Is meat inherently unhealthy?

[nuttynutskin]

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.

Lol... What? Just because someone CAN fit in a Snickers bar or Pepsi into their diet doesn't make it healthy. The ingredients and nutrients in it make it healthy or unhealthy. Not exactly rocket science.

 

[Mycophile]

Lol... What? Just because someone CAN fit in a Snickers bar or Pepsi into their diet doesn't make it healthy. The ingredients and nutrients in it make it healthy or unhealthy. Not exactly rocket science.

I already know that.

Maybe I don't know what his point is.

He should come back into this thread and clarify.

 

[NeighborMike]

I already know that.

Maybe I don't know what his point is.

He should come back into this thread and clarify.

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

maybe you need to practice what you preach

 

[SmokingAces]

I came from a vegetarian family. At 16 I started eating white meat and fish. The reason being i was too skinny for my age and used to get wound up about it in school. So i started doing some weights and eating a bit of chicken pasta on my lunch break. The way my understanding of the whole fitness thing is now i don't think i could do it without white meat, fish and eggs. We were never vegan but vegetarian diet is a bit lacking in protein i find (and yes i am well aware of quorn etc, but it's expensive). I don't eat alot of meat but around 150g of chicken breast a day and sometimes a can of tuna. Other than that alot of cereal, salads, and decent carbs.

I agree with what nuttmyskin was saying in a way. I don't think for someone trying to put on some weight that the likes of biscuits and chocolate are that bad really. If your trying to put on a couple of stone and eat 4000cals a day or something it is very hard to eat all that clean. Most skinny guys probably won't manage.

 

[MDpatient]

I'd say after a few millions of years of evolution it can be safely concluded that meat is inherently good for us. Evolutionary biology is our friend.

 

[nuttynutskin]

maybe you need to practice what you preach

Lol... That poster is known to pretty much suck up to anyone in a position of power. I don't get it honestly.

 

[Mycophile]

Lol... That poster is known to pretty much suck up to anyone in a position of power. I don't get it honestly.

I don't "suck up to anyone in a position of power".

I kind of respect one mod's opinions, which is Sekio, in addition to Plasticity cause I knew him before he was a mod.

I didn't actually notice that poster was a mod till you mentioned it.

Kind of annoying to assume that's the case.

 

[SixBuckets]

Mycophile pretty accurately summed up what I was trying to say.

Thanks! I was beginning to doubt my own capacity to communicate.

Lol... What? Just because someone CAN fit in a Snickers bar or Pepsi into their diet doesn't make it healthy. The ingredients and nutrients in it make it healthy or unhealthy. Not exactly rocket science.

No they don't. The Snickers/Pepsi example was entirely apt. If these items are accommodated into a diet that fits your individual dietary needs, that is the exact definition of a healthy diet. It's not "healthy" to base your personal diet around the individual dietary needs of someone else who isn't you, and it's certainly not "healthy" to base it around the idea of foods being "good" and "bad" like we're discussing sin and virtue.

Look, take the focus off food for a second. Forget about the bloody Snickers bar, you're getting hung up on the details. Here's a non-food health example: I have fibromyalgia. If I stand up for long periods of time, I end up in extreme pain and sometimes have mobility issues. That doesn't mean that standing up is "unhealthy" and definitely not that it's "bad" - for most people, it's quite the opposite, with standing being "healthy" and too much sitting being negatively indicated for health. But my individual health needs mean that I have to carefully portion standing time and sit/lie down as much as possible, or I have negative (and possible long term) health outcomes.

It's really, really obvious that diet is just like any other aspect of health - it has individual components, systemic components and environmental components. The question of how actual pieces of food that you put into your mouth will interact with your actual personal body is a question of individual health. General population models are far less use in determining what "healthy" is for you than a personalised assessment of your health and dietary needs.

 

[SixBuckets]

I don't "suck up to anyone in a position of power".

I kind of respect one mod's opinions, which is Sekio, in addition to Plasticity cause I knew him before he was a mod.

I didn't actually notice that poster was a mod till you mentioned it.

Kind of annoying to assume that's the case.

I'm pretty sure that my "power", what there is of it, is limited to the AusDD board.

 

[SixBuckets]

I'd say after a few millions of years of evolution it can be safely concluded that meat is inherently good for us. Evolutionary biology is our friend.

Unless you eat bugs, I don't think you get to justify your diet with evolutionary biology.

 

[NeighborMike]

Mycophile pretty accurately summed up what I was trying to say.

Thanks! I was beginning to doubt my own capacity to communicate.



No they don't. The Snickers/Pepsi example was entirely apt. If these items are accommodated into a diet that fits your individual dietary needs, that is the exact definition of a healthy diet. It's not "healthy" to base your personal diet around the individual dietary needs of someone else who isn't you, and it's certainly not "healthy" to base it around the idea of foods being "good" and "bad" like we're discussing sin and virtue.

Look, take the focus off food for a second. Forget about the bloody Snickers bar, you're getting hung up on the details. Here's a non-food health example: I have fibromyalgia. If I stand up for long periods of time, I end up in extreme pain and sometimes have mobility issues. That doesn't mean that standing up is "unhealthy" and definitely not that it's "bad" - for most people, it's quite the opposite, with standing being "healthy" and too much sitting being negatively indicated for health. But my individual health needs mean that I have to carefully portion standing time and sit/lie down as much as possible, or I have negative (and possible long term) health outcomes.

It's really, really obvious that diet is just like any other aspect of health - it has individual components, systemic components and environmental components. The question of how actual pieces of food that you put into your mouth will interact with your actual personal body is a question of individual health. General population models are far less use in determining what "healthy" is for you than a personalised assessment of your health and dietary needs.

Youre wrong again I dont stand where youre coming up with these theories
I dont know what to say at this point

Using your condition as a way to explain what youre trying to say is a bad example

I dont get it. Ill use something simple as an example. Part of any diet based on any persons needs is a certain % of good fats. This varies by physical condition, size age blah blah bah all the variables that you say can make it so its ok for one person to eat something another cant. But under no circumstances is it ok for a person to eat bad fat. Because there is good healthy fat no diet would ever call for you to eat bad fat

You dont know what an empty carb is but I can tell you no diet under any circumstance will ever call for you to consume empty calories. Under no circumstance.
There are plenty of things out there that serve absolutely no nutritional value and serve no purpose in any diet

 

[SixBuckets]

Youre wrong again I dont stand where youre coming up with these theories
I dont know what to say at this point

Using your condition as a way to explain what youre trying to say is a bad example

I dont get it. Ill use something simple as an example. Part of any diet based on any persons needs is a certain % of good fats. This varies by physical condition, size age blah blah bah all the variables that you say can make it so its ok for one person to eat something another cant. But under no circumstances is it ok for a person to eat bad fat. Because there is good healthy fat no diet would ever call for you to eat bad fat

You dont know what an empty carb is but I can tell you no diet under any circumstance will ever call for you to consume empty calories. Under no circumstance.
There are plenty of things out there that serve absolutely no nutritional value and serve no purpose in any diet

OK, I'm just going to repeat that back to you with a little bit of emphasis...

I dont get it. Ill use something simple as an example. Part of any diet based on any persons needs is a certain % of good fats. This varies by physical condition, size age blah blah bah all the variables that you say can make it so its ok for one person to eat something another cant. But under no circumstances is it ok for a person to eat bad fat. Because there is good healthy fat no diet would ever call for you to eat bad fat

This is my entire point.

"Bad fat" is a really busted piece of phrasing. Do you mean trans fats? Or saturated fats? I already said that I didn't think there was a safe level of trans fats for almost anyone, but that doesn't mean that the positive dietary benefit of foods that contain trans fats might outweigh the dangers of trans fats for a specific person with dietary needs that are met by those foods. Most foods (except the 'empty calories' you're so fixated on) don't consist of a chunk of a single nutrient - they contain many ingredients that affect your health in different ways. Again, food containing trans fats are not a healthy part of most diets, but it's simply not true that no food containing "bad fats" ever has a dietary benefit ever at all to anyone ever. Foods containing trans fats still contain other macro- and micro-nutrients and your personal dietary needs may affect the cost/benefit analysis of whether those foods are a good choice for you.

If you're actually talking about saturated fats, I don't know what to tell you. There is definitely a place for saturated fats in the average diet, although many people today eat more of them than is healthy for them.

You dont know what an empty carb is but I can tell you no diet under any circumstance will ever call for you to consume empty calories. Under no circumstance.

You're still on the absolutist, moral language. I am telling you that it is bad health promotion to give people messages about their bodies and their health in terms of "good" and "bad" and "should" and "never". Two people in this thread have given you an example of when it's perfectly acceptable to consume 'empty calories'. If people are including these foods in a diet that meets their personal nutrition needs, this is not harmful, and it's definitely not "bad".

(*cuts and pastes previous replies to future posts, because we're going around in bloody circles*)

There are plenty of things out there that serve absolutely no nutritional value and serve no purpose in any diet

Except that we're not cars? Food serves lots of purposes outside of literal fuel for our bodies - it's a social and community engagement tool. It's a vector for pleasure, and positive mental health, and repeating family rituals, and practicing skills you've learned throughout your life. All of these things serve a purpose and are positive aspects of the role of diet in our life. One of the things I object to most about food morality (explained earlier in the thread) is that it positions eating for pleasure (and sometimes even enjoying food at all) as sinful and gluttonous. This is not healthy. There are many ways to healthy that don't involve calorie counting and deprivation. Believe it or not, many people have a healthy, positive relationship with food AND eat a diet that meets their individual nutritional needs AND sometimes have a Pepsi without the world ending.

 

[SixBuckets]

And yeah, maybe the fibro was a bad example. I was just trying to frame my point in a way that would get around the "bad food" hangup we're having communication difficulties over.

 

[NeighborMike]

Bad fat" is a really busted piece of phrasing. Do you mean trans fats? Or saturated fats? I already said that I didn't think there was a safe level of trans fats for almost anyone, but that doesn't mean that the positive dietary benefit of foods that contain trans fats might outweigh the dangers of trans fats for a specific person with dietary needs that are met by those foods.

I cant go any further like then this. Your knowledge is so limited in nutrtion is crazy. Bad fats are a busted pieace of phrasing? Are you serious? And then you assume that im talking about trans fats as a healthy source of fats? Out the dump you should know the difference between a good and bad fat an how to identify them, you basically rambled on for what looks like 3 paragraphs about something im not even talking about because you dont understand

I think its now become obvious that you think the things that you think because you just dont know the difference in very simple and basic things that should help you understand the difference between things you should and can put in your body and things that have absolutely no purpose what so ever being in anyones diet

Listen I dont know what your level of nutritional education is but there is a point where you have to just sit back and understand that the things youre saying are wrong and take the effort to learn so you dont propagate bad information.

 

[SixBuckets]

I cant go any further like then this. Your knowledge is so limited in nutrtion is crazy. Bad fats are a busted pieace of phrasing? Are you serious? And then you assume that im talking about trans fats as a healthy source of fats? Out the dump you should know the difference between a good and bad fat an how to identify them, you basically rambled on for what looks like 3 paragraphs about something im not even talking about because you dont understand

I'm seriously questioning your reading comprehension, mate. This:

And then you assume that im talking about trans fats as a healthy source of fats?

is the exact literal opposite of what I said, which was this:

I already said that I didn't think there was a safe level of trans fats for almost anyone

There's only so far a conversation on the internet can go with this level of misinterpretation.

I don't think I'm the one who "needs to learn".

 

[NeighborMike]

I'm seriously questioning your reading comprehension, mate. This:



is the exact literal opposite of what I said, which was this:



[/COLOR]There's only so far a conversation on the internet can go with this level of misinterpretation.

I don't think I'm the one who "needs to learn".

"Bad fat" is a really busted piece of phrasing. Do you mean trans fats? Or saturated fats?

You dont know the difference between simple things. Mate

 

[SixBuckets]

You dont know the difference between simple things.

Whut?

You used the phrase "bad fats". I expressed that I didn't like that phrase, then asked if you were using it to mean trans fats or saturated fats, as both are referred to in this way. I understand the difference - I was asking you to clarify which one you were talking about, because your meaning has been extremely unclear and you seem to really struggle with understanding what I'm posting.

Mate.

It says right under my name that I'm Australian. Don't take "mate" as an insult.

 

[NeighborMike]

A bad fat is a bad fat. Unnecessary to anyones diet
Which is the point ive been making that there are plenty of things that you can consume that have no value or purpose to any diet what so ever.

 

[SixBuckets]

A bad fat is a bad fat. Unnecessary to anyones diet

*sigh*

OK, so I googled "bad fat" in case I was missing something, and the top three Google results all said that the term can be used to mean either trans fats or saturated fats. These are two different things that have different effects on the body. I'm still not sure whether you're using the term to mean trans fats, saturated fats, or both, and you seem really resistant to clarifying yourself.

At this stage I've pretty much given up on this conversation, though, so wev.

 

[NeighborMike]

*sigh*

OK, so I googled "bad fat" in case I was missing something, and the top three Google results all said that the term can be used to mean either trans fats or saturated fats. These are two different things that have different effects on the body. I'm still not sure whether you're using the term to mean trans fats, saturated fats, or both, and you seem really resistant to clarifying yourself.

At this stage I've pretty much given up on this conversation, though, so wev.

Dude

but that doesn't mean that the positive dietary benefit of foods that contain trans fats might outweigh the dangers of trans fats for a specific person with dietary needs that are met by those foods

BAD FAT however you want to break it down. Whatever name you want to call it or whatever definition you want to assign to it has NO PLACE in ANY DIET. There is not good food that contains bad fat otherwise it would be a good food. There is a reason they are called BAD fats because they are BAD, this also means there are GOOD fats which are ok to eat. Which means there is NO need for bad fat and you cannot have a diet that consists of them
No matter how you cut it there are plenty of diets that dont require you to be a food nazi that have all the necessary things any person would need regardless of any level of consumption based on the persons needs health or any of that

And thats just 1 example of things a body should not consume. There are many many many things available to eat that are very unhealthy for you. Just because you can eat them does not mean you should ever eat them. And no normal diet ever calls for any of it

You saying its ok to have a soda or candy bar every so often when a person is following a normal diet has nothing to do with your main argument which was there is no bad diet. And that is just completely wrong, there are bad diets and bad food. There are plenty of diets that do nothing positive for you just like the food. And in every care just because you can do or can consume something does not mean its ok to or should ever be a diet or part of a diet