Is meat inherently unhealthy?

[SixBuckets]

There are plenty of diets that are unhealthy - by saying that you leave room for someone to stumble onto any diet and have them assume it will be healthy for them
there are diets that claim you can eat only chocolate, diets that advocate basic starvation,crash diets, all type of things that are not healthy for you

I think you're missing my point. There are certainly diets that are unhealthy for a large number of people (or even the majority of people) but that doesn't mean that they're unhealthy for literally everyone.

For example, extreme calorie restriction or crash diets are extremely unwise for most people, but there are still examples where these things are medically recommended due to specific health or medical needs.

Even the classic example of an "unhealthy diet" - high saturated fats, high sugar, high calorie - can be "healthy" for people who are, say, recovering from severe illness induced weight loss and needing to gain weight quickly.

Does that make more sense?

 

[NeighborMike]

I think you're missing my point. There are certainly diets that are unhealthy for a large number of people (or even the majority of people) but that doesn't mean that they're unhealthy for literally everyone.

For example, extreme calorie restriction or crash diets are extremely unwise for most people, but there are still examples where these things are medically recommended due to specific health or medical needs.

Even the classic example of an "unhealthy diet" - high saturated fats, high sugar, high calorie - can be "healthy" for people who are, say, recovering from severe illness induced weight loss and needing to gain weight quickly.

Does that make more sense?

yeah it makes perfect sense to me
im talking about for people who might stumble upon this post who know nothing who might get the impression any diet would work for them

theres often times people look for excuses to do stupid things

 

[SixBuckets]

yeah it makes perfect sense to me
im talking about for people who might stumble upon this post who know nothing who might get the impression any diet would work for them

theres often times people look for excuses to do stupid things

I think the whole concept of food morality ("good" foods and "bad" foods) is extremely broken and does a lot of damage to both our population and the individuals who make it up.

 

[NeighborMike]

I think the whole concept of food morality ("good" foods and "bad" foods) is extremely broken and does a lot of damage to both our population and the individuals who make it up.

You could say that, but there are other factors. Mainly portion control i think
Its possible to find a balance eating whatever it is as long as you know how to find a balance, people have no idea what moderation is now a days

 

[nuttynutskin]

There is no such thing as a diet that is universally unhealthy or universally healthy. The possible exception is trans fats, but even the kinds of foods that tend to be high in trans fats can be 'healthy' for some people with very specific dietary needs if you look at their total nutritional makeup.

What a load... Unless I'm unaware of some crazy medical condition no one needs trans fats. By your reasoning eating Snickers bars and washing them down with gallons of Pepsi and ice cream shouldn't be considered universally unhealthy.

I think the whole concept of food morality ("good" foods and "bad" foods) is extremely broken and does a lot of damage to both our population and the individuals who make it up.

How? Idk what Australia is like, but here in the US obesity is a huge problem. I think your view would be a lot more damaging to the population because it would just make people that already have unhealthy diets think there's nothing wrong with all the junk they're dumping down their throats.

 

[SixBuckets]

What a load... Unless I'm unaware of some crazy medical condition no one needs trans fats.

Correct.

By your reasoning eating Snickers bars and washing them down with gallons of Pepsi and ice cream shouldn't be considered universally unhealthy.

Did you read my next post? This isn't universally unhealthy. If you're experiencing one of the many medical conditions where you urgently need to gain weight fast, this is exactly the kind of thing doctors will recommend: sugar, fat, lots of calories, in easy to eat forms. This is the diet best suited for a person's health and medical needs in that circumstance, therefore it is healthy for that person.

How? Idk what Australia is like, but here in the US obesity is a huge problem.

Our average weight is higher than obesity specialists would like it to be and (more importantly) we have a big problem with sedentary lifestyles and poor diets (especially over consumption of red meat and soft drink).

I think your view would be a lot more damaging to the population because it would just make people that already have unhealthy diets think there's nothing wrong with all the junk they're dumping down their throats.

That's not my view, though? My view is that people should be educated to think of food as a thing we have a complex relationship with that includes pleasure, but more importantly to address individual foods on the basis of their components and behaviours. So not "bad" food, but "high calorie" or "high sugar" or "low fibre" (etc) food - what do these attributes mean for the relationship between this food stuff and your body? What will be the outcome of you eating it - pleasure? Weight gain? Feeling kinda sick? Decisions about food should be based on outcomes, awareness and access, not morality.

I mean, I'm kind of proof that you're wrong about what "my views" will do to people. I actively reject food morality and try my best not to think of food in terms of "good" and "bad" or "healthy" and "unhealthy". I don't eat red meat, I eat very little processed sugar, the only beverages I really consume are water and coffee, and I deliberately choose to eat seafood once or twice a week to make sure I get enough iron. I am in the habit of introducing vegetables into almost everything I eat - not because vegetables are "good", but because they meet the nutritional needs of my body at this point in time and I find them pleasurable to consume. I also don't beat myself up for occasionally eating a chocolate biscuit, because there's nothing "bad" about chocolate biscuits. It's just appropriate to eat them in moderation because of their nutritional and caloric components.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Did you read my next post? This isn't universally unhealthy. If you're experiencing one of the many medical conditions where you urgently need to gain weight fast, this is exactly the kind of thing doctors will recommend: sugar, fat, lots of calories, in easy to eat forms. This is the diet best suited for a person's health and medical needs in that circumstance, therefore it is healthy for that person.

Links? I've never heard of any doctors recommending someone gorge themselves on candy and junk food. Sugar is just empty calories. Wouldn't it make a bit more sense to have the person eating high protein calorie rich foods instead of putting them in a diabetic coma?

That's not my view, though? My view is that people should be educated to think of food as a thing we have a complex relationship with that includes pleasure, but more importantly to address individual foods on the basis of their components and behaviours. So not "bad" food, but "high calorie" or "high sugar" or "low fibre" (etc) food - what do these attributes mean for the relationship between this food stuff and your body? What will be the outcome of you eating it - pleasure? Weight gain? Feeling kinda sick? Decisions about food should be based on outcomes, awareness and access, not morality.

Right, but a lot of the public in general don't have a very good understanding of nutrition, so I stand by what I said. If you tell someone there's no inherently unhealthy diet who already has poor choices in what they're eating they'll likely just keep eating that way.

I mean, I'm kind of proof that you're wrong about what "my views" will do to people. I actively reject food morality and try my best not to think of food in terms of "good" and "bad" or "healthy" and "unhealthy". I don't eat red meat, I eat very little processed sugar, the only beverages I really consume are water and coffee, and I deliberately choose to eat seafood once or twice a week to make sure I get enough iron. I am in the habit of introducing vegetables into almost everything I eat - not because vegetables are "good", but because they meet the nutritional needs of my body at this point in time and I find them pleasurable to consume. I also don't beat myself up for occasionally eating a chocolate biscuit, because there's nothing "bad" about chocolate biscuits. It's just appropriate to eat them in moderation because of their nutritional and caloric components.

I don't even know what "food morality" is, although I agree labeling food good or bad is too simplistic and a bit erroneous. As far as healthy and unhealthy tho I don't really agree. I think it's fair to say that Twinkies are unhealthy just like I think it's fair to say a piece of salmon is healthy, and this is based on nutritional value. Is that to say that you can't fit Twinkies into your diet sometimes? Of course not. But a lot of people don't understand the concept of moderation, or just plan have an unhealthy relationship with food.

 

[SixBuckets]

Links? I've never heard of any doctors recommending someone gorge themselves on candy and junk food. Sugar is just empty calories. Wouldn't it make a bit more sense to have the person eating high protein calorie rich foods instead of putting them in a diabetic coma?

I have. I don't have any links because, well, it was advice given to people by their doctors, not an article or a website. In the specific example I'm thinking of, a friend was told by their doctor to drink soft drink and add sour cream to all their food until they'd gained back enough weight to not be at risk of death.

Diabetic comas only happen to people with diabetes. Sugar isn't an inherently unhealthy food - it's just a soluble short-chain carbohydrate that happens to taste very sweet. It only causes problems (for most people) if they eat too much of it.

Right, but a lot of the public in general don't have a very good understanding of nutrition, so I stand by what I said.

I don't think the way to combat low nutrition health literacy is to teach people food morality instead of basic nutritional skills. The better option is to provide that knowledge instead of writing people off because they don't have it.

If you tell someone there's no inherently unhealthy diet who already has poor choices in what they're eating they'll likely just keep eating that way.

But, again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying "tell people there's no inherently unhealthy diet", I'm saying "tell people there's no inherently unhealthy diet and that whether something is healthy or unhealthy depends on their personal dietary needs". It's a basic principle of public health that people will make healthy choices if it's easy and accessible for them and they know how to.

I don't even know what "food morality" is, although I agree labeling food good or bad is too simplistic and a bit erroneous.

Hooray, we agree!

 

[nuttynutskin]

I have. I don't have any links because, well, it was advice given to people by their doctors, not an article or a website. In the specific example I'm thinking of, a friend was told by their doctor to drink soft drink and add sour cream to all their food until they'd gained back enough weight to not be at risk of death.

Ok, but wouldn't you say that's a bit of an extreme example and not representative of most people's situation in regards to their diet? What I'm talking about is in regards to your average person's diet, not some extreme medical case. And even with that said I'm willing to bet the doctor didn't just say to drink soft drink and eat sour cream. They just wanted the person to get in as much calories as they could.

Diabetic comas only happen to people with diabetes. Sugar isn't an inherently unhealthy food - it's just a soluble short-chain carbohydrate that happens to taste very sweet. It only causes problems (for most people) if they eat too much of it.

I was slightly exaggerating. Sugar still is just empty calories tho.

I don't think the way to combat low nutrition health literacy is to teach people food morality instead of basic nutritional skills. The better option is to provide that knowledge instead of writing people off because they don't have it.

I still don't know what you mean by food morality. I've never heard that term in my entire life. I am however all for people learning basic nutritional skills. The problem is a lot of people just don't care enough to learn.

But, again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying "tell people there's no inherently unhealthy diet", I'm saying "tell people there's no inherently unhealthy diet and that whether something is healthy or unhealthy depends on their personal dietary needs". It's a basic principle of public health that people will make healthy choices if it's easy and accessible for them and they know how to.

I sort of agree, but except maybe in some fringe case like you described where someone needs to get all the calories they can so they don't die, nobody NEEDS candy, soda and junk food.

 

[SixBuckets]

Ok, but wouldn't you say that's a bit of an extreme example and not representative of most people's situation in regards to their diet? What I'm talking about is in regards to your average person's diet, not some extreme medical case. And even with that said I'm willing to bet the doctor didn't just say to drink soft drink and eat sour cream. They just wanted the person to get in as much calories as they could.

Yep. But that's exactly my point. Popular dialogue has taken the idea of food being "a healthy inclusion in the diet of most people" and run with it to this extreme place where food is "good" or "bad" or has inherently health qualities outside of nutritional value and kilojules. There's no food (well almost no food - I'll give you the trans fats) that's universally unhealthy for all people. The foods that are healthy for you depend on your individual nutritional needs - these vary from person to person, and even within different periods of the one person's life.

I was slightly exaggerating. Sugar still is just empty calories tho.

There's no such thing as empty calories. Calories (we use kilojules in Australia) are food energy. Food energy is vital for the normal functioning of the human body. Calories that come with no other nutritional value are only a negative thing if your caloric intake is much higher than it needs to be, or if you're consuming these foods to the exclusion of others. It's neither "bad" or "unhealthy" to occasionally make up your daily caloric intake using sugar in addition to other foods.

I still don't know what you mean by food morality. I've never heard that term in my entire life.

Food morality is the idea of attaching moral values to what we eat - so labelling food "good" or "bad". Considering people who eat "good" food to be virtuous and people who eat "bad" foods to be weak willed or gluttonous. Encouraging people to feel guilt if they eat "bad" food and to make up for it or punish themselves. A strong belief in food morality is linked to some eating disorders, especially those with compulsive actions like purging. I'm a firm believer that it causes really fucked up thought processes, associations and behaviours even in people who don't have eating disorders.

I am however all for people learning basic nutritional skills. The problem is a lot of people just don't care enough to learn.

I disagree with this. Most people want to be healthy and engage in positive, health promoting behaviours. They just think it's hard, or expensive, or the way these behaviours are promoted excludes them, or they believe that the behaviour will require them to sacrifice things they value. This education also isn't embedded in our upbringing - instead we feed kids and young adults really mixed messages about food being really important and desirable (cooking shows, restaurant culture, fast food marketing, but no information about food's actual nutritional content) but also bombard them with diets and weight loss and incredibly petite celebrity role models. Then we expect them to become independent and suddenly know how to prepare nutritional, appropriate food for their families. It's completely broken.

I sort of agree, but except maybe in some fringe case like you described where someone needs to get all the calories they can so they don't die, nobody NEEDS candy, soda and junk food.

I could put together a very restrictive dietary plan that contained everything you "needed" to stay alive, but it might not be great for your satisfaction with your life. Sure, not many people "need" chocolate or Pepsi, but that doesn't mean they can't be a perfectly acceptable and healthy part of someone's diet. It's a bit extreme to say that your diet should be made up entirely of "things you literally would die if you didn't eat".

 

[nuttynutskin]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree/partially agree then. I'll never be convinced that candy, soda and other junk food is a healthy part of someone's diet. It could be an addition to an otherwise healthy diet when used in moderation, but it's not healthy in and of itself.

There's no such thing as empty calories.

Yeah, there is. It was even covered in a college nutrition class I took about a decade ago...

In human nutrition, the term empty calories applies to food such as solid fats and/or added sugars supplying food energy but little or no other nutrition. The USDA advises, "A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy."[1]

The phrase is derived from nutrient density (proportion of nutrients in a food relative to its energy content), and calorie density (amount of energy relative to weight of the food). Thus empty calories are accompanied by no or few nutrients.[2] Foods containing empty calories typically contain processed carbohydrates and ethanol (alcohol), and to some extent fats. Also known as a discretionary calorie, an empty calorie has the same energy content as any other calorie but lacks many accompanying nutrients such as vitamins, dietary minerals, antioxidants, amino acids, or dietary fiber. Although carbohydrates and fats are nutrients, they are typically ignored for this analysis, with the exception of essential fatty acids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie

 

[NeighborMike]

Yep. But that's exactly my point. Popular dialogue has taken the idea of food being "a healthy inclusion in the diet of most people" and run with it to this extreme place where food is "good" or "bad" or has inherently health qualities outside of nutritional value and kilojules. There's no food (well almost no food - I'll give you the trans fats) that's universally unhealthy for all people. The foods that are healthy for you depend on your individual nutritional needs - these vary from person to person, and even within different periods of the one person's life.

No offense but for you to say something like this tells me your dietary knowledge is extremely limited
There are foods so bad for you that they will ruin a weeks worth of healthy eating

Now that obesity is becoming a problem they are just now doing various things to point out how things we think are simple have a drastic and negative effect on the body, like the big mac chart thats been floating around.

If youre on a normal diet that maximizes your health the only bad food that is ever suggested to you is a cheat meal, or even a cheat day depending on conditions
And for you to say there is no good or bad food tells me you dont know the difference between a big mac and an apple.

Also empty calories are some of the worst calories you can have which is why its becoming a consideration that drinking diet soda may be worse for you then drinking a regular soda.

 

[SixBuckets]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree/partially agree then. I'll never be convinced that candy, soda and other junk food is a healthy part of someone's diet. It could be an addition to an otherwise healthy diet when used in moderation, but it's not healthy in and of itself.

*shrug* Wev.

Yeah, there is. It was even covered in a college nutrition class I took about a decade ago...

The text you've quoted here agrees with what I said:

"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy."[1]

They're not "bad", they're just usually overconsumed in relation to an individual's caloric requirements.

No offense but for you to say something like this tells me your dietary knowledge is extremely limited
There are foods so bad for you that they will ruin a weeks worth of healthy eating

Guys, there's only so many times I can repeat variations on "the definition of healthy varies wildly from person to person and is determined by your individual dietary needs". If we're all doubling down on disagreeing with this statement, I reckon it's time for me to back out of this conversation.

If youre on a normal diet that maximizes your health the only bad food that is ever suggested to you is a cheat meal, or even a cheat day depending on conditions
And for you to say there is no good or bad food tells me you dont know the difference between a big mac and an apple.

I have to admit, I'm not too familiar with the nutritional make up of a big mac, because (as I said above) I don't eat meat and rarely consume fast food. But I am well aware that there are people with nutritional needs that include lots of fats and simple carbohydrates. Read my above paragraph again, or better yet the whole thread.

 

[NeighborMike]

Well again, its no ones dietary need to consume a hamburger wth 2200 calories and 80 grams of fat
You keep repeating these things but for some reason youre not seeing the error in the things youre saying
Youre talking about things that go against the basis of nutrition.You cannot form a diet around food that is unhealthy for you(because unhealthy food does exist)if you do that at some point in your life you can guarantee your health will decline

 

[Mycophile]

Well again, its no ones dietary need to consume a hamburger wth 2200 calories and 80 grams of fat
You keep repeating these things but for some reason youre not seeing the error in the things youre saying
Youre talking about things that go against the basis of nutrition.You cannot form a diet around food that is unhealthy for you(because unhealthy food does exist)if you do that at some point in your life you can guarantee your health will decline

I don't think you are understanding what he's saying and it seems no one is.

I don't get why because he's being completely clear.

For your first comment he's saying there are VERY RARE cases of starving people who DO need to consume large amounts of calories and fat quickly and for those people eating a big mac might be good for them but that it USUALLY isn't, but because it OCASSIONALY can be it is proof that we shouldn't look at ANY food as either good or bad exclusively.

If someone is starving to death and needs LOTS of protein fast and can only choose one food to do it then in that particular case they are better off choosing a big mac than a carrot.

And he absolutely NEVER said you could "form a diet around food that is unhealthy".

You must not have been reading this thread carefully at all to think he said that.

What he essentially said was that the majority of foods that are considered "unhealthy" are unhealthy because of the WAY they are used and not the fact that they are eaten at all.

For example, if someone has already met all their daily caloric and nutritional needs with "good" food but has not consumed too much food and/or has burned enough calories that they could STILL eat a snickers bar or pepsi and it WOULDN'T be instead of eating some other good food (because they already met their daily nutritional needs) and it wouldn't make them fat (because they already have a caloric deficit that day) then there is essentially nothing very unhealthy about eating a snickers bar.

It's the same thing with having a beer or two: "if you met all your daily nutritional needs and have a caloric deficit and having the one, two or even 3 beers DOESN'T put you in the "fat gaining zone" (for lack of a better word) and isn't being consumed instead of something else you need and you don't have a liver problem or something else....then on that particular day having those few drinks is NOT an "unhealthy" choice, nor would it be an unhealthy choice instead of that to have a snickers or a pepsi.

I agree with what he's saying.

People in this thread really lack critical reading skills that they need to work on developing.

 

[NeighborMike]

I don't think you are understanding what he's saying and it seems no one is.

I don't get why because he's being completely clear.

For your first comment he's saying there are VERY RARE cases of starving people who DO need to consume large amounts of calories and fat quickly and for those people eating a big mac might be good for them but that it USUALLY isn't, but because it OCASSIONALY can be it is proof that we shouldn't look at ANY food as either good or bad exclusively.

If someone is starving to death and needs LOTS of protein fast and can only choose one food to do it then in that particular case they are better off choosing a big mac than a carrot.

And he absolutely NEVER said you could "form a diet around food that is unhealthy".

You must not have been reading this thread carefully at all to think he said that.

What he essentially said was that the majority of foods that are considered "unhealthy" are unhealthy because of the WAY they are used and not the fact that they are eaten at all.

For example, if someone has already met all their daily caloric and nutritional needs with "good" food but has not consumed too much food and/or has burned enough calories that they could STILL eat a snickers bar or pepsi and it WOULDN'T be instead of eating some other good food (because they already met their daily nutritional needs) and it wouldn't make them fat (because they already have a caloric deficit that day) then there is essentially nothing very unhealthy about eating a snickers bar.

It's the same thing with having a beer or two: "if you met all your daily nutritional needs and have a caloric deficit and having the one, two or even 3 beers DOESN'T put you in the "fat gaining zone" (for lack of a better word) and isn't being consumed instead of something else you need and you don't have a liver problem or something else....then on that particular day having those few drinks is NOT an "unhealthy" choice, nor would it be an unhealthy choice instead of that to have a snickers or a pepsi.

I agree with what he's saying.

People in this thread really lack critical reading skills that they need to work on developing.

I have plenty of critical reading skills. The person did not say that. The simple fact the person does not know what an empty calorie is tells me their information on nutrition is very lacking.

You do realize because of the amount of garbage in something as simple as a snickers or a pepsi is so high that it greatly sways you basic food needs as well as caloric intake?

You read something and formed your own opinion thats fine, but dont analyze something something one incorrectly said then try to spruce it and claim people dont know how to read

 

[Mycophile]

I have plenty of critical reading skills. The person did not say that. The simple fact the person does not know what an empty calorie is tells me their information on nutrition is very lacking.

You do realize because of the amount of garbage in something as simple as a snickers or a pepsi is so high that it greatly sways you basic food needs as well as caloric intake?

You read something and formed your own opinion thats fine, but dont analyze something something one incorrectly said then try to spruce it and claim people dont know how to read

Well I never read him say anything resembling that a "diet could be based around unhealthy foods".

So in that regard, unless there's something I'm missing, that was a misquote.

 

[NeighborMike]

Well I never read him say anything resembling that a "diet could be based around unhealthy foods".

So in that regard, unless there's something I'm missing, that was a misquote.

To say there is no good or bad diet and make it a blanket statement all but says a diet can be based on unhealthy foods
Myself and 2 other people tried to correct the person, even if all 3 of us are wrong and youre right there needed to be more clarification and the person wasnt able to provide that
If 3 of us saw something different then you thats not good considering going back to what i said people will look for an excuse

 

[Mycophile]

To say there is no good or bad diet and make it a blanket statement all but says a diet can be based on unhealthy foods
Myself and 2 other people tried to correct the person, even if all 3 of us are wrong and youre right there needed to be more clarification and the person wasnt able to provide that
If 3 of us saw something different then you thats not good considering going back to what i said people will look for an excuse

Well I do generally think there is something as a "bad diet".

Maybe I misread him, but I thought he was making more of a point about how the majority of foods can be ok in moderation and that it's just gross overeating of generally bad foods to the exclusion of good foods that is really harmful.

 

[NeighborMike]

Well I do generally think there is something as a "bad diet".

Maybe I misread him, but I thought he was making more of a point about how the majority of foods can be ok in moderation and that it's just gross overeating of generally bad foods to the exclusion of good foods that is really harmful.

What i gather from what he is saying is you can eat whatever you want as long as its in moderation, which is wrong. You cant eat burger king diet in moderation
Its like the people who used to use that weight watchers point system shit, they wouldnt eat all day so they could drink 3 glasses of wine at the end of the day but assumed it was healthy because it was within the point system