I have a tendency to overthink things and confuse myself.
This is one of those posts. Consider this warning.
Define healthy. Easy enough… change it for “good for you”.
But good how?
I’ve been thinking about this. And I think I’m a bit confused from the different camps operating on different definitions.
It seems like some foods considered highly healthy by some, are considered very low by others.
The groups… as best as I see them.
- Calories.
- Nutrient value.
- Natural.
- Traditional.
- Intended to be eaten.
- Obvious
So now let me explain those.
1. Calories/weight loss
Simple enough, lowest calories is the healthiest food. Works great for weight loss. Pitfalls to me: It makes the diet code red mountain dew, essentially designed to be so foreign to the body that it can’t figure out what to do with it and so has no calories, healthier than a glass of milk that every other category is going to choose as the healthier option. And just because the tea makes you lose weight by peeing a lot, does not mean it is a healthy thing to be doing.
2. Nutrient value.
Items with the highest amounts of nutrients is the most healthy. Seems logical.
Pitfalls to me: The questionable benefit of adding vitamins to everything down to even bottled water, sometimes lack of balance as to which nutrients are focused on. Fiber diets, diets claiming miracle foods or berries.
3. Natural/simple
The less processed, the better. Organic is tops.
Pitfalls to me: Whole milk vs skim, Bacon vs turkey bacon, Butter vs its many substitutes (I can’t believe its not butter spray). Animal fat period really.
4. Traditional
If it isn’t something your great-grandmother would recognize as food, don’t eat it. (I assume this phrase was aimed at people older than me… as mine would have recognized both a twinkie and cocoapuffs.) This one seems like it gets in with the natural a lot, and I hear it a lot from the ones who are aiming at being self-sufficient.
Pitfalls to me: It’s a nice thought… in some cases. But most of those cases would be covered under the simple and natural category. I’m thinking the fried chicken, gravy, and cakes she would recognize probably keep this from being a useful overall rule for me.
5. Intended to be eaten.
Raw foodists. Ok, this one may need a bit more explanation for most. There are groups of people who believe that we were designed to be frugivores… that is, eating raw fruits, seeds (grain) and nuts as our primary diet. (In this case, fruit gets defined as anything the plant makes for reproducing itself and is not the plant itself. So cucumbers, squash, etc are fruits… and so are potatoes.) Depending on which group you look at, this is either laid out biblically (hallelujah acres, etc), or scientifically or both.
Science-wise, we don’t have the tooth style, or extra stomachs etc like the animals meant to eat the greenery itself… nor are our taste buds programmed to reward those foods like they do the sweetness of fruits. We also lack the tooth style of the primarily carnivores and the short intestine length to prevent meat remnants from going putrid before they are out of our system. But we match pretty well the primates, who eat mostly fruit. And the fruit seems balanced best to match our needs, and appeals to our natural tastes and visual appeal.
Biblically, this is explained as that adam was designed for garden life, eating fruits (um… except that one tree), and while we were blessed with being designed with flexibility to survive outside the garden without mature plant life… but that should be the backup, and when fruit available, it should be what we eat.
(Ok… so both camps probably would wince at that explanation… but that’s a simplified summary anyway).
Pitfalls to me: Appeal and practicality. Ok fine, even agreeing with the argument at face value that we were meant to, doesn’t to me mean that we should be currently. And given how many other references to eating kosher things and bread and the like are mentioned, I’m guessing even if he originally intended one thing, it seems like he’s ok on the change. Though I have had some close friends at one point in my life who followed this in belief if not always in practice… and I had read quite a bit about it. which I think sometimes unintentionally gives the fruits higher weight in my mind than just tasting sweeter.
6. Obvious
Ok, from the hardest to the easiest… it just seems healthy. We know somehow what is and isn’t.
Pitfalls: Lack of supportive reasoning rarely helps. Things like values of our parents and society may teach us things we assume to be instinct, but may just as easily be wrong. Granola. That mcdonalds salad that has more fat and calories than the larger hamburger.
So about this banana with natural peanut butter on it.
It seems healthy. It’s a fruit, its natural, my ancestors would know it, and it has nutrients.
It also has the same amount of calories as two twinkies.
Is it healthy? Probably.
But it only takes 5 of them to make up the recommended daily calorie intake of an adult female… and only 4 to make it to the recommended dieting calorie intake for the day.
So if it adds to weight problems more than eating a single twinkie instead, is the impact on health really worse? Or do the other factors making it more healthy trump the calorie impact still?
Should I be eating it?
And now that we’ve battled the issues over bananas, lets talk about homemade yogurt vs processed light yogurt. One has much more fat and more calories. The other has less calories by adding in stuff the body can’t process, as well as the preservatives and the like. Does the naturalness offset the other?
And how about iceberg lettuce? Nothing to speak of at all for nutrition, but also nothing to speak of for calories. Does the free ride on calories and naturalness justify the lack of nutrient benefit?
Does the non-natural state of seedless grapes change anything?
Has anyone ever won the fight on whether or not an egg is good for you?
Its thought trains like this that really truly make me believe that ignorance really can be bliss. It can shut up, eat the stupid salad, eat the banana in moderation, and not give it a second thought.