No doubt about it.
Carbs are actually the main fuel your body should be burning and should make up the bulk of a healthy diet (I think/hope the Fadkins Diet has about run its course). But that certainly doesn’t mean you should eat just ANY carbs. THere’s nothing wrong at all with french fries. But it’s best if you only get a tiny fraction of your carbs from fried potatoes. The majority of one’s carbs should be complex.
<wrong thread>
That’s not true for everyone. Carbs are deadly for some people and should be avoided by those people. I’m one of them.
It hasn’t, and won’t. Ever. What I wish would run its course is people talking about Atkins from a base of ignorance and misinformation.
Just answer my post (number 26) and everything should be okay.
-FrL-
Dis not my Moonpies, sinner! 
Or better yet, stop making painfully stupid pittings altogether. Seriously, your OP reads like it was written by someone who spends a considerable amount of time huffing paint thinner. Of course, considering the fact that you don’t appear to believe substances exist which are inherently unhealthy to ingest, perhaps it was.
I just read that whole foods entry, and didn’t realize how strict the term could be. I didn’t mean it that religiously (as in not to include homogenized milk), but relative to food products filled with additives made from chemicals removed from their whole food origins.
That’s what I wrote? Stop trying so hard to be insulting for no reason.
That’s not what you wrote. What you wrote was that the adjectives that are commonly used to describe the relative nutritional benefit of different foods are so false and antiquated as to be nonsensical, without any real argument or demonstration that you understand the first thing about basic nutrition.
I find painfully lazy and stupid OPs irritating, and feel no qualms about insulting their perpetrators. Instead of crying about it, why not learn how to construct an argument?
If I cut up a potato and fry it, what have I removed from it to make it less than whole?
“Painfully lazy” huh? I find cliched hyperbole and forced antagonism pathetic. And what do I need to argue about a balanced diet of whole foods eaten in moderation being a superior healthy eating strategy to choosing the “healthy foods” and eschewing the “unhealthy” ones? Is there even a real debate about this? Why doesn’t someone tell me what a healthy food is? Broccoli? So if I each 3000 calories of just broccoli a day I’d be healthy, right? No? 1500 calories of apples a day then? That’s not right either? Perhaps healthy foods is a misnomer, then.
You have added a lot of fat to it and fat is a high calorie food. Depending on the kind of fat you used and the state of your arteries, eating that fat could harm you. At minimum, however, you are loading too many calories into yourself and not getting very much in return. Even one high-fat meal can be harmful.
First of all, you specifically argued that there was no such thing as a “healthy” or “unhealthy” food, which is stupid. While it is true that there is no single food that one can subsist on to the exclusion of all other foods, no one actually uses the term “healthy” in this way. As I’m sure you actually know, “healthy” is in fact a relative term which describes a food which has higher nutritional value than many other foods, thus making the word “healthy” a useful tool in identifying foods that should play a more prominent role in one’s balanced diet of whole foods. I mean, how else do you label Big Macs as foods that should be eaten sparingly as part of a balanced diet of whole foods? How do you label green vegetables and whole grains as a key component of a balanced diet of whole foods?
Besides, what’s galling about your OP is not your position itself (which is very stupid, make no mistake), it’s that you were either too dumb or too lazy to recognize that when you attack an incredibly common usage of inoffensive words, it’s beneficial to the reader to explain your reasoning.
Yes, broccoli is a healthy food. Are you even disagreeing with that? But man cannot live on broccoli alone (thank god because I fucking hate broccoli). The fact that you have to eat combinations of food to be a healthy person doesn’t invalidate the fact that broccoli is undeniably a healthy food. But this is a straw man because the thread you Pitted isn’t about switching to an all-broccoli diet. It’s about what it means to eat healthfully.
Believe it or not, some people DON’T KNOW how to eat right. They were raised on TV dinners, Burger King, tastee-cakes and cheetos, washed down with a Coke. All of that tastes good (if you’re into that, and if you are used to that and it’s comfort food for you) and is cheap to buy and easy to prepare. Then, they find out they have clogged arteries or high blood pressure or diabetes and have to learn how to eat right. It’s really difficult to adjust to that after a lifetime of harmful eating habits. Your response is not helpful, ridiculing them for asking the question or wanting to know what healthy food is.
Honestly, why you pit the thread you put in your OP baffles me. Your counterarguments since seem rather off-balance, if you’re trying to rebut the idea that there exist healthy foods. Of course they exist and they have to be eaten in combination and moderation. You know that, I know that… but not everyone knows it. I’d think you’d be glad that the OP of that thread was asking how to eat better. Why yell at him for it?
I didn’t say it was healthy, I said it was a whole food. It is a whole food. I could pull some hemlock out of the ground and eat that, and it would be a whole food. That doesn’t make it healthy for me.
And your link shows that one study found a spike in blood pressure after one high-fat meal. Chronic high blood pressure is a risk factor for heart problems, but I’ve never seen anything to suggest that a single spike is harmful. You spike every time you exercise, and that certainly doesn’t increase your risk of heart failure.
You might want to consider the difference between risk factors and risks.
“Whole foods” also means unprocessed and unrefined. I’m assuming (though come to think of it maybe I’m wrong) that most cooking oils count as processed or refined.
I don’t doubt that “whole food” french fries can be made. But it seemed like Pizzabrat was saying just any old french fry was okay.
-FrL-
Isn’t it right to say that “healthy” applies best not to individual foods but rather to entire diets?
-FrL-
True, but there’s validity in saying some foods are not healthy. Sure, one deep fried Twinkie won’t kill you, and could be a part of a healthy diet, but that doesn’t mean that a deep fried Twinkie is just as healthy as an apple.
There is greater nutritional value to foods like broccoli, 100% whole grain bread, and dry roasted peanuts than there is to gummi worms, Ho-Hos and Goobers. A diet rich in the former and sparing on the latter is more healthy in general terms. For example, you can lose weight eating the latter, but it’s more difficult, as they’re nutrient-poor and calorie-dense.
Saying “there are no bad foods” is, in my opinion, misleading; it’s better to say “there are no forbidden foods in a healthy diet, but some foods are better for you to eat than others”.
Misleading? Perhaps. But said in the right context, which is to argue down the notion that food (and obesity) is a moral issue, it is appropriate.
But I agree with your point.
Did I say it did? Do you think that the fact that eating certain foods causes a spike is a benign sign? And if you already, knowingly or un-, have blood pressure or heart problems those spikes can’t be good.