[angarg12]

> the color coding program was completely misguided because it assumed that we didn’t know what healthy food was. I challenged the nutritionist to an experiment: Make two plates of food, go into the restaurant at lunch time, and ask people to point out the healthier plate. My bet was that if you did not purposefully make it very tricky, people would unfailingly point to the right plate.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I used to struggled with weight most of my young years. No matter what I did I achieved incremental advances at best. At some point I decided to start "counting calories", something that I used to frown upon.

To my shock some foods that I ate that I considered "healthy" weren't so much so. This isn't even counting the fact that most experts can't even agree what is healthy or not, and opinions change over time.

Just like with coding, there are some black/white examples where the average person could make an easy distinction, but then there is a wide range of greys in the middle where people might not really know what's "good/bad".

[jandrewrogers]

I think part of the problem here is that “healthy” in a nutritional quality sense is orthogonal to “healthy” in a caloric density sense.

[tnel77]

This is the problem. We use “healthy” interchangeably and it really depends upon your goals.

For example, I would label peanut butter as a healthy snack, but you really need to keep an eye on your portions because it is wildly calorie dense and excess calories is usually unhealthy.

[yoyohello13]

I had a similar experience. I think counting calories really does help in recalibrating your instincts around food. It even pushes you toward healthier options. It also naturally pushes you toward less calorie dense food. I remember a conversation with myself where it really clicked “I could eat this massive salad with ground beef and balsamic and feel full for hours or I can eat two microwave burritos and still feel hungry.”

[strken]

Is a three-colour code going to tell you what's healthy?

I think I'd prefer a standard nutrition label, since I'd guess that a mushroom battered in almond meal and deep fried in olive oil is probably made of three green ingredients but will end up red in combination.

[tabony]

“Healthy” is meaningless. You should provide calorie counts and strive for nutritional balance.

If I have a “healthy” 300 calorie salad before a 3 hour run, I will crash very hard. Instead I will eat a high sugar and high fat candy bar.

If I have two “healthy” 800 calorie quinoa and chickpea salads when I am trying to lose weight, I will gain weight. Instead I could even eat a 500 calorie burger and lose weight.

Frankly if you are interested in your health, you have to understand how it all works. Sometimes you need carbs, sometimes you need fat, and sometimes you need protein. The amount that you need today depends on what you are planning to do this week. You need to know your own schedule and feed yourself accordingly.

Most of the “changing opinions over time by health experts” is because they are trying to answer “what one advice works for everyone” which is a non-starter question to begin with.

[kiba]

It depends, really.

Some people genuinely don't know what's healthy and what's not. Some people know what's healthy but having trouble resisting these temptation. Usually it's a mixture of both.

[numpad0]

But losing weight is a somewhat unhealthy condition, so you have to eat slightly unhealthy with as little side effect as possible to achieve that, no?

As in, preferably taking as much vitamins and micronutrients as practical, with less calories than your body burns within reasonable range.