POLL
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:17 pm
DO WE NEED A SECTION FOR THE LISTING OF FOODS THAT ARE LOWER CALORIE ,BUT CONTAIN ONLY HEALTHY INGREDIENTS?
A problem with this is that "healthy ingredients" is a tricky thing to define. For example, is salt a healthy ingredient? People need salt to live, and it is natural, but in excess, it is bad for you. There are lots of other ingredients that are beneficial or neutral in small quantities, but not so good in large quantities. Even water is harmful, in too-large quantities. How much you eat is at least as important as what you eat, if not more.larry ziegler wrote:DO WE NEED A SECTION FOR THE LISTING OF FOODS THAT ARE LOWER CALORIE ,BUT CONTAIN ONLY HEALTHY INGREDIENTS?
I would also vote against this. Here's why: I think all of the foods Starla mentioned are healthy. Fruits and vegetables are higher in nutrients and lower in calories than cheeseburgers, asiago cheese bread and spaghetti and meatballs, but that doesn't mean they aren't healthy. It also depends on where and how they're made. Some are far less healthy than others. Actually, one of the only places on earth that would consider those foods unhealthy is the USA.Starla wrote:I would vote against this. Not only is it impossible to define "only healthy ingredients;" the beauty of No S is that it's a sytem that includes ALL foods in moderation. Salads, veggies and fruit are a part of my No S experience, but so are cheeseburgers, asiago cheese bread and spaghetti with meatballs. The inclusion of all foods is what allows me to stick with this.
I agree with the above-quoted post.oolala53 wrote:I don't think this would be appropriate for a No S thread.
As Reinhard says, all foods are pre-approved.