Healthy eating - not what you thought

The FDA regulates the use of the words healthy and healthful with respect to diet. This represents a bit of a problem and that is: The words healthy and healthful must first be defined in order to regulate their use.

Does Anyone Actually Follow These Charts? Doubtful

The FDA in it’s infinite wisdom (note the sarcasm) has resorted to regulating the exact macro and micro nutrient amounts in a serving of a food item in order to allow the use of the words words healthy and healthful on their labels.

This of course is a futile attempt to regulate such an encompassing term. If you ate two servings of this food item wouldn’t it become unhealthy by their definition? What if you ate that food item with something else that didn’t fit within their definition of healthy? Is it healthy to eat these foods if you’re feeling sick or have an allergy to them? If the package says it’s healthy does that mean it’s healthy for everyone?

These are just the first question that come to mind when trying to regulate and control the use of the word ‘health’. The point is you can’t do it. Health has no meaning except for the one you personally assign to it. You can choose where you want to draw the line and what to include in your definition.

Brad Pilon and I attended (online) a nutrition workshop held by the FDA where they explained how they were regulating the marketing use of the words healthy and healthful and it was an eye opening experience.

In todays Phi Life podcast we discuss the FDA’s attempt at regulating these words and how futile it is.

Health has to be a personal definition that you alone come up with.

Listen to our podcast here on –> Defining Health

John

Posted by johnbarban in Health, PhiLife

Tags: Healthy |12 Comments

12 Responses to “Healthy Eating: Not What You Thought”

Dan Hughes Says:
February 10th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Let’s also not forget that the Food Pyramid is / was highly political in it’s development. Industry lobbyists (especially those for milk and sugar) effectively changed it’s information prior to the version 2 release.

Oh, and huge percentage of key FDA figures are former industry execs.
pligg.com Says:
February 10th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
John Barban – Healthy Eating: Not What You Thought…

It is impossible to regulate the use of the words healthy and healthful because neither word can be defined.The FDA does it anyway….
pligg.com Says:
February 10th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Healthy Eating: Not What You Thought…

Nutrition Article – It is impossible to regulate the use of the words healthy and healthful because neither word can be defined.The FDA does it anyway….
Rahim Samuel Says:
February 10th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
With the information that we have now, the traditional food pyramid chart could use a Serious update for the 21st century.

Rahim Samuel
Publisher, Wellnessbymanymeans.com
Aditya Says:
February 10th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
What is healthy? If someone has a ‘not so healthy’ diet, like me, will it matter years down the line? I still am 8% when it comes to body fat no matter what I eat and abs, I just finished a few slices of pizza. I am just worried when some people say, ‘Dude it will cause a lot of troubles later on in life’. Most of us who are Intermittent Fasters and ‘Not so healthy’ dieters have started out only at the most 5 years back!

What do you all have to say regarding this?

I dont care to bother much, I like the food I eat and thats what I pay attention to. Ofcouse keeping a count on that over all calories over the week!
MikeGP Says:
February 11th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I know that at the end of the day, calories is all that matter regarding fat loss. But saying there is no such thing as healthy food, i dont know about that. Is it the same to eat 2,000 calories of candy every day vs 2,000 calories of veggies, fruit and lean protein? i dont think so, so there has to be a difference between healthy foods and the not so healthy. There are foods filled with nutrients and vitamins, etc….and foods with none, so its logical to think that the ones with the nutrients are healthier, is it not?
johnbarban Says:
February 11th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Mike,

You bring up an interesting thought experiment…but almost nobody would actually eat candy all day every day…so the thought experiment does prove that food is ‘different’ but not that any particular food is ‘better’. You couldn’t survive just eating vegetables all day either. So there has to be some variety. The point is there is no one food that is superior to another because there is no single food that can sustain us…we need at least some variety.

JB
LN Says:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
John,

I’ve re-read your comment. It seems as though you are implying that since neither vegetables alone nor candy alone can sustain us, neither one is superior to the other. They are ‘different’ but one is not ‘better’ than the other. This is what I gathered from your comment.

Vegetables are healthier than candy. They provide SOME of the nutrients the body needs and is compatible with. Candy does not provide anything healthful and is strictly eaten for the taste and enjoyment factor. Therefore, vegetables are healthy and candy is not. Do you agree with this?
LN Says:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
To add to my comment: It’s not because candy doesn’t provide nutrients that it is unhealthy. Candy is unhealthy because it is made of artificial and chemical content that is foreign to the body and wreaks internal havoc (on a smaller scale). That’s what makes it unhealthy. In my opinion, foods can fall into one of 3 categories: healthy (veggies, fruits, lean protein, etc.), neutral (bread, pasta, dairy) or unhealthy (candy, sweets, fast-food, ‘junk food’, anything that contains foreign chemicals/additives). What do you think of this John?
johnbarban Says:
February 12th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
LN,

I’m going to try and interpret what you’ve said here and see what we come up with:

What is your definition of ‘artificial’ in candy and what on earth do you mean that it ‘wreaks internal havoc’ …this is completely unscientific and has no meaning. Please be specific…for example I could say that this post is wreaking havoc on my blog comments section (but what does that mean).

Also, what makes you think a vegetable has no artificial chemicals associated with its growth or transport to a store or preservation or in the fertilizer it was grown in. Also what is the basis for your argument of the presence of artificial chemicals in candy. Again what is your definition of ‘artificial chemical’ in the first place (if you can’t define ‘artificial chemical’ for us, please don’t use it in your argument). Even the most basic investigation of food processing and growing will show you that there are many ‘chemicals’ that are not natural to the biosphere that are used to grow most fruits and veggies.

You state that vegetables (plural) are healthier than candy (singular). This is my mistake for not quantifying what ‘candy’ is. I should go on to pick a specific candy as in a concentrated sugar based hard candy (but most sugar/fat based candy will do)…I think we can assume a lack of variety in candy as it is for the most part made from simple sugar and some fat. Vegetables (plural) is not a single food but comprises 100′s of types that vary widely in the nutrients they provide. In essence you are talking about food variety, but that was never the point. I was talking about one food vs another. Food variety is not the argument that was ever being made.

You also say that candy does not provide anything ‘healthful’ and is strictly eaten for the taste and enjoyment factor. But candy provides carbohydrates and fats, both of which are essential for life…and you seem to be suggesting that food should not be eating for enjoyment…I enjoy eating vegetables, does that mean I shouldn’t eat them?

And a last point of clarity, what is your definition of healthy or healthful as it pertains to a specific food anyway? Do you expect a single food to actually provide all of the macro and micro nutrients that are required for human health? If so you might want to rethink that as there is no such food.

JB
LN Says:
February 12th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
John,

My main point was that broccoli (example) comes from our earth, our planet. It is ONE OF the foods that we are *meant* to eat to remain alive. It is these types of foods (natural, wholesome, foods that exist for us to eat) that I consider healthy (my opinion). A piece of hard candy is a man-made food. It does not grow on or originate from Earth. When I eat a piece of hard candy………….ok, I think I just realized what you’re saying. I was about to say “when I eat a piece of hard candy I am putting a foreign (unnatural, not from the planet) food in my system” but now I’m thinking, whatever a piece of hard candy is made up of, it’s GOTTA be technically “natural” since all its ingredients come from planet Earth. Now I am tempted to say “fine, let’s compare broccoli to Pepsi” because when I think of Pepsi, I think of phosphoric acid, and right away I’m thinking “well we humans were not meant to digest phosphoric acid since it’s not one of the nutrients that the body needs to sustain life” but who am I to say what human beings were/are “meant” to eat? My whole reasoning was based on my assumption (keyword I know haha) that humans are only “meant” to eat foods that exist here on earth to sustain life. And it’s those foods that I was considering to be “healthy”. But now I’m thinking, “well what makes me think that phosphoric acid is not a mineral we are meant to consume?” And I can replace “phosphoric acid” in that sentence with any substance, mineral, nutrient or whatever hell else is found on Earth. Who am I to say what is edible or not for humans? But there is one thing though. You seem to be relating the level of enjoyment of a food to it’s quality (‘good’ or ‘bad’). Those two factors are irrelevant to each other (enjoyment and quality). I was only suggesting that people eat candy because they enjoy the taste/texture. I enjoy eating vegetables too. I was not implying that if I enjoy a certain food that I shouldn’t be eating it.

This throws “healthy” and “unhealthy” (and probably a bunch of other terms) right out the window. I was going to try to answer all the questions you asked in your reply. As I was re-reading your comment I told myself “if this is going to be a fair argument, I’m gonna have to suspend my opinions and try as best as I can to see this from his point of view” and in doing that John, I completely pwned myself to a whole other level lol I just re-read my initial comment and I realize now how many non-scientific/non-factual assumptions I was making (candy containing chemicals, candy being “unnatural”, veggies not containing chemicals). I can’t believe that just a few hours ago I was so so so sure of what I was typing and now I see exactly what you mean when you express that you don’t believe there is good or bad food, there is only food. I get it now.

I just read the section on Logical Fallacies. Please understand that it was never my intention to be unclear or illogical. I made my comment to the best of my knowledge and debate abilities.
johnbarban Says:
February 12th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
LN,

I’m so glad this conversation helped you see where I was coming from. Please be aware that I wasn’t attacking you in any way. I was simply trying to guide you logically through your convictions.

JB

Healthy Eating: Not What You Thought

12 Responses to “Healthy Eating: Not What You Thought”

Leave a Reply

Blogs

Books

Archive