In the “heath” calculus, it’s hard to say how much having good stuff cancels out having bad stuff: my understanding is that generally people aren’t at a deficit for the good stuff, so it’s not like having more of it is really helping enough to offset the bad stuff: if a toddler is getting plenty of vitamin C and fiber from fortified breakfast cereal, the extra fiber and vitamin C from the orange juice is useless, but the bad effects of the sugar persist.
People tend to think of muffins as healthy. Skip them next time you’re in Dunkin’ Donuts, just pick up a doughnut instead. Half the calories, roughly.
I don’t detest broccoli but I think the prospect of replacing one’s morning glass of orange (or whatever vitamin C rich fruit) juice with a serving of the slightly bitter-tasting vegetable would make most people just bag the whole thing and risk scurvy instead.
And the only thing broccoli juice would be a substitute for would be an ipecac.
Getting back to the OP, how about avocados? Aren’t they really pretty high in fat?
A friend of mine used to work at pizza hut when he was younger i remember him telling me countless times people would have a big order and then get a vegetarian pizza and they would always comment on how the vegetarian was health ands why they were getting it. They wouldn’t realized just because there is no meet on it its still just as bad as everything else on the menu.
I’d vote for bagels. I’ve heard that the average large bagel is the equivalent of four slices of regular bread, and then you load it up with cream cheese or butter. Just have the doughnut already.
I second (third?) the fruit juice, too. Waaaaaay too much concentrated sugar.
(Why can’t I buy reduced sugar sodas that don’t have aspartame or some other devil’s spunk added to them? Am I the only adult in the world who doesn’t like super-sweet drinks?)
Iceberg lettuce is made up of two things:
water and fiber.
So, colon cancer anybody?
I’ll go with Grande Covián and say that ANY food is bad if taken in excess, that “excess” depends on the individual and that you shouldn’t eat foods you hate only because someone decided they’re “good for you.” Hating what you eat isn’t good for you.
(featherlou: no, but you live in the wrong country)
After reading this thread, I decided to have a muffin and some OJ.
I agree that “unhealthy food” is anything in excessive amounts. Even some nutritionists say fast food is OK once in a while (cite: Super Size Me, you all saw it right?). I am not giving up my love of OJ because of the sugar level. Since I cut down on soda and started drinking more OJ and water, I have lost about 25 pounds and I feel more fit. The soda was unhealthy because I drank so much; now I drink less then 8 oz. a day.
I remember a commercial from Kaiser Permenente that said: “We’ve never met a vegetable we didn’t like”
All of the answers offered so far really skirt the question. They give examples of foods which are considered to be outside the realm of junk food, but are really not much more nutritious than foods which are considered to be junk food. What we really should be looking at is a food which is universally considered to be a healthy, nutritious, wholesome foodstuff when in reality it is very much the opposite. Something which has an effect on the body which is diametrically opposite of what it is generally believed to have. This distinction should clearly be awarded to cow’s milk. Milk—it doesn’t do a body good. Touted since the industrial revolution as being one of the most nutritious foods that nature has to offer, it is in reality probably the most noxious foodstuff a person could possibly put in their body. There is a mounting body of epidemiological evidence which strongly suggests that the best way to give yourself cancer and heart disease is to consume dairy products. It now appears that the composition of the body’s amino acid pool has a massive and profound impact on the mechanisms of genetic expression, particularly the neoplastic process. Whether this is due to the amount of amino acids present in the cellular environment, or the ratios of the individual amino acids in respect to each other, or a combination of both factors, remains to be seen. Casein, the primary protein present in cow’s milk, might very well be the most carcinogenic compound present in common human foodstuffs. It as already been demonstrated that experimental carcinomas in rats can be turned off and on at will by modifying the protein composition of the animals’ feed, and the addition of casein to their feed will make metastasis take off like a mobile home fire. I could go on all night on this subject, but for a thorough overview of the available evidence, start by reading The China Study by T. Colin Campbell. This is not quack science being promoted by some Oprah-circuit fruitcake. Campbell’s credentials are impeccable:
his book explains in elaborate detail why the consumption of dairy products is the biggest dietary affront to public health in First World nations.
Bah, PETA propaganda. :rolleyes:
And in support of this assertion, you offer…what?
While the China Study does have some good science in it, it is largely agreed that the author goes off on a psuedo- scientific tangent/rant when he starts pushing his Vegan agenda.
http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/chinastudy.html
*"Campbell’s new book The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health hit the bookstores in January 2005 and details the turning points in his post-graduate research that led Campbell to become a famed opponent of animal foods and an advocate of the vegan diet. It takes the reader on a tour through Campbell’s early animal experiments, which he interpreted to implicate animal protein as a primary cause of cancer, through the massive epidemiological study after which the book was named. Only 39 of 350 pages are actually devoted to the China Study. The bold statement on page 132 that "eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy,"5 is drawn from a broad–and highly selective–pool of research. Yet chapter after chapter reveals a heavy bias and selectivity with which Campbell conducted, interpreted, and presents his research.
…
lasses of nutrients, such as B vitamins and carotenes. Both classes of nutrients are assumed to come from plant foods, despite egg yolks and milk from pastured animals being a good source of carotenes, and the high B vitamin content of liver. But the most curious of such statements is one found on page 220, where Campbell declares, "Folic acid is a compound derived exclusively from plant-based foods such as green and leafy vegetables."47 This is a fascinating statement, considering that chicken liver contains 5.76 mcg/g of folate, compared to 1.46 mcg/g for spinach!48 A cursory look through the USDA database reveals that the most folate-dense foods are organ meats.
The China Study contains many excellent points in its criticism of the health care system, the overemphasis on reductionism in nutritional research, the influence of industry on research, and the necessity of obtaining nutrients from foods. But its bias against animal products and in favor of veganism permeates every chapter and every page. Less than a page of comments are spent in total discussing the harms of refined carbohydrate products. Campbell exercises caution when generalizing from casein to plant proteins, but freely generalizes from casein to animal protein. He entirely ignores the role of wheat gluten, a plant product, in autoimmune diseases, so he can emphasize the role of milk protein, an animal product. The book, while not entirely without value, is not about the China Study, nor is it a comprehensive look at the current state of health research. It would be more aptly titled, A Comprehensive Case for the Vegan Diet, and the reader should be cautioned that the evidence is selected, presented, and interpreted with the goal of making that case in mind."*
Like I said- PETA Propaganda. :rolleyes:
hahaha. I love that commercial. It’s my favorite “Real Men of Genius” commercial.
“of course it’s healthy, it’s a salad, isn’t it”
I don’t know about anywhere outside the UK, but I see many cheese products proudly advertsing “A good source of calcium!” even going so far sometimes as to say “Great for the kids!” because of this.
I have nothing against cheese - I love cheese. But I’m under no illusions that it’s actually good for me. It may be high in calcium (although some health food nazis seem to suggest that we can’t process calcium in this form anyway), but it’s high in plenty of crap too…saturated fat anyone? Sadly enough, there are those who still believe the packaging.
Mayonnaise anyone?
There was a time where even the most health-conscious rice-cake eating exercise nut would drown everything in mayo.
It’s changing now, but it’s still associated with the health food crowd over here.
I agree with you, Washoe, but I didn’t post “dairy products” because I knew too many people would come along and refute it.
So I just continue on my merry way, free of the cold and allergy symptoms that used to dog me all year long, and free of pimples.
I loved dairy products as much as anybody ever has, but I prefer to live the mucus-free lifestyle.
Ever notice these are all on Euro-ads. Particularly those awful technicolor ones dubbed over into English. It seems to be a northern continental Europe thing that the presence of milk overrides all the sugar and saturated fats in the product. I first saw the “milk = calcium = great for kids” nonsense creeping in with Kinder Bueno about 5 years ago, but now it’s in Nutella ads, Mini Babybel, Yoplait, all of which are French/Dutch/German.
Cottage cheese. Isn’t that the stereotypical “diet food”?
As long as it isn’t loaded with fat, what’s wrong with cottage cheese?
It’s nasty.
Milk may get a bad rap from the percentage of the population that is lactose intolerant. People who can’t process milk should have nothing to do with it. For the rest, milk is a great source of energy and nutrients. There is a stupid argument that “cow’s don’t drink people’s milk so people shouldn’t drink cow’s milk”. My reply to this is to put a bowl of cows milk out in your backyard at night and see what’s left of it in the morning. Carnivores and omnivores aren’t fussy about where they get there nutrients.
In fact, there is some evidence that cow’s milk is too good for us. Read this .
Once again, cow’s milk is not for those who are intolerant of it