for the next weigh in after that.
I can crush a whole medium pizza by myself...hell I could probably still crush a large by myself..
my eating skillzzz are legendary ...
A common meal for me a few years ago was a large Papa John's Hawaiian pizza...with that awful garlic butter sauce. And that was back when I was a scrawny 160ish pounds.
Probably not much different than a current common meal of two Freddy's double cheeseburgers and a cup of frozen custard. (I've had three a couple of times, but that was pushing even my limits.)
Wait. What was this thread about again?
Some reason for me papa johns is more filling than dominos or maybe I want to save some leftovers for the next day.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions