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.

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

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

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.