Do you eat junk? why or why not?
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »realityfades wrote: »I don't label food as junk. All food provides energy.
I get where you're coming from, but the definition of junk food is food that is low in nutrients, like cake, cookies, etc. and typically high in calories. They don't really provide vitamins and minerals compared to fruit and veg. Maybe you don't like to label foods and that's ok. But junk food typically doesn't provide energy. At least not sustainable energy. A donut and a sweet potato certainly don't act the same.
That said, I see nothing wrong with eating things in moderation. Especially if I log it.
whole wheat, apples, bananas, coconut, and whole grain rice would also have to be examples of foods meeting the "junk" classification...
How could fruit ever meet a classification that included the phrase "compared to fruit and veg."?
apples and bananas are very nutrient poor fruits.
That's not true, nor does it answer the question.
fruits in general are nowhere in the ballpark of being as nutrient dense as vegetables. And apples and bananas are among lowest in nutrient density of the fruits americans commonly consume.
Apples: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2
Bananas are a little better /100 cals, but still.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1846/2
RIght in line with wheat:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5744/2
Not being as nutrient dense as something else is not the same as being nutrient poor. And still does not address my question.
I'm showing an example of how a food generally thought to be super healthy, in reality is little better than food considered junk (say potato chips or crackers).
It puts things in perspective of our trying to draw a line between junk and not junk.
I don't think you did a very good job, but maybe it's just me.
So, at what point does a food become not just "not as nutrient dense" and instead "nutrient poor"? Is there a table somewhere? A measurement? Is it a flat number or dependent on the person eating? Taken in isolation or compared to the whole diet?
I think you need to look at the calorie to nutrients ratio. Like the potato chip example a few pages back. Nothing really wrong with the ingredients in potato chips. Potatoes, oil, salt. But to get any decent amount of micronutrients you'd have to eat more calories than the average person can afford without becoming overweight. Therefore, I call them junk food. Food that should be tossed in the "treat only" bin.
And at what ratio is it nutrient poor? You said that fruits not being as nutrient dense as vegetables did not mean they're nutrient poor. So there clearly has to be some cutoff somewhere because else you can make the same arguments against fruit that you can make against "junk" food. Namely that there's better alternatives for your calories.
Well it's a made up term so there wouldn't be any hard and fast rule. Apples aren't a high calorie food, though they are a high evil food.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »realityfades wrote: »I don't label food as junk. All food provides energy.
I get where you're coming from, but the definition of junk food is food that is low in nutrients, like cake, cookies, etc. and typically high in calories. They don't really provide vitamins and minerals compared to fruit and veg. Maybe you don't like to label foods and that's ok. But junk food typically doesn't provide energy. At least not sustainable energy. A donut and a sweet potato certainly don't act the same.
That said, I see nothing wrong with eating things in moderation. Especially if I log it.
calories = energy
This doesn't make sense.
That's good you don't see it the way I do, but plenty of other people know what I mean.0 -
The simplified version between Macros and Micros is that Macros largely effect body composition where Micros can effect well being. These things aren't mutually exclusive, but that being said.. there are plenty of crazy diets of people losing a tremendous amount of weight, while lowering their bad cholesterol, blood pressure, etc only eating fast food like McDonalds or a large amount of their calories being Twinkies.0
-
I find that if I eat lots of sweet foods on one day, then, on the next day, I really crave them. So, I try to control sugar by thinking of it as being kind to myself for tomorrow. I'm not really interested in savory junk as I'd honestly rather have a well balanced meal than non-sweet carb based snacks.0
-
melnorwich wrote: »I find that if I eat lots of sweet foods on one day, then, on the next day, I really crave them. So, I try to control sugar by thinking of it as being kind to myself for tomorrow. I'm not really interested in savory junk as I'd honestly rather have a well balanced meal than non-sweet carb based snacks.
What about non carb savory junk?
I love good cheese, and although I don't consider it junk (I call it an extra), it certainly seems to meet the criteria.
Same with high fat meat, although I don't happen to eat a lot of that or want it all that often. Occasionally, though.
I like savory junk that's about half and half carbs and fat too, like french fries and even naan (which has quite a lot of fat calories, I'd guess). Or lasagne (which again could fit, I suppose, depending on where our cutoff line is) or pizza (same point -- let's say Chicago-style to add to the calories substantially).0 -
Yeah, wouldn't "junk" food be a first world problem?
A daily fare of Pixy Stix, deep fried Twinkies, Munchos and Mountain Dew might keep someone alive for years who's withering away from malnourishment in a third world heck hole.
I don't know if I'd consider it a first world problem, you will find poor people in other countries living off junk because it's all they can afford. But I guess it beats starving to death. Mexico's obesity rate is getting up there. They consume the biggest amount of Coca Cola in the world.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »melnorwich wrote: »I find that if I eat lots of sweet foods on one day, then, on the next day, I really crave them. So, I try to control sugar by thinking of it as being kind to myself for tomorrow. I'm not really interested in savory junk as I'd honestly rather have a well balanced meal than non-sweet carb based snacks.
What about non carb savory junk?
I love good cheese, and although I don't consider it junk (I call it an extra), it certainly seems to meet the criteria.
Same with high fat meat, although I don't happen to eat a lot of that or want it all that often. Occasionally, though.
I like savory junk that's about half and half carbs and fat too, like french fries and even naan (which has quite a lot of fat calories, I'd guess). Or lasagne (which again could fit, I suppose, depending on where our cutoff line is) or pizza (same point -- let's say Chicago-style to add to the calories substantially).
Ooooh, cheese! I love cheese. Especially cheese curds. I bought a huge bag of them from Costco. And when I go to Dairy Queen or Buffalo Wild Wings, I always get cheese curds. I also like fries. Especially Wendy's.0 -
I know this will raise the ire of many, but I have no interest in overeating green salad with vinagarette dressing and asparagus spears and quinoa kernels and boneless skinless chicken breast.
There are a couple of salads that aren't too different from that that I could overeat easily.
One is a greek salad (had it today) from a little place in my office building -- chicken and cucumbers and tomatoes and olives and feta and red onions and greens and a tasty dressing. Not all that high in nutrients compared to some other salads, but good enough for me on occasion and delicious.
Another is the buffalo chicken salad at Protein Bar: chicken, organic quinoa blend, blue cheese, cucumber, carrot, celery, and spicy vegan Buffalo sauce, over our Super 6 Salad Mix (romaine, spinach, broccoli, carrots, kale, purple cabbage). That one has 35g protein, 350 cals, 33g carbs.
I'd bet both would be considered "junk" by at least some at MFP.
Anyway, I could easily overeat both, but I also don't, since the serving sizes of both have acceptable calories.0 -
realityfades wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »realityfades wrote: »I don't label food as junk. All food provides energy.
I get where you're coming from, but the definition of junk food is food that is low in nutrients, like cake, cookies, etc. and typically high in calories. They don't really provide vitamins and minerals compared to fruit and veg. Maybe you don't like to label foods and that's ok. But junk food typically doesn't provide energy. At least not sustainable energy. A donut and a sweet potato certainly don't act the same.
That said, I see nothing wrong with eating things in moderation. Especially if I log it.
calories = energy
This doesn't make sense.
That's good you don't see it the way I do, but plenty of other people know what I mean.
I'm sorry, but it's like saying I shouldn't eat carrots because they're high in beta-carotene and thus won't meet my vitamin A needs.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »There are a couple of salads that aren't too different from that that I could overeat easily.
You're just a luckier duck than me I guess
If I overeat them, I still get fat, so having more things I can overeat doesn't necessarily make me lucky. Unless it's because I have tasty salads very convenient to my office on a lazy didn't bring lunch day, which I will grant. ;-)0 -
Yeah, wouldn't "junk" food be a first world problem?
A daily fare of Pixy Stix, deep fried Twinkies, Munchos and Mountain Dew might keep someone alive for years who's withering away from malnourishment in a third world heck hole.
Just because you can survive on it doesn't mean it's not junk. Humans could survive on hog slop. That doesn't mean it's not slop.0 -
-
I eat junk. I'm a boring person and food seems to be something that makes me happy or passes the time.0
-
I eat everything in moderation. I do however, mostly, make my junk food myself. I make my own pizza, pastries, burgers and fries ect. I never deel guilty about them because they are always at least half the calories lower than they are in restaurants. So I can have my cake and eat it too.
0 -
It's just a term people use to identify certain foods as "lower class". It's "foodism" if you will. Mostly used to describe packaged foods with high sugar/sodium/fat/refined flour content, many fast foods, many snack foods and many street foods. An apple pie from McDonad's is usually considered junk, but a homemade apple pie is less likely to be considered junk. Same for pizza from a chain restaurant vs homemade or bought from a proud mom and pop's pizzeria. A nice fatty cut of meat (or Wagyu if you want to be fancy) is less likely to be considered junk because it's more respected as a food that takes some level of attention and artistry to prepare, but grind a cheaper cut of meat into a burger, and it will acquire the label right away. A good quality wine is not junk, but a soda is. Some actually healthy foods are lumped into this category and some very micronutrient-poor foods are actually left out of this category due to this loosely defined "foodism". Gyros, Indian curries, tacos, fish cakes..etc are actually considered junk food by some.
The term is so ingrained that I stopped arguing about its validity and just take it at face value answering questions accordingly. Does not mean I agree with it. If micronutrient density is the main deciding factor then fortified cereals and vitamin water are the epitome of "unjunkiness", and any type of fat or oil is junk because it has a poor micro:calorie ratio.0 -
I eat it as a rare treat and only in moderation
0 -
I could easily overeat grapes/mango/bananas, but would struggle to overeat Doritos, so I'm not sure that junk food can be defined as something highly palatable that it's difficult not to overeat. There would come a point, after my vitamin and fibre goals were met, when eating all that fruit was really no longer of any benefit to me.
I don't really think of junk food as a bad thing (which seems like a contradiction to type because that's what I do call it in real life): on days I've been very active and my TDEE is 2700+, I would seriously struggle to get there solely in leafy greens, lean protein, etc. If I've met my protein goals, had 6 or 7 portions of fruit and veg, had sensible, balanced meals and I'm still 300 calories under, I don't see that eating a chocolate bar is doing me any harm at all.0 -
Yes. I have a square of Ghirardelli chocolate every day after supper and on Saturday I have a "junk meal" where I eat more calories at supper / dessert and they're mostly from "bad" food. I try to follow 80 / 20. I find that's best for my mental health and I don't get cravings for junk. It's also caused me to examine what I really want for my junk meal vs what I was just eating because it was there before.
Yesterday my "junk" meal was a 6 in cheesesteak, cookies and 1/4 cup of ice cream.0 -
i love 'junk' food.
i try not to eat much of it, but i do love it :P0 -
Oh yeah, back to the original question. I eat things I feel like eating. Sometimes it's "junk food" sometimes it isn't. I don't have any system or rules regarding that. I could have it twice a day or once a month. All depends on what I want at the time.0
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »It's just a term people use to identify certain foods as "lower class". It's "foodism" if you will. Mostly used to describe packaged foods with high sugar/sodium/fat/refined flour content, many fast foods, many snack foods and many street foods. An apple pie from McDonad's is usually considered junk, but a homemade apple pie is less likely to be considered junk. Same for pizza from a chain restaurant vs homemade or bought from a proud mom and pop's pizzeria. A nice fatty cut of meat (or Wagyu if you want to be fancy) is less likely to be considered junk because it's more respected as a food that takes some level of attention and artistry to prepare, but grind a cheaper cut of meat into a burger, and it will acquire the label right away. A good quality wine is not junk, but a soda is. Some actually healthy foods are lumped into this category and some very micronutrient-poor foods are actually left out of this category due to this loosely defined "foodism". Gyros, Indian curries, tacos, fish cakes..etc are actually considered junk food by some.
The term is so ingrained that I stopped arguing about its validity and just take it at face value answering questions accordingly. Does not mean I agree with it. If micronutrient density is the main deciding factor then fortified cereals and vitamin water are the epitome of "unjunkiness", and any type of fat or oil is junk because it has a poor micro:calorie ratio.
I think this is generally correct as to how most people use it. One reason I am always confused by the term (since I overthink things). I've also given up caring/arguing about it, and try to define it consistently as "higher cal/lower nutrient," even if this doesn't map out perfectly with how many seem to use it.0 -
I eat everything....but only when I have room from a calorie perspective. I am down 45lbs since August and this is success for me at age 51. I truly believe it's because I stopped suffering with crazy diets that made me eat like crazy after deprivation. So to answer your question, yes I eat some junk....but not a ton in one sitting and I log it. I am so done with eliminating food groups.0
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »It's just a term people use to identify certain foods as "lower class". It's "foodism" if you will. Mostly used to describe packaged foods with high sugar/sodium/fat/refined flour content, many fast foods, many snack foods and many street foods. An apple pie from McDonad's is usually considered junk, but a homemade apple pie is less likely to be considered junk. Same for pizza from a chain restaurant vs homemade or bought from a proud mom and pop's pizzeria. A nice fatty cut of meat (or Wagyu if you want to be fancy) is less likely to be considered junk because it's more respected as a food that takes some level of attention and artistry to prepare, but grind a cheaper cut of meat into a burger, and it will acquire the label right away. A good quality wine is not junk, but a soda is. Some actually healthy foods are lumped into this category and some very micronutrient-poor foods are actually left out of this category due to this loosely defined "foodism". Gyros, Indian curries, tacos, fish cakes..etc are actually considered junk food by some.
The term is so ingrained that I stopped arguing about its validity and just take it at face value answering questions accordingly. Does not mean I agree with it. If micronutrient density is the main deciding factor then fortified cereals and vitamin water are the epitome of "unjunkiness", and any type of fat or oil is junk because it has a poor micro:calorie ratio.
Bingo. I notice the same attitudes about foodies and whether one can or should consider themselves one or not. Apparently the refusal to see or acknowledge the virtues of cheese food, for example, makes one a foodie. *eyeroll*
0 -
I generally leave myself about 200 calories a day for chocolate. I hit my protein macro the rest of the day and it keeps me full, so why not? It also keeps me from bingeing (I feel like I didn't spell that correctly). I would rather allow myself a little every day than deprive myself all week and eat 2,000 calories in cream puffs on Saturday.0
-
I'm sure it's been said...but I don't think of any foods as junk really. It either fits my macros/calories or it doesn't. Somethings may not have many micronutrients, but my diet is balanced overall so yes-if junk means cookies, ice cream, pizza, bacon cheese burgers, french fries-then I eat junk.0
-
While I don't eat what I call "junk," I make sure I can fit in some treats that satisfy my needs and lead me to have a rich, satisfying life. That would include wine, dark chocolate, high quality ice cream, occasionally french fries, cheesecake or other high quality bakery. I stay in my calorie level and have finally found a sustainable food plan that does not leave me deprived. What I choose not to eat: most fast food, grocery store bakery stuff. To me, those are a waste of good calories that I'd rather spend on other food.0
-
I eat a bagel with cream cheese almost every day. I eat donuts, but maybe once every few months. I don't like chips anymore. I enjoy gelato or ice cream if it fits within my intake for the day. Otherwise, I eat fruit. Generally, I don't have time nor do I enjoy snacking.0
-
I have trouble eating packaged foods because it gives the calorie amounts right there. My mind converts those calories into the amount of exercise I would have to do to burn it and I can't seem to open the package after that. But I do find it easy to open mini candy bars, a least one a day.0
-
Highly processed/salted/fried foods are fit in the corners after I have met my chief nutritional goals. I bought Pringles all-dressed this week. I just had four chips.0
-
My diet consists only of the four main food groups: candy, candy canes, candy corns and syrup.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions