Is meat inherently unhealthy?

[NeighborMike]

Key words: "universally", "I" and "get by".

I have no idea what affect eating heaps of McDonalds would have on you personally, because I know nothing about your physiology, general health, nutritional needs, mental health and other medical conditions. I know that eating McDonalds would be unhealthy for me, so I don't eat it.

However, it's a dumb question. Yes, you could probably "get by" on a McDonald's diet, because McDonald's is food and humans are capable of surviving on some really extremely inadequate diets for quite some time. You might not feel great, though, and you might pay for it in later life. As nutty pointed out, even McDonald's food has nutritional components that can be beneficial in some circumstances.

So what youre saying is you think it might be ok for someone somewhere to live on a mcdonalds diet?

 

[nuttynutskin]

You're setting up a strawman because you keep trying to say I'm saying people "need" foods that are generally unhealthy choices. I'm not - I'm saying that these food choices (and I'm talking about foods, not nutritional components like trans fats and high fructose corn syrup) may be "healthy" for people with specific dietary and caloric needs, like needing a really enormous caloric intake in a short period of time. In that context, yes, trans fats still have unhealthy effects on the body (specifically the heart) but it may be more important for that individual's health needs to prioritise kilojules, fats or salts.

Why exactly wouldn't it make more sense for that person to prioritize natural healthy fats or even some saturated fat associated with dairy and meat? Even in the fringe cases you keep going on about I've yet to see a reason someone would need to eat something with trans fats, hydrogenated oils or any of the other things I mentioned.

There are no bad foods because eating is not a moral exercise.

Nobody, or at least I am not trying to make it a "moral exercise", you're the one that has some weird hang up on that. I'm just basing it on nutrition and nothing more.

If you're calling something "bad", you're a assigning a moral value to it. "Bad" isn't a nutritional or medical concept.

No I'm not, like I just said. You just keep assuming that. If I call cancer bad it's not because of morals. Cancer doesn't have morals. Just like if I call hydrogenated oil bad. I'm calling it bad because IT'S NOT HEALTHY FOR YOU. I swear this whole thread is just one semantic merry-go-round.

 

[nuttynutskin]

I have no idea what affect eating heaps of McDonalds would have on you personally, because I know nothing about your physiology, general health, nutritional needs, mental health and other medical conditions.

Seriously? You have no idea what it would do? I think this has gotten to silly for me.

 

[NeighborMike]

Seriously? You have no idea what it would do? I think this has gotten to silly for me.

And they said I might be a troll?

 

[nuttynutskin]

As nutty pointed out, even McDonald's food has nutritional components that can be beneficial in some circumstances.

Yes, but you're totally misconstruing and twisting around what I was saying which you've more or less been doing the whole thread. I'm beginning to think you just want to sound like you know everything. If it's something you feel really adamant about I'd suggest you take an actual nutrition class since you didn't even acknowledge the existence of empty calories.

 

[SixBuckets]

Heres 10 unleahty diets.

Can "people" use these?

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-unhealthy-fad-diets.php

The hilarious thing about this post is that number one on the list is the paleo diet, which you said you were following. So, considering you seem to think you're doing ok, I'd say that yeah, people can probably eat those things without dying.

Seriously? You have no idea what it would do? I think this has gotten to silly for me.

Well, no? The impact of eating nothing but McDonalds is going to vary wildly depending on individual metabolism, activity level, genetically determined capacity to process dietary cholesterol and saturated fat, previous dietary history, presence or absence of a wide range of chronic or acute medical conditions, etc etc. So, while it's a pretty good guess that this person eating nothing but McDonald's wouldn't be a wise dietary choice for long term health, it's also completely accurate to say that I have no idea what the actual real life outcome of this specific individual following that diet would be. How would I know? I know nothing about them.

Why exactly wouldn't it make more sense for that person to prioritize natural healthy fats or even some saturated fat associated with dairy and meat?

I didn't say it wouldn't.

Even in the fringe cases you keep going on about I've yet to see a reason someone would need to eat something with trans fats, hydrogenated oils or any of the other things I mentioned.

Again with the word "need". No, no one NEEDS to eat trans fats. This is a completely accurate statement and also does not contradict anything I've said anywhere else in this thread.

Nobody, or at least I am not trying to make it a "moral exercise", you're the one that has some weird hang up on that. I'm just basing it on nutrition and nothing more.

As I said, "bad" isn't a nutritional concept. I'm not disputing that it's a widely used term - I'm saying I disagree with that framing and that I think it's something people should challenge.

I don't really care if you agree with that position or not. I just seem to be stuck in some Sisyphean hell dimension where I have to explain the concept indefinitely.

 

[NeighborMike]

As I said, "bad" isn't a nutritional concept

Come on??
Bad food isnt a concept its a fact

All you have is a bunch of opinions and you appear to disagree with a bunch of facts.

So, considering you seem to think you're doing ok, I'd say that yeah, people can probably eat those things without dying.

Skip the paleo diet, a person can get by on a diet of chocolate? A popcorn diet? A grapefruit diet?

 

[nuttynutskin]

The impact of eating nothing but McDonalds is going to vary wildly depending on individual metabolism, activity level, genetically determined capacity to process dietary cholesterol and saturated fat, previous dietary history, presence or absence of a wide range of chronic or acute medical conditions, etc etc.

Lol @ vary wildly... Yeah sure. What other factors shall we bring up next? Different races more predisposed to being able to handle a shitty diet? Oh well, I think I've had my laugh for tonight.

 

[spacejunk]

Are you guys familiar with the definition of "diet"?

That is the only way i can make sense of this conversation; that you are talking about something completely different.

 

[NeighborMike]

Are you guys familiar with the definition of "diet"?

That is the only way i can make sense of this conversation; that you are talking about something completely different.

That really doesnt seem to have anything to do with it
Six is used opinions to push aside fact.

 

[SixBuckets]

Come on??
Bad food isnt a concept its a fact

All you have is a bunch of opinions and you appear to disagree with a bunch of facts.

The idea of food being "bad" isn't a fact in any way. It's clearly a subjective and moral judgement.

Skip the paleo diet, a person can get by on a diet of chocolate? A popcorn diet? A grapefruit diet?

I think spacejunk might be on to something - I don't think we're using the same definition of 'diet'. One of the examples in your link was eating nothing but chicken soup. Most people would experience nutritional deficiencies doing this for a long time, but eating nothing but chicken soup is a healthy and often recommended diet for, say, the two weeks you're in bed with the flu. Eating nothing but grapefruit might be a healthy dietary choice for a period where you are expected to fast for medical reasons. (Putting aside that very few people eat one food only forever as the makeup of their diet.)

You've pretty clearly demonstrated that a) you're having comprehension problems and b) your goal is to come up with really extreme examples so you can "win", rather than having a discussion about the topic of the post. So let's just agree to disagree and give it a rest.

(It's still hilarious that you posted a link to 'bad diets' that was supposed to be a 'gotcha' and the first one on the list was your own.)

 

[NeighborMike]

The idea of food being "bad" isn't a fact in any way. It's clearly a subjective and moral judgement.

I cant explain to you have ridiculous you sound. Im not having comprehension problem at all. Nutrition is based on fact and science. Morals have nothing to do with nutrition, nothing at all
There are good and bad things that you can and cant eat its not anymore cut and dry that

All you doing is trying to word smith me, now trying to insult my intelligence all the while youre trying to justify your baseless theories

Eating nothing but soup for 2 weeks to get better? Where does the nutrition come from nothing but bowls of soup to actually help you get better? Thats not even logical

Theres nothing hilarious about the link at all. Nothing. The paleo diet has been in dispute for years but its an actual reputable diet although controversial. The point of me posting is it to show ask you if diets that have absolutely no purpose at all are good and you seem to think they are cause you apparently think no food is bad for you

 

[NeighborMike]

Most people would experience nutritional deficiencies doing this for a long time

Youre killing youre own arguments
You claim its ok to eat soup while sick for 2 weeks. If doing something you yourself admit would cause a nutritional deficiency then how the hell do you think its going to help you get any better?

Eating chicken soup is an old grandma myth, hot anything when sick just helps you break up congestion and fluid in the lungs

 

[SixBuckets]

Youre killing youre own arguments
You claim its ok to eat soup while sick for 2 weeks. If doing something you yourself admit would cause a nutritional deficiency then how the hell do you think its going to help you get any better?

Have you ever had the flu? When you are extremely ill and don't have much of an appetite, it's a health-promoting option to eat something that you can palate that contains a nutritionally complete liquid broth. And that's not even getting into the recent studies that found that chicken soup, specifically, has anti-inflammatory properties (here's a NYT article http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/the-science-of-chicken-soup/?_r=0 and here's an abstract on a study that looked at the effects in vitro http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11035691). You've also again misread my post - I clearly said that a nutritional deficiency may result from eating nothing but chicken soup long term, but that it could be healthful in specific circumstances like a short term illness. Take a bloody literacy course, mate, you're not equipped for the level of written communication in the modern world.

Eating chicken soup is an old grandma myth, hot anything when sick just helps you break up congestion and fluid in the lungs

Which is a beneficial health outcome when you have the flu. I now feel that you don't understand what "healthy" means, as well as "diet".

Like I said, I'm not interesting in arguing your increasingly more extreme and bizarre examples. Fine, you win, you're the master of internet debating.

 

[NeighborMike]

IM not using bizarre extreme examples im saying very basic things.

You used an example of a 12th century home remedy to justify using chicken soup over not only an extended time but to help you recover from the flu. Just because something has anti-inflammatory properties doesnt mean thats the go to thing you should use in that situation. Just like other poor examples you used prior there are many many examples of better things you can use in this day and age. Just like I said it helps break up congestion and fluid in the lungs that doesnt mean thats something you should rely on because of those things it offers because there are plenty of other things you can use.

 

[spacejunk]

That really doesnt seem to have anything to do with it
Six is used opinions to push aside fact.

That's rich.
I get the impression you're saying "diet" as in "mcdonalds diet", "soup diet", "paleo diet" - as if people exclusively eat one thing to the detriment of every other dietary need.
Like, as "diet" is discussed on tv talk shows and such. Fad diets.

On the other hand, it seems like sixbuckets is talking about "diet" as an entirity of a person's dietary intake.

Nobody seems to be disputing the fact that a balanced diet is generally the thing to aim for.
Are they?
Think about it.

 

[NeighborMike]

That's rich.
I get the impression you're saying "diet" as in "mcdonalds diet", "soup diet", "paleo diet" - as if people exclusively eat one thing to the detriment of every other dietary need.
Like, as "diet" is discussed on tv talk shows and such. Fad diets.

On the other hand, it seems like sixbuckets is talking about "diet" as an entirity of a person's dietary intake.

Nobody seems to be disputing the fact that a balanced diet is generally the thing to aim for.
Are they?
Think about it.

A diet, and dietary intake are 2 different things thats obvious. But i dont see this being specified unless i horrible missed something, niether does anyone who has disagreed with the original statement that got us in this discussion
And regardless of that we still have a hang up on the claim "there is no such thing as bad food" especially when its trying to be backed up by the fact bad food has something to do with morals when it absolutely does not

And no matter the point of what im saying. A diet consisting of mcdonalds is not good. A dietary supplement of mcdonalds is also not good. Just because you can do it doesnt mean you should because its not healthy for you

So really ive inadvertently covered both of a diet either way you look at because i spoke on both of those things multiple times

 

[spacejunk]

A diet, and dietary intake are 2 different things thats obvious.

So i was correct. I define "diet" as dietary intake - not two different things.
I'm glad we cleared that up. Perhaps it is a cultural/linguistic misunderstanding?

 

[NeighborMike]

So i was correct. I define "diet" as dietary intake - not two different things.
I'm glad we cleared that up. Perhaps it is a cultural/linguistic misunderstanding?

Again
Regardless if we are talking about an actual diet, or dietary intake anyway you look at it there are bad diets and bad food. Thats been my entire point the whole time.

 

[spacejunk]

Very black-and-white view, but anyway, i don't really understand what you take issue with in regard to sixbuckets' posts.
Not everything is as cut and dried as 'good' and 'bad'.
Unless you're - say - vegan. In which case i'd say that's your ethical perspective, so that's fine (for you).

But i don't think anyone likes having "right" and "wrongs" of eating dictated to them.
I don't eat much junk food (and haven't eaten meat for 15 years) but i know it isn't "wrong" or "bad" to do either. I just choose not to.