I also think this would be a good idea. I am always looking for healthy recipes, and it would be nice to have a lot of healthy options all in one place
. I think most ppl agree that it is a good idea (or at least not a bad idea), it's just not something that would be simple to implement. . As has been pointed out, what is healthy for a one person might be poisonous for someone else. Some sub-categories might help, eg, Food:Healthy:Low-Sodium. I don't think carlyg90's one-size-fits-all category would work well, but it would at least show the author's intent. . Maybe a better category name would be the answer. Something like Health Conscious (only shorter). . YMMV
Seems like keywords would help a lot in this scenario (along with more prominent reminders to use helpful ones, and examples of good keywords). Unfortunately, like many other features (groups, anyone?), keywords seem to suffer from feature rot. :(
This really does not need to be that complicated. Yes healthy is different to different people. So why can't we just have one category of Healthy that encompasses all of them. People can go to it, and then look for recipes that fit their needs. Just like every other category.
For example, I can go into the breakfast category and be looking for only pancake recipes, just like someone could go into the Healthy category and be only looking for low calorie. There will be other things in there than what you are looking for. It's not a big deal.
I agree, however there would have to be some concensus about what, for the purposes of this category, constitutes "Healthy". Lets get some ideas about this.
HEALTHY FOOD = Low fat. No chemical additives. Low salt (sodium). Etc.
HEALTHY FOOD = Low fat. ...unless you have certain types of epilepsy when low fat = very very bad.
Low sodium = healthy, unless you are very old, in which case many need extra sodium.....
What is a "chemical additive" ? Monosodium glutamate ? (found in natural soy sauce). Dihydrogen monoxide ? Well known killer, in quite small one-off exposures ?
I back off. I thought it was a good idea, but now I see it raises more problems than I imagined. Rather like that old adage, "one man's trash is another man's treasure". " What's healthy for one may be poison for another". Bye everyone , this subject is now closed, for me at least.
Perhaps a more pragmatic definition should be used, as lowfat, low salt, and little or no deliberately added clearly non-food items are clearly healthy for the majority of the population. The semantics can be argued all day, but a common-sense approach like "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." is good for most people and simple to follow.
I feel like people could probably determine whether something is healthy or not on their own. There are a lot of different types of healthy. For instance healthy for people that work out a lot can have more calories vs. people just wanting something low calorie. I'm not sure there should be strict guidelines because of that. Maybe after recipes are submitted, people can afterwards have a say as to why the dish might be unhealthy altogether if someone submits something that really doesn't meet anyone's guidelines.
I like the idea, but do we agree on what Healthy means? What do you think about vegetarian, vegan, low-fat, low-sugar, etc instead of the broad category?
I also think this would be a good idea. I am always looking for healthy recipes, and it would be nice to have a lot of healthy options all in one place
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
I still agree with the idea. Good Luck.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
. I think most ppl agree that it is a good idea (or at least not a bad idea), it's just not something that would be simple to implement.
. As has been pointed out, what is healthy for a one person might be poisonous for someone else. Some sub-categories might help, eg, Food:Healthy:Low-Sodium. I don't think carlyg90's one-size-fits-all category would work well, but it would at least show the author's intent.
. Maybe a better category name would be the answer. Something like Health Conscious (only shorter).
. YMMV
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
Yes, it's obviously not as simple as was first thought.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
Seems like keywords would help a lot in this scenario (along with more prominent reminders to use helpful ones, and examples of good keywords). Unfortunately, like many other features (groups, anyone?), keywords seem to suffer from feature rot. :(
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
Still thinking about this.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
This really does not need to be that complicated. Yes healthy is different to different people. So why can't we just have one category of Healthy that encompasses all of them. People can go to it, and then look for recipes that fit their needs. Just like every other category.
For example, I can go into the breakfast category and be looking for only pancake recipes, just like someone could go into the Healthy category and be only looking for low calorie. There will be other things in there than what you are looking for. It's not a big deal.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
I agree, however there would have to be some concensus about what, for the purposes of this category, constitutes "Healthy". Lets get some ideas about this.
HEALTHY FOOD = Low fat.
No chemical additives.
Low salt (sodium). Etc.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
HEALTHY FOOD = Low fat.
...unless you have certain types of epilepsy when low fat = very very bad.
Low sodium = healthy, unless you are very old, in which case many need extra sodium.....
What is a "chemical additive" ? Monosodium glutamate ? (found in natural soy sauce). Dihydrogen monoxide ? Well known killer, in quite small one-off exposures ?
Steve
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
Well said. That's why it's more complicated than we realise. Maybe we can reduce it to "Your healthy Foods" whatever that may be.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
Oh, and lets not forget that adult healthy food is not the same as children healthy food.
That's my point, "healthy" is not for the site to judge.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
I back off. I thought it was a good idea, but now I see it raises more problems than I imagined. Rather like that old adage, "one man's trash is another man's treasure". " What's healthy for one may be poison for another". Bye everyone , this subject is now closed, for me at least.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
Perhaps a more pragmatic definition should be used, as lowfat, low salt, and little or no deliberately added clearly non-food items are clearly healthy for the majority of the population. The semantics can be argued all day, but a common-sense approach like "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." is good for most people and simple to follow.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
Paleoman said it best, "ArwyuggrmpfhNom, Nom!"
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
I feel like people could probably determine whether something is healthy or not on their own. There are a lot of different types of healthy. For instance healthy for people that work out a lot can have more calories vs. people just wanting something low calorie. I'm not sure there should be strict guidelines because of that.
Maybe after recipes are submitted, people can afterwards have a say as to why the dish might be unhealthy altogether if someone submits something that really doesn't meet anyone's guidelines.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
I like the idea, but do we agree on what Healthy means?
What do you think about vegetarian, vegan, low-fat, low-sugar, etc instead of the broad category?
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
Apart from food that is tainted or "off", there is no such thing as an unhealthy food.
Any particular food is only unhealthy if eaten to excess.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
OK, I'll only eat a a few bites of this lead-and-arsenic candy!
:D
Or is any quantity excess?
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
I did say apart from food that is tainted...
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer