My concurrent thread on guilty pleasures has brought a good number of responses about
how virtually all of us delight in gobbling up "junk food:" various wonderfully tasting but supposedly nutritionally worthless foods and drinks that taste great but do little to nothing for us.
Such as potato chips, twinkies, candy bars, etc., the list goes on.
But then I got to thinking, wait a minute, is that
always true for
every junk food goodie out there that has come to have a bad rep for its supposed nutritional inadequacy?
What got me to thinking about
this was the fact that we have all heard repeatedly that dark chocolate, the darker the better, and delicious as it is, was also supposed to be good for us because of its flavonoid content.
So I did a little searching, and, sure enough, there are some "junk" foods out there that are now actually being claimed to have real food value.
No, that doesn't mean the twinkies have been given a reprieve, and are now taking their rightful place on the "good" foods list, and maybe opinions will change, and some of the supposed "good" junk foods discussed below will wind up again eventually on the "junk" list.
But for now at least there appears to be some thought that they might not be as bad for us as was once thought.
Here's a short Youtube video singing the praises of some junk foods that maybe don't really deserve their bad reputations after all, and which may actually be good for us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qznhdyi2vjuAnd maybe this is just a beginning list for now, and there are even other junkers that may come to be seen as not so bad to eat after all. (Or at least that's the opinion for now)
(Also, note that the video even reports some supposed cancer-fighting qualities of some of these foods, making them even more attractive, as well as tasty!).
So maybe all that county fair food isn't so bad after all, at least some of it!