In light of the media exposure and proclaimed “twinkie diet” that professor Mark Haub was on the good food vs bad food debate rages on.
I firmly believe there is no such thing as a good or bad food if you don’t consider the dose. In other words you can achieve any lifestyle/fitness/body composition goal you want eating a mix of foods that include the so called ‘bad’ foods.
If you stop and think about all the foods that are considered ‘good’ and all the foods that are considered ‘bad’ you will quickly find out that one of the most consistent things about each group is their relative caloric density.
In other words, most foods that are considered ‘bad’ are very calorically dense (they are high in calories per gram), and the foods that are considered good largely end up being lower in caloric density (less calories per gram).
Could it be that the good and bad food people are really just trying to say ‘high’ vs ‘low’ caloric density foods?
If it’s not caloric density what could it be? Vitamin content? Mineral Content? Fiber? Fat (or lack thereof)? Some other yet discovered ‘phytonutrient’?
If this secondary list is what really makes a food good or bad then a multivitamin protein paste or bar would have to be considered the best food, but that doesn’t seem right does it?
I think the answer is food is just food, and all of it can have it’s place in any diet no matter what your goals are…even a Twinkie…and damn are they ever tasty!
But if I’m wrong can you let me know what you think the criteria should be for judging if a food should be deemed ‘good’ or ‘bad’?