can anyone actually define what is healthy and unhealthy or WHY it is unhealthy?
Everyone seems to believe certain foods are just inherently bad but nobody provides evidence for their claims.
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
can anyone actually define what is healthy and unhealthy or WHY it is unhealthy?
You have a source for that? Is that organically sourced? Can I see your sources? Source me up, chef.
It's quite easy actually.
> tastes good, you eat it
not healthy
> yuck, food you don't eat
healthy
Yeah
>was it an animal
healthy
>is it a fruit
healthy
>is it a vegetable
maybe healthy
>is it a grain, legume, or anything else
unhealthy
>is it a grain, legume, or anything else
studies show eating legumes reduces cancer risk by almost 80%
quite simply, you're bad
no they dont
". Compared to no consumption, the OR for consuming at least one portion of legumes was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68–0.91), the OR for consuming two or more portions was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.57–0.82) and the estimate for an increment of one portion per week was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81–0.93). The inverse association between legume consumption and colorectal cancer suggests a possible role of legumes in preventing cancer risk."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-024-01408-w#:~:text=Conclusions,%2C%20ovary%2C%20prostate%20and%20kidney.
Wow its fricking nothing.
>The inverse association
>moron confuses assocation and causation for the millionth time
im not suprirsed. clinical trials have disproven this idea
bro.
case-control is bottom tier "evidence", even RCTs are mostly shit. Study was clearly fishing for a positive result with purely observational data and 1 out of the many cancers they tried to prove legumes helped with happen to show positive results
What did the participants diet look like outside of legumes? income/SES? education level?
Grow up.
you lost grainy.
>association
>suggests
>possible
Come on
>After the rats had been on the diets for 46 days, the researchers recorded how many rats got cancer (incidence), how many tumors each rat had (multiplicity), and how big the tumors were (burden). They also looked for common characteristics of “good” cells or “bad” cells. For instance, a good sign in cancer prevention are cells that are undergoing apoptosis—programmed cell death. Cells go through this program when they are defective. Cancer cells, however, often fail to undergo apoptosis, and they continue to divide, creating tumors.
>The results of the study showed a dose-dependent response to beans in the diet. In other words, “the more beans the rats ate, the greater the protection against cancer,” Thompson says. Even in rats fed the lowest percentage of beans, cancer incidence and multiplicity were significantly lower than in rats fed the normal diet. And the protection provided by the 60% bean diet was impressive—incidence was reduced by 41%, multiplicity by 53%, and burden by 64%. Likewise, the number of cells undergoing apoptosis increased with increasing levels of beans in the diet.
repeat
>“the more beans the rats ate, the greater the protection against cancer,”
https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2134/csa2014-59-8-1
reduce the risk by 80% compared to what?
i have a hard time believing moronic hispanics eating bean (LEGUME) burritos everyday have a 80% lower rate of cancer. Maybe the poor greek frick who is only eating kidney beans has a lower rate of cancer, but thats not because of the legume
>reduce the risk by 80% compared to what?
Compared to not eating them moron.
studies also show you like peepees in you poopy hole :]
It doesnt. It shows an association between the two.
studies also show beef and eggs are bad got studies for being stupid
Healthy and unhealthy are moronic terms because it black or white paints things as good or bad in the most generalistic sense possible
study source: I made it the frick up
moron
Nah.
Found the soijak
Found the Chad
It's not unhealthy. Pizza is just bread and cheese. Hamburgers are just bread and meat. Chips are just potatoes and fat. Meat isn't bad, carbs aren't bad, fat isn't bad. A healthy diet is a diet that is maximalist. It's one that is as nutritious as possible by including as many foodstuffs as possible. The sole exceptions to this is that you should probably try to not overindulge in sugar and sneed oils.
>to this is that you should probably try to not overindulge in sugar and sneed oils.
which your pizza, bread, and chips are full of
You're a fricking moron. Bread and chips are full of overheated rancid oils.
It's not hard to understand what is unhealthy.
>Refined sugars
>Processed and hydrogenated oils
>Anything with lectins
>Anything with chemical additives claiming to be "preservatives," when they are actually just there to stimulate/induce overeating. No food needs Maltodextrin, Modified Corn Starch, etc.
That's pretty much it. The only other thing to worry about is overeating. So you can't just binge eat fruits and think, it's healthy so it's okay!
I'd say it's different, try to figure out what your ancestors ate and that should give you clues on what is most likely good for you (more or less). For example, my ancestry is mostly Lithuanian with maybe a hint of Polish and as far as I know, they were always in the lower-to-middle class. Poor people in this region mostly ate grains, potatoes, cabbage, some dairy products, but overall protein-dense foods were not really something that happened every day. If that type of diet was enough for them to work the fields all day, it should be enough for me to do a bit of lifting.
In terms of what is unhealthy, pay attention to how you feel after your meals and you will find that some things may cause inflammation in your body which may reveal itself in all kinds of ways. Again, using me as an example, if I eat chocolate today, I'll have acne on my forehead and nose tomorrow. Obviously, there is an issue - most likely my body cannot properly digest the protein that is found in cocoa, it's just sitting in my gut and rotting there causing inflammation. If I eat it every day, that would probably be unhealthy
>what your ancestors ate
the peasants who died at 35?
People regularly lived into their 60s and 70s for hundreds of years, you're being fooled by average life expectancy because infant mortality skews the frick out of it
>the peasants who died at 35?
Oh look, another boomer who got educated in the 1960s.
>yeah lemme just eat like my ancesto- *dies of old age at 28*
>ai slop images
ngmi
if it's easy to consume a lot of calories from it it's unhealthy
unironically not a bad idea as long as you add the addendum - only natural foods with as little GMO and cooking as possible.
If people have been eating it for thousands of years consistently it's good. Otherwise, you're taking a risk.
i summon the schizos to further derail this thread -
keto
carnivore
CICO
Uh oh, here come the vegans to tell us what's healthy
I'm on the eat-a-bit-of-everything CICO team. Crazy uh?
Just say DYEL in the future.
it's usually considered unhealthy when it has too much sugar, salt or fat compared to the amount of food
example: there's nothing wrong with hamburguers. each ingredient is perfectly fine, but the preparation adds tons of fat and salt. the bread may contain tons of conservants, sugars and chemicals that don't do any good in the long run.
no food is bad for itself
again: salt, sugar and fat AREN'T bad, just if it's too much of them. simple as that. example that you feel immediatly (fat, sugar and salt you only feel in the long run):
peanuts are good for you, now try eating 500g of peanuts in one sinting... you'll probably puke. it doesn't make peanuts bad, it makes the excessive quantity bad.
>too much sugar, salt or fat
you aren't allowed to say that anymore.
Food industry shills troll the entire internet to maintain the status quo and prevent any truth from being recognized. It's worked beautifully.
>Le salt and fat bad because my magical prophetess said not to eat things with faces in these end times (any day now) so snipping the tip of infant wieners off to keep them from sinning and treating those pre-diabetics with medications that disrupt electrolyte balancing is the new normal
An unhealthy food is one that has low nutritional value and has a correlation with bad health outcomes. Something like soda is high in sugar which is correlated with obesity, diabetes etc. The burger, unless homemade are generally made from processed meat with added preservatives, such as transfats which degrades the nutritional quality of the meat and increases risk of heart disease. In comparison to a steak, which is a single cut of meat it is usually leaner, and doesn't have the same preservatives. It's never usually a question of simply is a food healthy, it should be "is it healthy compared to this"
I think unhealthy food can mostly be defined by lacking nutritional value and containing harmful things like chemicals, seed oils, trans fats...
that's a good question.
https://wiki.chadnet.org/vegetables-etc-who-defines-food
You can't evaluate it in isolation because it depends on what else you are eating and many other factors relating to your health and level/type of activity, probably your genetics too.
>You can't evaluate it
cheap cop out. Laziest answer
It's also the correct one
No, it's not.
You're just too low IQ to decipher propaganda and don't really know shit
Well go on then, enlighten me
>can anyone actually define what is healthy and unhealthy or WHY it is unhealthy?
>Everyone seems to believe certain foods are just inherently bad but nobody provides evidence for their claims.
It's all memes fom Puritans. If it tastes good, it is suspicious of being a sin, that's literally all there is to it.
Is that why whypepo of the Anglo saxon variety are deathly afraid of spices?
>can anyone actually define what is healthy and unhealthy or WHY it is unhealthy?
Eating meat from cows fed bird shit is unhealthy. Eating meat from pigs fed plastic waste and piglets that die of disease is unhealthy.
No! Stop! Don't look there!
>it's the seed oil!
STOP
>organic
Organic cows have to be treated by bullshit NATURAL CURES THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT because if they get antibiotics for a bacterial infection like pink eye all products from that cow will no longer be considered organic. Organic cows are the most disease ridden cows in the USA because farmers will lose money when they lose the organic label.
Yep
Unhealthy vs healthy is just a vague appraisal of what nutrients it provides relative to potentially detrimental compounds.
If it's devoid of micros nutrients but high calories it's usually "unhealthy" because it displaces more nutritious food in a calorically balanced diet and creates the need for suppliments.
Suppliments really don't cover anything effectively that's not water soluble.
If it contains a large amount of carcinogenic compounds it's unhealthy obviously regardless of its micro and macro content.
What else would you really need to know?
oil flour unhealthy
cheese eggs healthy
>one ingredient each (just the thing itself)
>animal meat and organs
>greens
>fruits
>dairy
simple as. Anything in a box? Trash.
I think it's better to eat fastfood and be on your feet all day compared to eating salads and sitting all day.
Look up scientific papers on google scholar. Or even just use Google in general. moron.
OP is actually right here, more than you. If you go by "scientific papers" you can find equally credible evidence for why you should definitely eat eggs and why you should never eat eggs. "Scientists" can have their own agendas, they can be bought, they can falsify research results or filter out the ones that don't support their ideology.
When I was in high school 15 years ago they were teaching us that a diet has to be balanced - you should eat meat and vegetables, dairy, fruit, nuts, legumes, grains, all in moderation as long as can maintain a healthy weight. You should also move your body so that you would have at least some muscle and a strong skeleton.
Nowadays, what I heard from my colleagues who have children, they're teaching that a vegan diet is top tier, meat and fish should be limited because it's both unhealthy and bad for the environment in terms of CO2 emissions... uhhh, because it is, okay? Don't question it, believe in science.
Absolute dogshit. They are no longer teaching, they're indoctrinating children into their moronic climate apocalypse cult
>you can find equally credible evidence for why you should definitely eat eggs and why you should never eat eggs
Not at all.
All the "studies" promoting meat and dairy products are funded in part or fully by commercial interests. Meat and dairy shills dominate the internet.
And their new tactic is framing a healthy, plant-based diet as some sort of illuminati depopulation scheme designed to rob you of your masculinity. Despite no evidence towards any of this, IST will continually fall for their nonsense because of confirmation bias. You want to only accept evidence that confirms your preconceived notions and justifies your own actions.
>Despite no evidence towards any of this
we have entire populations of people that prove it. South of the Border, Asian and Africa are fricking prime examples of diets that lack protein and go balls deep in onions, and other peasant food, you fricking moron. Any butthole shithead like you can get a study published. None of that means ANYTHING you fricking moron. No one is going to reference or reproduce any published study by some homosexual vegan saying their shitty plant food is good for you unless its a short study before the lack of quality proteins and B vitamins starts to take effect. FRICK OFF, you lying sack of scum. studies dont mean dick unless they are referenced and validated. The only time that happens with vegetarian or vegans studies is when they are be DEBUNKED by reality!
>South of the Border, Asian and Africa are fricking prime examples of diets that lack protein and go balls deep in onions
Every single one of those populations has higher fertility. The meat eating European nations in fact have the lowest fertility across the board.
>peasant food, you fricking moron. Any butthole shitheat
Calm down. This place isn't your soapbox to rant like a petulant child.
>No one is going to reference or reproduce any published study by some homosexual vegan saying their shitty plant food is good for you unless its a short study before the lack of quality proteins and B vitamins starts to take effect.
Every single vegetable has more b vitamins than any animal protein source, including organ meat. "Quality protein" is another big myth. The studies done on it were conducted by feeding pigs raw grains which were obviously difficult to digest. Comparative human studies show the exact same amino acids from plant foods are absorbed exactly the same as from animal sources. Further, excessive protein is the #1 predictor of heart disease, cancer, dementia, gout, and a litany of other lifestyle related diseases. Specifically animal proteins, due to the numerous carcinogenic byproducts found in them.
The only leg you have left to stand on the B12 argument, but even that's flimsy. 2/3 of adults regardless of diet are deficient in B12. It's because the soil is depleted of the bacteria that produce it due to petrochemical farming. That's why animals are legally required to receive B12 injections, which then becomes a selling point. This destroys the 'appeal to nature' fallacy.
>Every single one of those populations has higher fertility.
Yes moron, their fertility is high because they eat poorgay slop. No other reason.
You cannot claim that sòy is making them low-test, limp-wristed homosexuals when they outperform you in fertility and are far more masculine than you'll ever be.
Especially when you specifically responded to the "depopulation" point, where clearly that is the opposite of reality, where we can classify most of your beliefs as delusions.
Niger's fertility rate is 6.82. The highest on Earth. Their diet (as a result of poverty) is also the most plant-based on Earth. They consume only 3 KG of meat a year on average, whereas Americans consume 40x that amount. Their diet is based on "Millet, rice, cassava, sorghum, maize and beans. "
stop lieing, dr shawn baker deboonked all of this.
Don't narrow arteries raise blood pressure? Mine is 108 over 76, has been that plus or minus 5 for the last 16 yrs
>urther, excessive protein is the #1 predictor of heart disease, cancer, dementia, gout, and a litany of other lifestyle related diseases. Specifically animal proteins, due to the numerous carcinogenic byproducts found in them.
More bullshit. That study ignored everything else, especially the high intake of vegetable oils. Then imagine thinking plant vitamins get absorbed just as easily as animal sources. More disingenuous BULLSHIT. Just because more is inside it, doesn't mean it gets absorbed, and converted. All that shit is practically worthless because of it's poor bio-availability. You can literally only absorb 2% of Iron from Spinach even though it's full of it. You're a fricking moron and your basic understand of nutrition barely qualifies you to pass a high school level course, so don't fricking spread your insufficient knowledge here, butthole. No one wants it.
I feel bad that you actually took the time to sincerely explain things to that anon just for him to plug his ears and reassert the establishment dogma he grew up on.
You can absolutely define what healthy is and what it isn't, it's completely objective too
The reason (You) can't is because you haven't battled your way through the corporate propaganda you've been sucking down since birth
Seed oils and high fructose corn syrup, basically.
OP: *Asks a very direct and pointed question about what makes food healthy*
morons in this thread: “here’s a rule of thumb that I use to judge if a food is healthy”
OP is not asking about the rule of thumb, they want to know what determines health or unhealth of a food.
The truth is the dichotomy is a lie - that is to say you cannot label individual foods as healthy or unhealthy, rather you have to look at your diet in its totality.
The basic principles of nutrition are as follows:
1. Eat more than 0.7 grams of protein/lb bodyweight per day. The FDA level is far too low.
2. Eat the correct amount of calories for your target bodyweight as calculated here: https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html
3. Eat a variety of micronutrient rich foods to ensure you get all of the adequate vitamins. Farmers market produce is more nutritious than factory farmed shit.
That’s it, those are the basic principles of nutrition. Within these constraints, you can customize your diet to whatever you like best
I forgot a few things:
4. Make sure you get enough fiber, it gets converted into a huge variety of useful nutrients by your gut bacteria, and encourages a healthy gut flora
5. Avoid toxins IE excessive alcohol or any of the things mentioned by
For me it's pretty simple. My focus is extending lifespan and healthspan. Foods that lower my risk for chronic disease, cancers, and improve my mood, I consider healthy. Anything that does the opposite and could shorten my life or my quality of life I consider unhealthy and I avoid it like the plague. Im almost 40, I have to think about these things, there is no way around it. If I have a good next decade my older years will be awesome, if I frick it up, Im going to be dead or wish I was
>Everyone seems to believe certain foods are just inherently bad but nobody provides evidence for their claims.
The vast body of research has more or less maintained that a mediterranean style diet is the most healthy and produces the best long-term health outcomes
>mediterranean style diet
meaningless fabrication. there are a wide variety of diets in the region some high in saturated fats and theyre not using a lot of canola oil i can tell you that much
>Mediterranean
Historically, literally the cancer of the world
A 3000 year cesspit
>meaningless fabrication
No it isn’t.
>everybody in this whole region eats exactly the same
lmao youre a moron
in this whole region eats exactly the same
Nobody said this.