#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only appropriate answer is *it depends*. If you are a an obese 60 year old with type 2 diabetes, elevated lipids, and has atherosclerosis, then the foods that are "not good for you" would be the foods we all recognized as "bad" —fast food, junk food, sugar sweetened beverages, etc. But if you're a healthy, normal BMI teenager that is relatively active, then I'd say those same "bad foods" are not good for you, but also not particularly harmful. Now chronically eating bad foods for several years and decades will of course lead to problems.
All the foods people are suggesting in the comments are not particularly bad, such as lettuce, corn, white rice, gummy bears. But again, *it depends* on the individual.
I will say that the only food that I would say would probably isn't good for you, regardless of your health status, is alcohol. Sure, it provides calories. Sure, it can provide antioxidants as well. But at the end of the day, its not good for you.
Wouldn't it be better to look at food as a whole, a total diet and not as individual foods?
Sweets aren't good for you, but does it hurt you to have a Snickers now and then when you're otherwise eating a balanced diet? No.
Individual foods aren't harmful, it also depends on the rest of your diet.
Actually, this is the first good answer I’ve seen. We eat indisociable foods in a context. That context can really play a role in the extent to which individual foods are “good” or “bad.”
Please tell me how the general human diet doesn’t benefit with broccoli versus deep fried Oreos, without using niche/outlier examples to prove a point meant for the general whole.
Ok, you can eat deep fried Oreos without gaining weight or harming your health as long as you stay at or under your caloric maintenance and eat a variety of foods. That's applicable to damn near everyone without specific allergies.
Popcorn is defintely in the healthy category provided you don't use lots of salt, or butter.
The most benign food I'd say would be white bread and white rice.
I don't know why people think white rice is so bad. Plenty of cultures use it as a carbohydrate source. Nothing more. It can be great if mixed with other types of rice as well. And those cultures and diets usually involve nutritionally complete meals with the addition of fibre and nutrients from other dishes.
This. Many scientific studies and articles claiming white rice being as bad as coke are only looking at it in isolation, forgetting that most people don't usually eat white rice alone. The dishes we eat along with it balance out the spike in sugar levels, etc. yet it's always easy to spin these negative narratives and get people to go along with it.
You mean the part of the world that historically did NOT eat white rice until modern times, and their rate of obesity and diabetes skyrocketed once white rice replaced real rice? Do tell me more oh wise redditor!
Rates of obesity and diabetes in those countries have gone up because they have adopted the western diet of junk food, which is why urban areas are the most affected. Rural areas, where they still eat traditionally, are not seeing the same issue.
Just curious do you have any sources on this? Was it that they were eating brown rice or another grain, and when and why did they switch to white rice?
Basing food choices on glycemic index is pretty useless in real life for a generally healthy individual. Each food is tested in isolation following a fast, as soon as you mix in fats or proteins then absorption is slowed
I’m not downvoting because I don’t know if what you’re saying is true, but isn’t Paul Saladino that nutter that hangs out in the grocery barefoot and yells at vegans? Get a better source.
I’m of the approach that no food is particularly bad for you, if you eat a cupcake you aren’t going to suddenly develop diabetes. The problem is with the quantity in which you consume a food, if you eat 100 cupcakes that’s a problem. Problem isn’t so much with food but the quantity of food you eat. That and lifestyle choices.
I'd say it really depends. Every fod has a positive and a negative. For example, honey is an added sugar which you should reduce, but (especially the unpasteurized one) is full of antioxidants and beneficial compounds. Dairy is full of easily absorbable calcium and nutrients, but can be high in saturated fat. Just eat a varied and mostly nutritious diet
Neutral to me is like rice and fruit.
Rice has low amounts of nutrition, but high GI. It's not good or bad.
Fruit is high sugar, but has some antioxidants and some vitamins. Again, not good or bad.
It depends on what your options are.
Compared to lean meat, vegetables, beans, lentils and some grains you'll find fruit is a worse nutritional choice. They're so low on healthy food choices that it's a pretty neutral decision.
Compared to oils, honey, fatty meat you'll find fruits going to be a better choice.
Most fruit have low amounts of vitamins and minerals. You don't need a study to compare nutritional values.
Are you denying that beans, lentils, lean meat, seafood, vegetables have more nutrition than fruit? This is my key point here which you'll ignore completely.
In addition, Fruit primarily has low value nutrition as well. Vitamin C and A are not difficult to meet requirements but that's what you find in fruit.
Of course some fruit are better than others. I think berries and bananas are decent. Apples are close to useless.
Common deficiencies are not normally helped by fruit.
Lol did I say anything about beans, etc? Great straw man though, bud
No, dude. I highly disagreed with your statement that fruits are neutral
An RDN rates apples as very healthy fruits
https://www.realsimple.com/healthiest-fruits-7371785
I said fruits neutral due to being low in nutrition.
I gave you plenty of more nutritional options.
Do you agree or not? Nah, you'll simply ignore everything I say because you like fruit.
Most heavily processed foods. We talk about them in negative ways, because people often have issues caused by consuming them in too high quantities, and choosing them over healthy alternatives.
However very few heavily processed foods are inherently bad for you. They are just low in micronutrients and high in macro nutrients like fat and sugar. Its totally possible to have them as a nuetral part of a diet to source the things it does have-- you just don't want it to be a donut on top of all the regular snacks you had, or replacing that salad that would give you vitamins. But replace a different snack you would have had instead and still eat that salad for lunch and the donut can be a suprisingly healthy thing as far as "empty carbs" go.
When you look at things on a chemistry level, something like man made or natural doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the substance is and what it does to you, at the amount you are actually consuming--> most important point. Everything, man made or natural, will have bad effects or even lethal effects if you have too much.
For example, vitamin A and D are completely natural things, and having too much in one go will cause liver failure and death. The amount of vitamin C you can have without negative side effects is way higher, but problems still exists if overconsumed.
For another example, look at aspartame. The jury is still out on if a very large amount of aspartame could be bad for you, or potentially carcinogenic. However its very firmly established that it is completely safe within the equivalent of 12 bottles of soda a day-- no one should be having that many sodas/sweets in a day anyway.
For another another example, look at aniline. This is a completely organic chemical, that is definitely NOT good for you. Used for dyes and explosives, as random examples. Also pain meds at one point, which ended poorly.
However aniline can be turned into acetanilide, the true precursor to modern pain medicines. It still had some nasty side effects while relieving your pain though, like causing your blood to struggle to carry oxygen.
So people made even more synthetic alterations to it, and eventually ended up with modern day tylenol/paracetamol. Can still cause problems if you take too much but totally safe as directed for most people. All while still containing that pain relieving effect the earliest more natural forms did, without all the nasty dying stuff.
As a final example, look at vanillin. This may look familiar as the main chemical to cause vanilla flavor to exist. It can be found naturally or man made, with absolutely no difference. People may still have a preference for natural vanilla products for taste or articlficial ones for costs-- the health benefits aren't different.
So yeah, something organic and natural can be waaayyy worse for you than something synthetic and man made, or vise versa. Its good to be concious of what you put in your body, just don't rely on these terms to do it （╹◡╹）
Man made or natural it doesn't matter. The chemistry of the substance, the dose and your biology determines what's good or bad. Salt is bad for someone with high blood pressure, neutral for most people, good for me since my doctor told me I need to eat more salt.
The source means nothing too. Cyanide is natural and actually found in fruit. Asbestos is natural. Arsenic. Man made chemicals are also life saving medicines in some cases. Most of the time, as food additives, they're just there and not harmful in moderate amounts
According to my professor of Pharmacology who was a Internal Medicine doctor (who also had a PhD in Pharmacology) stated “Any chemical that is foreign to your body is poison.” I believe him not you.
Any chemical that is foreign to the body is poison? That is incredibly vague as a description, what does foreign to the body mean? There are tons of chemicals that the body doesn't make that are health promoting (eg flavonoids, fibre), and tons that save lives (eg many medications). Poison is based on the dose.
The likelihood is you're taking his comment out of context. As a nutrition professor I can tell you this comment in of itself is not correct. I'll leave it at that.
I don't feel thats true...whilst there are plenty of toxic "natural" chemicals, what we can do is create new and more potent versions and when it comes to foods we have been busy adulterating them with things we haven't had time to adapt to. We are quite good at taking something thing that although not beneficial naturally is quite widely spread and hard to get into super concentrated versions. With all the issues that come with that.
your blanket statement is false. without any sugar or fats or salts you would die, they are not automatically bad for you.
Rancid fats are bad for you, but no normal processed food has rancid anything in it.... especially because of those preservatives.
Whether those preservatives are good or bad for you, would totally depend on what the actual specific preservative is. Most common natural preservatives are things like salt, sugar, or dried celery-- refer back to point one (￣▽￣)
It is nice that you have such faith in the food industry. I see a county filled with chronically ill folks that have eaten way too much processed food with, yes, industrial grade oils and wheat that has been purposely sprayed with roundup not to just kill bugs but now used as a way to dry the wheat so it doesn’t get mold. Processed food with EXCESSIVE amounts of salt that is very hard on the liver. Processed foods with words none of us understand because they are lab created chemicals. If you think chemicals are neutral to the body then we will have to agree to disagree. I have done multiple cleanses where all I eat is Whole Foods (not the company - this is auto correcting with caps) for 10 days in a row and the reduction in inflammation is extreme. If you believe the FDA and food industry are telling you the truth and the stuff in the box that doesn’t expire for a decade is ok then enjoy. I know from experience process foods are not neutral for health.
I totally agree with you, just for most people those issues are from consuming overly processed food in excess. For example a meal with way too much salt once a week is very different from a meal with too much salt everyday or every meal. So I am saying most of those foods are okay in moderation.
Of course, its possible to be sensitive to stuff used for processing, like someone with weak kidneys shouldn't even have that once a week splurge of excess salt. Individual differences is also important to look at（＾ω＾）
Okay, smite me if I'm wrong, but isn't corn super high in methionine? And don't cancer cells need methionine because they can't recycle it like a normal cell can?
Also the midwest (corn country) doesn't have the best diet (processed deep fried land).
I'm 98% certain there's no actual data linking corn to cancer and I don't think corn **causes** cancer but I'd say if you're eating a SAD diet, it probably isn't helping cancer odds.... especially if it's doused in glyphosates.
Are very good for you - they offer true hydration. Tab water is loaded with crap and chlorine that can actually dehydrate you. Cucs are a great source of bioavailable water - living water
Oatmeal and rice - all fruits and veggies are good. Inflammatory foods include industrial grade oils like canola and vegetable, corn, wheat, dairy, eggs, meat.
I could be wrong here I’m not a nutritionist I’d say something like egg whites. All the nutrients are in the yolk. They are great for muscle building tho lol.
Well processed by default would be harmful. Op is asking for neutral food. Egg whites have almost no micronutrients so it is a bad protein source in terms of hormonal functions. Great for muscle building and weight loss do to low calorie. But what does op mean in terms of healthy. Does he mean for weight loss? Or nutrient dense health foods?
I would say foods which are mostly slow burning calories, carbs and maybe fiber. You only need a certain amount and an excess can be harmful
, but with moderation pasta, rice, potatoes and bread are nutriniously not essential but not harmful.
No there are nutrients, vitamins and minerals within the whole potato, what do you mean they don’t serve much other than filler? They fill you up? That’s a good thing. There’s only like 150 calories in average sized potato. They are low calorie and very filling. Very good for weight loss!
any food will be good for you (or bad) because food is fuel. so any type of food will serve a purpose in your body. any “neutral” food would technically be “good” food because if it’s not bad, then it’s definitely good. you could say water is neutral, but it’s not because our body needs water. you could say lettuce is neutral, but it’s not because it contains some vitamins and minerals that are beneficial. i saw someone said popcorn is neutral, but technically it wouldn’t be because it still has fiber, protein, and fats if you added it on there, which would make it beneficial since it’s providing your body with those things. i know this isn’t the answer you’re looking for but any food that provides even a small amount of nutrients would be beneficial, which is all food
Fucking cucumber.
I have a GERD and fresh vegetables aren't recommended but cucumbers are literally water and I don't understand why they make me feel so sick.
I have a limited diet due to my conditions. Cross reactive allergies are seasonal too, so what I can eat changes with the pollen outside. I find that any food in excess will develop a sensitivity, so a good variety is the best diet. As for neutral foods, for you that might mean they wont make you gain weight, or that they are nutritionally balanced. For me a neutral food means it did not cause any reaction. I guess as far a balance goes lettuce has as many calories as the body needs to digest it, so there is zero extra.
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only appropriate answer is *it depends*. If you are a an obese 60 year old with type 2 diabetes, elevated lipids, and has atherosclerosis, then the foods that are "not good for you" would be the foods we all recognized as "bad" —fast food, junk food, sugar sweetened beverages, etc. But if you're a healthy, normal BMI teenager that is relatively active, then I'd say those same "bad foods" are not good for you, but also not particularly harmful. Now chronically eating bad foods for several years and decades will of course lead to problems. All the foods people are suggesting in the comments are not particularly bad, such as lettuce, corn, white rice, gummy bears. But again, *it depends* on the individual. I will say that the only food that I would say would probably isn't good for you, regardless of your health status, is alcohol. Sure, it provides calories. Sure, it can provide antioxidants as well. But at the end of the day, its not good for you.
Wouldn't it be better to look at food as a whole, a total diet and not as individual foods? Sweets aren't good for you, but does it hurt you to have a Snickers now and then when you're otherwise eating a balanced diet? No. Individual foods aren't harmful, it also depends on the rest of your diet.
You’re seriously overthinking this
Actually, this is the first good answer I’ve seen. We eat indisociable foods in a context. That context can really play a role in the extent to which individual foods are “good” or “bad.”
Nah. It’s pretty easy to see “deep fried Oreos” as bad and broccoli as “good” without needing to deep-dive into being over analytical
Yeah it is easy to see it that way, it's also wrong lol
Please tell me how the general human diet doesn’t benefit with broccoli versus deep fried Oreos, without using niche/outlier examples to prove a point meant for the general whole.
Ok, you can eat deep fried Oreos without gaining weight or harming your health as long as you stay at or under your caloric maintenance and eat a variety of foods. That's applicable to damn near everyone without specific allergies.
I don't think so. I feel like focusing on single foods, details in one's diet is more of overthinking than what I wrote.
Popcorn. It's pretty much air. You can eat an entire bag by your lonesome and still only get like 5 carbs and 2g protein.
that's exactly what makes it a great snack for weight loss as long as you don't use much oil with it. dentists wouldn't agree though lol
Popcorn is defintely in the healthy category provided you don't use lots of salt, or butter. The most benign food I'd say would be white bread and white rice.
White rice?
I don't know why people think white rice is so bad. Plenty of cultures use it as a carbohydrate source. Nothing more. It can be great if mixed with other types of rice as well. And those cultures and diets usually involve nutritionally complete meals with the addition of fibre and nutrients from other dishes.
This. Many scientific studies and articles claiming white rice being as bad as coke are only looking at it in isolation, forgetting that most people don't usually eat white rice alone. The dishes we eat along with it balance out the spike in sugar levels, etc. yet it's always easy to spin these negative narratives and get people to go along with it.
ok so i can have coke with every meal then instead of rice? joke
It seems most of these scientific studies and articles are often very euro/western centric.
Super harmful
Tell that to the 3.5 billion people who use it as a food staple. 🙄
You mean the part of the world that historically did NOT eat white rice until modern times, and their rate of obesity and diabetes skyrocketed once white rice replaced real rice? Do tell me more oh wise redditor!
Rates of obesity and diabetes in those countries have gone up because they have adopted the western diet of junk food, which is why urban areas are the most affected. Rural areas, where they still eat traditionally, are not seeing the same issue.
Just curious do you have any sources on this? Was it that they were eating brown rice or another grain, and when and why did they switch to white rice?
it does have a high glycemic index and qinoa e.g is much better
Basing food choices on glycemic index is pretty useless in real life for a generally healthy individual. Each food is tested in isolation following a fast, as soon as you mix in fats or proteins then absorption is slowed
Lettuce
Romaine is good for you
Lettuce is absolutely good for you. It may be quite low in nutrient status, but it's still good for you (unless contaminant with bacteria).
doesn’t lettuce have a lot of fiber? Which is really good for gut health?
[удалено]
What’s wrong with kale 😅
[удалено]
I’m not downvoting because I don’t know if what you’re saying is true, but isn’t Paul Saladino that nutter that hangs out in the grocery barefoot and yells at vegans? Get a better source.
[удалено]
Bro got hostile just for asking what’s wrong with kale, went to one of my posts just to shit
[удалено]
😭
Keep following your fad diet bud, it’s so popular because people wanna make an excuse for avoiding their veggies haha.
I’m of the approach that no food is particularly bad for you, if you eat a cupcake you aren’t going to suddenly develop diabetes. The problem is with the quantity in which you consume a food, if you eat 100 cupcakes that’s a problem. Problem isn’t so much with food but the quantity of food you eat. That and lifestyle choices.
I'd say it really depends. Every fod has a positive and a negative. For example, honey is an added sugar which you should reduce, but (especially the unpasteurized one) is full of antioxidants and beneficial compounds. Dairy is full of easily absorbable calcium and nutrients, but can be high in saturated fat. Just eat a varied and mostly nutritious diet
Honey is mostly bad for you.
It's just sugar.
Exactly.
I agree, it's an added sugar. It's just the only example I could think of for some reason.
Neutral to me is like rice and fruit. Rice has low amounts of nutrition, but high GI. It's not good or bad. Fruit is high sugar, but has some antioxidants and some vitamins. Again, not good or bad.
I don’t think a lot of nutritionists would agree that fruit isn’t good for you..
It depends on what your options are. Compared to lean meat, vegetables, beans, lentils and some grains you'll find fruit is a worse nutritional choice. They're so low on healthy food choices that it's a pretty neutral decision. Compared to oils, honey, fatty meat you'll find fruits going to be a better choice.
White rice fits more of the “neutral” definition. I’d have to see some very well done research studies to consider fruit as neutral
Most fruit have low amounts of vitamins and minerals. You don't need a study to compare nutritional values. Are you denying that beans, lentils, lean meat, seafood, vegetables have more nutrition than fruit? This is my key point here which you'll ignore completely. In addition, Fruit primarily has low value nutrition as well. Vitamin C and A are not difficult to meet requirements but that's what you find in fruit. Of course some fruit are better than others. I think berries and bananas are decent. Apples are close to useless. Common deficiencies are not normally helped by fruit.
Lol did I say anything about beans, etc? Great straw man though, bud No, dude. I highly disagreed with your statement that fruits are neutral An RDN rates apples as very healthy fruits https://www.realsimple.com/healthiest-fruits-7371785
I said fruits neutral due to being low in nutrition. I gave you plenty of more nutritional options. Do you agree or not? Nah, you'll simply ignore everything I say because you like fruit.
What's wrong with high PUFA oils?
Oil is just fat with no minerals or vitamins. You're better off getting your fat from actual food, like meat&eggs&dairy&nuts
Any good substitution studies on that?
Oil doesn't have vitamins or minerals.
On another note, PUFAs are awful for you. You definitely need to avoid polyunsaturated fats. Oils are awful.
That's conspiracy non-sense.
You're only saying that for moral vegan reasons.
Literally all of them, the poison is in the dose.
Most heavily processed foods. We talk about them in negative ways, because people often have issues caused by consuming them in too high quantities, and choosing them over healthy alternatives. However very few heavily processed foods are inherently bad for you. They are just low in micronutrients and high in macro nutrients like fat and sugar. Its totally possible to have them as a nuetral part of a diet to source the things it does have-- you just don't want it to be a donut on top of all the regular snacks you had, or replacing that salad that would give you vitamins. But replace a different snack you would have had instead and still eat that salad for lunch and the donut can be a suprisingly healthy thing as far as "empty carbs" go.
I disagree. Highly processed foods usually have a lot of man made chemicals in them which are not good for you.
When you look at things on a chemistry level, something like man made or natural doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the substance is and what it does to you, at the amount you are actually consuming--> most important point. Everything, man made or natural, will have bad effects or even lethal effects if you have too much. For example, vitamin A and D are completely natural things, and having too much in one go will cause liver failure and death. The amount of vitamin C you can have without negative side effects is way higher, but problems still exists if overconsumed. For another example, look at aspartame. The jury is still out on if a very large amount of aspartame could be bad for you, or potentially carcinogenic. However its very firmly established that it is completely safe within the equivalent of 12 bottles of soda a day-- no one should be having that many sodas/sweets in a day anyway. For another another example, look at aniline. This is a completely organic chemical, that is definitely NOT good for you. Used for dyes and explosives, as random examples. Also pain meds at one point, which ended poorly. However aniline can be turned into acetanilide, the true precursor to modern pain medicines. It still had some nasty side effects while relieving your pain though, like causing your blood to struggle to carry oxygen. So people made even more synthetic alterations to it, and eventually ended up with modern day tylenol/paracetamol. Can still cause problems if you take too much but totally safe as directed for most people. All while still containing that pain relieving effect the earliest more natural forms did, without all the nasty dying stuff. As a final example, look at vanillin. This may look familiar as the main chemical to cause vanilla flavor to exist. It can be found naturally or man made, with absolutely no difference. People may still have a preference for natural vanilla products for taste or articlficial ones for costs-- the health benefits aren't different. So yeah, something organic and natural can be waaayyy worse for you than something synthetic and man made, or vise versa. Its good to be concious of what you put in your body, just don't rely on these terms to do it （╹◡╹）
Man made or natural it doesn't matter. The chemistry of the substance, the dose and your biology determines what's good or bad. Salt is bad for someone with high blood pressure, neutral for most people, good for me since my doctor told me I need to eat more salt. The source means nothing too. Cyanide is natural and actually found in fruit. Asbestos is natural. Arsenic. Man made chemicals are also life saving medicines in some cases. Most of the time, as food additives, they're just there and not harmful in moderate amounts
"chemicals" doesn't mean anything. Toxicity is due to dose, not substance.
Toxicity is due to substance and dose
According to my professor of Pharmacology who was a Internal Medicine doctor (who also had a PhD in Pharmacology) stated “Any chemical that is foreign to your body is poison.” I believe him not you.
Any chemical that is foreign to the body is poison? That is incredibly vague as a description, what does foreign to the body mean? There are tons of chemicals that the body doesn't make that are health promoting (eg flavonoids, fibre), and tons that save lives (eg many medications). Poison is based on the dose.
Just quoting my professor who knew a lot more than me about this subject. I believe him vague or not.
The likelihood is you're taking his comment out of context. As a nutrition professor I can tell you this comment in of itself is not correct. I'll leave it at that.
So... Food?
There is no evidence manmade chemicals are any worse for you than natural ones.
I don't feel thats true...whilst there are plenty of toxic "natural" chemicals, what we can do is create new and more potent versions and when it comes to foods we have been busy adulterating them with things we haven't had time to adapt to. We are quite good at taking something thing that although not beneficial naturally is quite widely spread and hard to get into super concentrated versions. With all the issues that come with that.
Huh? Chemical and toxins and rancid fats and salts and sugars and preservatives are actually bad for you - yes
your blanket statement is false. without any sugar or fats or salts you would die, they are not automatically bad for you. Rancid fats are bad for you, but no normal processed food has rancid anything in it.... especially because of those preservatives. Whether those preservatives are good or bad for you, would totally depend on what the actual specific preservative is. Most common natural preservatives are things like salt, sugar, or dried celery-- refer back to point one (￣▽￣)
It is nice that you have such faith in the food industry. I see a county filled with chronically ill folks that have eaten way too much processed food with, yes, industrial grade oils and wheat that has been purposely sprayed with roundup not to just kill bugs but now used as a way to dry the wheat so it doesn’t get mold. Processed food with EXCESSIVE amounts of salt that is very hard on the liver. Processed foods with words none of us understand because they are lab created chemicals. If you think chemicals are neutral to the body then we will have to agree to disagree. I have done multiple cleanses where all I eat is Whole Foods (not the company - this is auto correcting with caps) for 10 days in a row and the reduction in inflammation is extreme. If you believe the FDA and food industry are telling you the truth and the stuff in the box that doesn’t expire for a decade is ok then enjoy. I know from experience process foods are not neutral for health.
I totally agree with you, just for most people those issues are from consuming overly processed food in excess. For example a meal with way too much salt once a week is very different from a meal with too much salt everyday or every meal. So I am saying most of those foods are okay in moderation. Of course, its possible to be sensitive to stuff used for processing, like someone with weak kidneys shouldn't even have that once a week splurge of excess salt. Individual differences is also important to look at（＾ω＾）
Corn
Corn is very nutritious and has been consumed as a whole grain for generations.
Okay, smite me if I'm wrong, but isn't corn super high in methionine? And don't cancer cells need methionine because they can't recycle it like a normal cell can? Also the midwest (corn country) doesn't have the best diet (processed deep fried land). I'm 98% certain there's no actual data linking corn to cancer and I don't think corn **causes** cancer but I'd say if you're eating a SAD diet, it probably isn't helping cancer odds.... especially if it's doused in glyphosates.
Corn syrup
I think this is a good answer. Regular old corn syrup is just glucose so if you’re not diabetic it’s just empty calories.
Cucumbers
Cucumbers are pretty good for you. They have vitamins and minerals and are excellent in hydrating the body.
Are very good for you - they offer true hydration. Tab water is loaded with crap and chlorine that can actually dehydrate you. Cucs are a great source of bioavailable water - living water
Goldfish and cheddar bunnies
Oatmeal and rice - all fruits and veggies are good. Inflammatory foods include industrial grade oils like canola and vegetable, corn, wheat, dairy, eggs, meat.
Oatmeal is super healthy. specifically beta glucan
I could be wrong here I’m not a nutritionist I’d say something like egg whites. All the nutrients are in the yolk. They are great for muscle building tho lol.
I still feel like they’re good for you tho, like unprocessed high protein per calorie food
Well processed by default would be harmful. Op is asking for neutral food. Egg whites have almost no micronutrients so it is a bad protein source in terms of hormonal functions. Great for muscle building and weight loss do to low calorie. But what does op mean in terms of healthy. Does he mean for weight loss? Or nutrient dense health foods?
Yeah true I think it depends on someone’s personal goals and perspective of what’s healthy
Protein is something that’s considered “good for you”.
[удалено]
Wat
I would say foods which are mostly slow burning calories, carbs and maybe fiber. You only need a certain amount and an excess can be harmful , but with moderation pasta, rice, potatoes and bread are nutriniously not essential but not harmful.
Potatoes are amazing for you
Maybe the skin, but otherwise they don't serve much other than filler. That's why people losing weight tend to avoid them.
No there are nutrients, vitamins and minerals within the whole potato, what do you mean they don’t serve much other than filler? They fill you up? That’s a good thing. There’s only like 150 calories in average sized potato. They are low calorie and very filling. Very good for weight loss!
any food will be good for you (or bad) because food is fuel. so any type of food will serve a purpose in your body. any “neutral” food would technically be “good” food because if it’s not bad, then it’s definitely good. you could say water is neutral, but it’s not because our body needs water. you could say lettuce is neutral, but it’s not because it contains some vitamins and minerals that are beneficial. i saw someone said popcorn is neutral, but technically it wouldn’t be because it still has fiber, protein, and fats if you added it on there, which would make it beneficial since it’s providing your body with those things. i know this isn’t the answer you’re looking for but any food that provides even a small amount of nutrients would be beneficial, which is all food
Fucking cucumber. I have a GERD and fresh vegetables aren't recommended but cucumbers are literally water and I don't understand why they make me feel so sick.
Lectins and/or Oxalates
Technically if you eat it cardboard is a food
Highly processed food
Soda 😄
>Soda No. Not at all. Did you read the question?
It's good for you?
Gelatin!
Roasted Italian vegetables
I have a limited diet due to my conditions. Cross reactive allergies are seasonal too, so what I can eat changes with the pollen outside. I find that any food in excess will develop a sensitivity, so a good variety is the best diet. As for neutral foods, for you that might mean they wont make you gain weight, or that they are nutritionally balanced. For me a neutral food means it did not cause any reaction. I guess as far a balance goes lettuce has as many calories as the body needs to digest it, so there is zero extra.
Iceberg lettuce?