Calories in calories out is it that simple?
Options
Replies
-
To put it into a reductio ad absurdum, if something had 1% of every nutrient you could possibly need per 100g for as many calories as 1% of fat and protein are, you'd call that nutrient dense despite the fact that eating 10 kg of something is not feasible.
Like if I'd dissolve a multivitamin in a full bathtub of water. 0 calories but all the micros. Nutrient dense?11 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
It looks like celery (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2914?manu=&fgcd=&ds=), cucumbers (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/144986?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) and iceberg lettuce (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3002?manu=&fgcd=&ds=) contain various vitamins and minerals despite being extremely low in calories. I wouldn't consider them to have low nutrient density.
You are just looking at the fact that vitamins exist in them. They are essentially less than 5% in the few vitamins they have for daily intake. Meaning you would have to eat 2-2.5kg (4.4lbs to 5.5lbs) to get vitamin C up to a daily requirement. They are universally considered to be low nutrient.
Right and based off of eating 5.5lbs of celery, you'd have your daily requirement of vitamin C in less than 400 calories. That would be considered nutrient density.
Edited: 100g= 16 calories. 2.5kg= 2,500 grams. 25*16= 400 calories.
Even if one could physically eat 5.5 lbs of celery, I can't even imagine the chewing required to consume that much. Perhaps that could be logged as exercise?9 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?
Actually, nutrient density was defined by Joel Fuhrman. Nutrients (and he really means micros) per calorie is the commonly recognized definition.
Things like olive oil are not nutrient dense. Olive oil is less nutrient dense than ice cream, potato chips and french fries. It does beat out non-diet sodas, though.
Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Even if one could physically eat 5.5 lbs of celery, I can't even imagine the chewing required to consume that much. Perhaps that could be logged as exercise?
puts a whole new meaning to C25k. Eating competition Celery 25kgs. How fast can you eat it?7 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?
Actually, nutrient density was defined by Joel Fuhrman. Nutrients (and he really means micros) per calorie is the commonly recognized definition.
Things like olive oil are not nutrient dense. Olive oil is less nutrient dense than ice cream, potato chips and french fries. It does beat out non-diet sodas, though.
Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.
What do you think would be a better way? That's just my opinion.
Generally foods that are higher nutrient density are considered healthier foods, and foods that are lower density are considered less healthy.2 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
It's a myth that those foods are nutrient-poor.3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?
Actually, nutrient density was defined by Joel Fuhrman. Nutrients (and he really means micros) per calorie is the commonly recognized definition.
Things like olive oil are not nutrient dense. Olive oil is less nutrient dense than ice cream, potato chips and french fries. It does beat out non-diet sodas, though.
Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.
What do you think would be a better way? That's just my opinion.
Generally foods that are higher nutrient density are considered healthier foods, and foods that are lower density are considered less healthy.
It's generally accepted around here to talk about a DIET that is built around primarily nutrient dense foods. That's totally fine and no one really bats an eye. It's when you try to isolate individual foods into "healthy/unhealthy" or "good/bad" that it becomes a slippery slope - for the reasons I outlined above. You really can't evaluate individual foods without looking at the context of the overall DIET.
12 -
WinoGelato wrote: »It's generally accepted around here to talk about a DIET that is built around primarily nutrient dense foods. That's totally fine and no one really bats an eye. It's when you try to isolate individual foods into "healthy/unhealthy" or "good/bad" that it becomes a slippery slope - for the reasons I outlined above. You really can't evaluate individual foods without looking at the context of the overall DIET.
This.
3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?
Actually, nutrient density was defined by Joel Fuhrman. Nutrients (and he really means micros) per calorie is the commonly recognized definition.
Things like olive oil are not nutrient dense. Olive oil is less nutrient dense than ice cream, potato chips and french fries. It does beat out non-diet sodas, though.
Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.
What do you think would be a better way? That's just my opinion.
Generally foods that are higher nutrient density are considered healthier foods, and foods that are lower density are considered less healthy.
It's generally accepted around here to talk about a DIET that is built around primarily nutrient dense foods. That's totally fine and no one really bats an eye. It's when you try to isolate individual foods into "healthy/unhealthy" or "good/bad" that it becomes a slippery slope - for the reasons I outlined above. You really can't evaluate individual foods without looking at the context of the overall DIET.
I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?
Actually, nutrient density was defined by Joel Fuhrman. Nutrients (and he really means micros) per calorie is the commonly recognized definition.
Things like olive oil are not nutrient dense. Olive oil is less nutrient dense than ice cream, potato chips and french fries. It does beat out non-diet sodas, though.
Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.
What do you think would be a better way? That's just my opinion.
Generally foods that are higher nutrient density are considered healthier foods, and foods that are lower density are considered less healthy.
It's generally accepted around here to talk about a DIET that is built around primarily nutrient dense foods. That's totally fine and no one really bats an eye. It's when you try to isolate individual foods into "healthy/unhealthy" or "good/bad" that it becomes a slippery slope - for the reasons I outlined above. You really can't evaluate individual foods without looking at the context of the overall DIET.
I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.
Why would you think I wasn't here for the start? I have been participating in this thread all along.
Actually the question was, "what does 'eat unhealthy'" mean, which I believe was a reference to the fragmented OP. We don't know if the OP meant that she wanted to incorporate some calorie dense foods in addition to other nutrient dense foods, if she wanted to eat "junk" to the exclusivity of nutritious foods, etc. We don't know if she was talking about diet or individual foods. You made an assumption and provided a definition with really, not much information to go on, and were challenged on your choice of words.
So yeah, I'm keeping up.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?
Actually, nutrient density was defined by Joel Fuhrman. Nutrients (and he really means micros) per calorie is the commonly recognized definition.
Things like olive oil are not nutrient dense. Olive oil is less nutrient dense than ice cream, potato chips and french fries. It does beat out non-diet sodas, though.
Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.
What do you think would be a better way? That's just my opinion.
Generally foods that are higher nutrient density are considered healthier foods, and foods that are lower density are considered less healthy.
It's generally accepted around here to talk about a DIET that is built around primarily nutrient dense foods. That's totally fine and no one really bats an eye. It's when you try to isolate individual foods into "healthy/unhealthy" or "good/bad" that it becomes a slippery slope - for the reasons I outlined above. You really can't evaluate individual foods without looking at the context of the overall DIET.
I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.
Why would you think I wasn't here for the start? I have been participating in this thread all along.
Actually the question was, "what does 'eat unhealthy'" mean, which I believe was a reference to the fragmented OP. We don't know if the OP meant that she wanted to incorporate some calorie dense foods in addition to other nutrient dense foods, if she wanted to eat "junk" to the exclusivity of nutritious foods, etc. We don't know if she was talking about diet or individual foods. You made an assumption and provided a definition with really, not much information to go on, and were challenged on your choice of words.
So yeah, I'm keeping up.
Sorry... Didn't mean to offend you.
And I defended what I meant and have yet to hear a valid other response as to what healthy means or a valid rebuttle as to why nutrient density is a bad qualification for something being healthy either for a diet as a whole or a single food.
I get what you're saying, and you don't want people see this and think a certain food is unhealthy and they shouldn't have it because it will prevent them from losing weight or being healthy when the other 90% of their diet is nutrient dense foods and their diet as a whole is in fact very nutrient dense. I agree with that 100%.2 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.
I would argue that this portion is still trying to demonize food in some manner. If someone creates a meal that fits their calorie goals and has all of the daily requirements it would be a healthy diet.
If someone is low on Vitamin B6 and has the calorie room, eating french fries ( or other potatoes) might be a viable option for them.
There are health concerns to take into account as well. If someone has all of their nutrients filled for the day but needs to have sugar for health/medical reasons, Eating some gummy bears to get that sugar is just as healthy as eating apples to get that sugar. if sugar is their only goal with that snack/food.
Having said that I wouldnt START your meal planning with french fries and gummy bears.
I wouldnt say that kale is healthier than an orange when considering vitamin C. You just have to eat a bit more orange to achieve the same amount of vitamin C in Kale. Neither option is unhealthy.3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?
Actually, nutrient density was defined by Joel Fuhrman. Nutrients (and he really means micros) per calorie is the commonly recognized definition.
Things like olive oil are not nutrient dense. Olive oil is less nutrient dense than ice cream, potato chips and french fries. It does beat out non-diet sodas, though.
Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.
What do you think would be a better way? That's just my opinion.
Generally foods that are higher nutrient density are considered healthier foods, and foods that are lower density are considered less healthy.
It's generally accepted around here to talk about a DIET that is built around primarily nutrient dense foods. That's totally fine and no one really bats an eye. It's when you try to isolate individual foods into "healthy/unhealthy" or "good/bad" that it becomes a slippery slope - for the reasons I outlined above. You really can't evaluate individual foods without looking at the context of the overall DIET.
I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.
A diet that meets your nutritional needs and then not nutrient dense foods by preference vs. a diet that meets your nutritional needs and then even more things that give you micronutrients your body doesn't need anymore. Neither is better. Superfluous water-soluble nutrients are excreted.3 -
I think it's probably a bad idea to assume anything about someone's diet, except what they tell you. And even if we are told what an OP is eating, we don't know what everyone reading the advice is eating. If someone asks "Does it matter if I ____, as long as I'm eating at a deficit?" the answer will depend on what is in the blank. "Eat cookies occasionally" - fine. "Have treats sometimes" - no problem. "Eat literally anything" - poor advice, particularly if we don't know what "literally anything" means. For some people it means a very unhealthy diet/lifestyle. The best, most caring, and most responsible thing, imo, is not to give carte blanche but to give balanced and truthful advice.janejellyroll wrote: »I personally think it's very condescending for us to assume, automatically, that anyone asking OP's question (or a variant of it) is asking if they can survive on Red Bulls, Oreos, and Slim Jims. If someone asks about how they can tweak their diet to make it more healthful, I'm happy to try to help. But I am not going to assume that they need to hear that from me and I'm certainly not going to assume that what "healthy diet" means to me is what it means to someone else.
2 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
It's a myth that those foods are nutrient-poor.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2439/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2396/2
If you want to eat a few pounds of them on a daily basis.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Yes. For weight loss, it is that simple.
You meet nutritional goals for general health (and you don't need to eat "clean" or perfectly to do this), but weight loss is created by a calorie deficit. Many people find certain eating patterns make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit (some people prefer fewer carbohydrates, some prefer more fiber, some prefer more protein, etc), but that doesn't change that a calorie deficit will work no matter what you're eating.
Just wanted to point out that this is the second post in the thread (and probably the first serious one as I think Noel was being facetious) and it perfectly summarizes the advice and tone of what the supposed "CICO Crowd" would advocate in threads just like this. Yet still, in subsequent posts, others raise the idea that eating nothing but gummy bears wouldn't be a good idea. Which why someone thinks that the OP was considering eating nothing but gummy bears is beyond me. And I suspect even further still, others will suggest that anyone who follows your post and says "yep! Calories are all that matter for weight loss" are somehow giving the OP the impression that nutrition isn't important and that obviously negates the succinct and sage advice that you provided and will imply that anyone who is in the "CICO Crowd" is saying to ignore nutrition.
You interpreted that post as eating "nothing but gummy bears" but all the person said was that junk food like gummy bears doesn't satisfy hunger long. Nobody said anything about eating nothing but gummy bears.
Fair, the post didn't say eat nothing but gummy bears.... but to feel the need to call out that gummy bears wouldn't stave off hunger seems to suggest they think the poster (or others, who knows) are building entire meals around gummy bears or other "complete crap food" as another poster suggested.
When I'm hungry, I don't look to gummy bears. To think that others do, and that it needs to be qualified, seems odd to me.
You could see it that way I suppose...I didn't, and don't. I am sure a lot of other people didn't either. It actually brought up a good point. Gummy bears do not help with hunger...and furthermore, some people pointed out that Snickers on the other hand, have satiating power that gummy bears do not. Does it make Snickers a h ealthier food? No - just one that may help you feel fuller longer when you're hungry. Ever eat something and still be hungry later? That's all the point was about the gummy bears - at least that's how I saw it. *shrug*2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
It's a shame OP hasn't been back to clarify what he or she meant with the original question:
"Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?"
Many people assume that means that OP wants to eat nothing but junk (gummy bears, specifically and curiously).
I assume that means that OP wants to include less nutrient dense foods in their diet but does not intend to build the entire diet around these foods.
It would be helpful if @suenewberry81 would provide additional information and would help move the discussion forward so people might be able to offer more specific suggestions about how to balance nutrient dense foods with occasional indulgences.
I agree it would be helpful if the OP came back and clarified.
When I read "Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?" I assume it means majority unhealthy, however the OP defines "unhealthy".
I'd expect a question about occasional treats to be worded differently.
Again, I have a different perspective.
Years ago when I was doing Weight Watchers, I was on the FlexPoints system (I think...one of the Points systems). The idea was I could eat anything I wanted as long as I didn't go over my points and I had 50 (35? 25? I don't remember the number) additional "flex points" for the week to spend any way I wished. So I used my daily points for food - meals, snacks, nutritious stuff - and I used my Flex points for treats like ice cream and candy -
Well my husband came in and saw me eating a bag of skittles - I still remember they were 5 points - and he said "Man, you are never going to lose weight if you keep eating candy!!"
Now he knew I was not eating candy for all my meals, nor was I eating them all the time. He mistakenly thought that in order to lose weight, I had to cut out all the "junk" food - like 99% of everyone else thinks.
So I took this OP to mean ...can I eat unhealthy/high calorie things too and still lose weight? I didn't see it at all as a free for all, eat all unhealthy food all the time (and even if it was, yes, she could still lose weight).
And if I am hungry, and there are gummy bears available and there is no better option for me, dammit I will eat the gummy bears if I want to.6 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.
I would argue that this portion is still trying to demonize food in some manner. If someone creates a meal that fits their calorie goals and has all of the daily requirements it would be a healthy diet.
If someone is low on Vitamin B6 and has the calorie room, eating french fries ( or other potatoes) might be a viable option for them.
There are health concerns to take into account as well. If someone has all of their nutrients filled for the day but needs to have sugar for health/medical reasons, Eating some gummy bears to get that sugar is just as healthy as eating apples to get that sugar. if sugar is their only goal with that snack/food.
Having said that I wouldnt START your meal planning with french fries and gummy bears.
I wouldnt say that kale is healthier than an orange when considering vitamin C. You just have to eat a bit more orange to achieve the same amount of vitamin C in Kale. Neither option is unhealthy.
Wait so do we finally agree on what nutrient dense means? haha just messing.
I agree with what you've said, and that's a valid point, that if someone needs sugar because they are diabetic then yes in that situation, the gummy bears would be more healthy than kale. But generally, I believe nutrient density is a valid determinant of healthfulness.0 -
Sometimes you should just take things at freaking face value and not try to read your own convoluted interpretations into it.4
-
I think it's probably a bad idea to assume anything about someone's diet, except what they tell you. And even if we are told what an OP is eating, we don't know what everyone reading the advice is eating. If someone asks "Does it matter if I ____, as long as I'm eating at a deficit?" the answer will depend on what is in the blank. "Eat cookies occasionally" - fine. "Have treats sometimes" - no problem. "Eat literally anything" - poor advice, particularly if we don't know what "literally anything" means. For some people it means a very unhealthy diet/lifestyle. The best, most caring, and most responsible thing, imo, is not to give carte blanche but to give balanced and truthful advice.janejellyroll wrote: »I personally think it's very condescending for us to assume, automatically, that anyone asking OP's question (or a variant of it) is asking if they can survive on Red Bulls, Oreos, and Slim Jims. If someone asks about how they can tweak their diet to make it more healthful, I'm happy to try to help. But I am not going to assume that they need to hear that from me and I'm certainly not going to assume that what "healthy diet" means to me is what it means to someone else.
I dare you to find anyone telling others "eat literally anything" full stop, no other explanations.
The answer to "If I eat ______ can I still lose weight?" is yes, regardless of what the blank is.7
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