How would you define the difference between healthy food and health food?

82 responses total.

I ask because my Indian penpal who is working full time and going to school
half time went home for Diwali and his parents were very concerned that he
is not eating enough health foods.  He also asked me to correct his English.
Are all health foods healthy?

I'd use 'health food' to mean food that's marketed as if it's healthy, whether
or not it really is.  Granola, for instance, used to be sold as health food,
even though most granola isn't really that good for you.

Olive oil is often considered "healthy", but I don't think you'd want to make
it your main source of calories.  Ditto other health foods; variety is rather
important.

So if health foods (in moderation) are healthy, are they a subset of healthy
foods?  Sometimes I get the idea that what health food stores sell is to be
eaten in addition to a bad diet to make it better on average - lots of
supplements.  Would a rutabaga (organically grown of course) be a health food?
Does a health food have to be refined, or be put together out of several
ingredients (olive oil or granola) and be expensive?

By my definition, healthy foods are fresh, unrefined, unprocessed foods that
contain a moderate balance of nutrients.  Health foods are "food as penance".

I generally figure that "health food" is defined by the media - which
means i'd call char-broiled salt lard "health food" if the media was
pushing it that way.

OTOH, "healthy food" is a phrase i use for foods a savvy nutritionist
would give the thumbs-up to eat a lot of (within calorie limits).

`Eating healthy foods' does NOT imply `eating a healthy diet' any more
than `all the players are good' implies that `the symphony orchestra 
is good'.

Good point, good point.  I suppose that explains why granola and olive oil
and so on aren't good staple foods.  They're healthy foods, but including them
doesn't make your diet healthy.

What makes granola a health food?  It is mostly fat and sugar.

I dunno about that; my recipe has a lot of oats in it.

What percentage of calories comes from the oats?

I have no idea.

Part of whether a diet is considered healthy depends on what one defines as
healthy.

Adding better foods to a "bad" diet may not make it optimal, but it certainly
makes it better.

The nutritional pyramid, along with the rule of thumb of eating foods 
that are less processed (convenience has done dirty as far as the US 
eating healthy), seems like a good place for me to start eating 
healthy.

I also have a religious dietary law that seems to do well for me.

(Really?  Do tell.)

About the Word of Wisdom, you mean?

Er, if that's what it's called, yes.  I didn't realize there was a dietary
code in the mormon church.

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 89.  Joseph Smith set it forth in 1833 
and Brigham Young established it as a commandment in 1851, expounding 
on what it entails.

It proscribes the use of wine, strong drink (interpreted as alcohol-- 
the vow of the Nazarite is an interesting comparison), tobacco, and 
hot drinks (Young explained this to be tea and coffee).  Extensions to 
caffeinated soft drinks is a bit of an error.  Bruce R. McConkie, a 
leader in recent years (Quorum of the Twelve, I believe) stated in 
_Mormon Doctrine_ that he believed such (caffeinated soft drinks) to 
be against the spirit of the law.  For quite some time afterward, many 
members took this literally until leadership made it clear otherwise.

A good rule of thumb, however, would be to avoid addictive 
substances.  Many illicit drugs are not mentioned but are eschewed 
additionally by the LDS Church.  Working in convenience retail, I'm 
quite familiar just how strongly people can become addicted to tea, 
coffee, and even caffienated soft drinks.

Verses 12 and 13 seem to be a point of stumbling for some:
"12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the 
Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless 
they are to be used sparingly;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in 
times of winter, or of cold, or famine."

It should be noted, of course, that refrigeration practices were 
virtually nonexistent at the time this doctrine was set forth, and 
cattle or game had to be eaten quickly, even with the methods of 
preservation that was available.  Of course, the same had to be killed 
for food in climate extremes, or they would die anyway.

Nevertheless, verse 3, which states that the Word of Wisdom is "Given 
for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and 
the west of all saints, who are or can be called saints," there is a 
suggestion of some flexibility on the points of do's.

The most telling point is that the Word of Wisdom is highly compatible 
with the verdict of modern nutritionism, and yet was given at a time 
when such perspectives were not held.

It seems to work well for me =)

I have a friend in his 50s who converted to the LDS faith from 
Judaism; he is of the blood.  We've had interesting discussions on 
what kosher law he still practices.  He is fine with farm-fed pork, as 
farmers here keep pigs relatively clean and trichonosis is much 
rarer.  (Pigs can't sweat, and in the dry climes of the Middle East, 
were fain laid to roll in their feces if need be.  They are impeccably 
clean if given enough access to water, and there is an example of a 
species of pig on the Pacific Islands-- introduced a while back-- that 
hunts for food in the ocean.)  One of his daughters, who is also a 
close family friend, merely scoffs and claims he is just a pork 
monkey ;)  He still avoids shellfish, which I understand is mostly 
sifters such as scallops, mussels, clams, etc.

The part about killing animals for food in the winter may be because there
is not a whole lot to eat in the winter in cold climates other than grains
if you don't have a way to preserve vegetables.  I think northern Europeans
eat a lot more meat than southerners.  Cows can eat silage, and they can also
eat grass pretty far into the winter months when there are not many vegetables
still growing (cabbages and leeks).  Chickens are not so large that you need
to preserve them.

That would make sense.

So what about decaf?  Herbal tea?  Chocolate?

Decaf I believe is generally discouraged.

Herbal tea is just fine.

Chocolate is fine, but I'm sure it's a bad thing in excessive 
amounts.  Being sedentary and overweight, too, isn't a really good 
observance either.

Hmmm.  So caffeine's okay given the right source.  Ditto hot cocoa.
Unhealthy excess/addiction/pigging out on literally anything is not
okay.  How about ice tea?

Well.. first of all, you have to understand coffee and tea (black, 
most likely, not green) have a lot of other substances not exactly 
health-conducive *besides* caffeine.

Second, they are far greater in their caffeine content than colas and 
other caffeinated soft drinks, and even more so than chocolate.  The 
caffeine content in chocolate is relatively low-- but, it's possible 
to be addicted to chocolate.

Iced tea is not okay.  Herbal versions would be.

Interestingly enough, being overweight is not going to cause problems 
as far as membership, although failure to avoid the others will.  
We've our fair share of fat folks.  But-- it is a good idea to be trim 
and active, and careful observance of the Word of Wisdom *will* make 
this easier.

The reference is available online: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89

re: overweight ... over whose weight?  Who gets to decide what constitutes
"overweight?  

My understanding is that most "natural" teas (NOT the processed & packaged
trendy ones) are considered relatively healthy (withOUT cream, sugar, etc.)
and that they've less caffeine than most colas.  (Having to brew the tea vs.
just grabbing another 20 oz. cola would have an effect, too.  Plus, i'm told
that many serious tea drinkers re-use the leaves...there's virtually zero
caffeine in 'em after the first use.))

If you think that chocolate has less caffeine (& a few similar chemicals
with similar effects) than cola, it sounds like your dealer is cutting his
chocolate with *lots* of cheap sweetener & fat.  (Dim recollection is that
real chocolate addiction is to a non-caffeine-family chemical in it.) 

How much updating do they do as our <cough> advanced <hack> food industry
invents new guilt-free-'cause-it's-not-on-last-year's-list-of-things-bad-
for-you junk foods? 

I believe that's left up to individual interpretation.  We're not 
quite that strict.  Again, Walter, the prohibition was made against 
tea-- and caffeine most likely is not the lone culprit.  Indeed, cola, 
Mt. Dew, etc., should probably be avoided, but that has been left to 
individual decision.

I suppose the jury's still out on chocolate, although it is not 
specifically prohibited at all, but I do know most people are eating 
Hershey's (cheap sweetener and fat indeed) or some like commercial 
chocolate, and not premium chocolate like I had at Zingerman's when I 
was here.

resp:24  I'm sorry, I didn't clarify.  The sentiment was purely my 
opinion-- I would believe that clinical obesity would likely be 
avoided if the Word of Wisdom was followed carefully.

Boy Scouts and new LDS missionaries at the Missionary Training Center 
(MTC) are encouraged to eat healthy and to exercise regularly, if that 
is a good reference point.

Misti, this is lumen, just in a new user ID.

Hi, Lumen!

There is no way that following nay particular regimine will guarantee that one
won't attain "clinical obesity".  If there were, there would be far, far fewer
fat people.  Fortunately clinical obesity isn't incompatible with radiant
health, and eating and exercising well does up your chances of radiant good
health considerably.  ;)

(One of my hobby horses ... I'm fat and I'm radiantly healthy and I get
seriously annoyed when people assume that I can't be both.  Believe it or not,
when I weighed 350 pounds, a friend had a dim moment and told me that I "wasn't
really fat".  Excuse me?!?!?!  <laugh>  350 pounds in *fat* by just about any
human scale!  But she had trouble with the concept that I could be fat, happy,
physically active, and radiantly healthy.  Her paradign woulnd't easily stretch
that far.)

What is 'radiantly' healthy?  All of us emit thermal radiation, are you hotter
than most?

The tannins in tea can be healthy in that they kill intestinal parasites, and
there are supposed to be other compounds in green tea (the unfermented type)
that are healthy (cancer reducing?).

I have heard of the health attributes of green tea.

*shrug*

I don't know.  This is one I take on faith.  Would you tell an 
observant Jew that eating pork is perfectly healthful?

Radiantly healthy refers to a different kind of radiance, Sindi.  I am, as a
matter of fact, better able to gnerate thermal radiation, but the radiance of
good health has nothing to do with that.

If you've never heard the phrase, I guess I can try to explain leter, when I';m
not at work and have time to think it through.

I have been hearing 'radiant' and 'vibrant' more recently and wondered what
they are supposed to mean, since they are not being used literally.  'Vibrant
community', 'vibrant color', etc.

vibrant
  
SYLLABICATION: vi·brant 
PRONUNCIATION:  vbrnt 
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Pulsing or throbbing with energy or activity: the 
vibrant streets of a big city. b. Vigorous, lively, and vital: “a 
vibrant group that challenged the . . . system” (Philip Taubman).
2. Exhibiting or characterized by rapid, rhythmic movement back and 
forth or to and fro; vibrating. 
3. Produced as a result of vibration; resonant or resounding: vibrant 
voices.
4. Relatively high on the scale of brightness: a vibrant hue.  
OTHER FORMS: vibran·cy, vibrance —NOUN
vibrant·ly —ADVERB
 

source?

SO is a vibrant color a lively (bright?) color?  I understand how streets with
lots of traffic can vibrate.

resp:32 hey, I'd be interested to know which dictionary that's from, 
please =)

re #33 It is the one on Yahoo! I *think* they have an online version of 
the American Heritage Dictionary.


re#34 That's right, Sindi. The word 'vibrant' can mean a bright color. 
Perhaps at one time someone felt that bright colors made things *look* 
like they were vibrating. Who knows?

Re: #26/28/29

My impression is that whether an "observant Jew" eats pork depends on
whether he's Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, etc.  At one end of the
spectrum, literally adhering to the ancient rules is paramount, at the
other it's quaintly amusing.  I don't think that eating a *healthy* diet
is considered a serious religious issue anywhere in the spectrum.

(Premium (in the sense of purity) chocolate costs *nothing* resembling
Zingerman's prices if you know where to buy.  $4.50 will get you 16 oz.,
and trying eat a quarter of that will get you very seriously wired!)

I think it'd be cool if LDS updated its religious rules as new data came 
in on old foods (and new bad-for-you foods were introduced or invented),
but it's probably idle to hope that any human religion would actually do
that. 


The artistic meanings of radiant & vibrant, especially in reference to
health & color, have been around for as long as i can recall. 

Re: #27
Sure there are diets that will guarantee that one will not be fat...but
sticking to one is considered a dangerous mental disorder.  Last i heard,
people have about as much control over their thinness/fatness as they do
over their skin color.  As with skin color, those born with the "right"
genes look down upon those born with less fashionable ones, and loads of
people spends loads of money & time trying to make themselves look "more
right".

OK, put that way, I'd have to agree.  An concentration camp style diet will
indeed make most people thin (some it will kill before thin happens, but
they're already suffering from other health problems.)

Speaking of which, has anyone else been following the sotry about SouthWest
airlines charging double rates for people they consider fat?  Most alarming. 
The call is up to whoever is manning the ticket counter.

They claim it's for a second seat, but if you check your tickets carefully,
you'll note that you're paying not for a seat but for a trip ... that's why
they can cancel flights, bump passengers, change seats, etc. with impunity.

I think a lot of airlines do that. I have heard they do anyway. 
Basically, if they dont think you can fit into one of their seats, they 
will charge you for two. *shrug* 

The real problem is allowing the ticket counter person to make the 
call. If I am going to have to pay double to fly on Southwest, that is 
fine but I want to know in advance because I'll book on another airline.

If I had tons of money, I would start an airline that totally catered 
to fat people. I think it could be success because the things I would 
do would make the flight more comfortable for thin people too. I would 
make the seats wider, add more leg room, make the aisle a little 
bigger, make the bathrooms a little bigger, etc. I would have to charge 
more because of that, of course, but I think a lot of people would find 
the changes worth the extra expense. Look at the success of Midwest 
Express. 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss