this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
104 points (91.9% liked)
Today I Learned (TIL)
6426 readers
1 users here now
You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?
/c/til is a community for any true knowledge that you would like to share, regardless of topic or of source.
Share your knowledge and experience!
Rules
- Information must be true
- Follow site rules
- No, you don't have to have literally learned the fact today
- Posts must be about something you learned
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure there is.
You can measure damage causes by eating unhealthy food, often within hours of their consumption.
Inflammatory response, release of certain chemicals in the body, blood flow, etc.
And the opposite it true when you put healthy food into your body.
You can't outrun a chronically poor diet, especially if its a paleo diet, but it seems like athletes can get away with eating junk food.
Examples? None of the things you've listed are inherently bad effects. It all depends on the magnitude, duration/timing, and probably a bunch of other factors, and any negative needs too be weighed against the benefits of consuming that food.
With my limited time, here are a few:
Magnitude and Timing of the Postprandial Inflammatory Response to a High-Fat Meal in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review
The effect of high-protein diets on coronary blood flow
Higher ultra-processed food intake is associated with higher DNA damage in healthy adolescents
A single high-fat meal provokes pathological erythrocyte remodeling and increases myeloperoxidase levels: implications for acute coronary syndrome
There are countless other studies showing both positive and negative effects of food after consumption in both the short and long term.
Yes, there are healthy immune responses and damaging ones; healthy chemical release in the body, and damaging ones; good blood flow and harmful blood flow, etc.
Because diet is often not a one-and-done deal, most of the population is putting themselves in a chronic state of harm with every meal and snack.
For an athlete, they choose these foods only because they offer higher calories. Some can tolerate pure carbohydrates in the form of gels and liquids, but those can cause stomach upset. So, eating 20 pancakes drenched in syrup is a "perfect" meal for an ultra-distance runner, while it would be absolutely terrible for a non-athlete.
With food and diet, there is always nuance when it comes to risk/benefit. If athletes ate the way they do when they are training or actively competing as a regular thing, they'd live 10 years less! LOL
I get the impression that we're in agreement but just arguing semantics here. Instead of categorizing food as either healthy or unhealthy, we should be asking what food to eat in order to achieve a given goal with your life circumstances. And not everyone has the same goal or life. Saying that something is healthy/unhealthy in absolute terms implies that it's always/never a good idea to consume them, regardless of your situation.
There's merit in using the terms "healthy" and "unhealthy" from a public health perspective when you're giving broad nutrition advice that applies to the majority of people, but that's not what's happening here. We're specifically talking about athletes.