An open letter to foodies... stop labelling things as "guilt free"

Options
1235»

Replies

  • gmallan
    gmallan Posts: 2,099 Member
    Options
    UpEarly wrote: »
    Don't blame 'foodies'. We don't care about calories, fat, or sugar... as long as it tastes beautiful! I think your blame needs to go to fad dieters and clean eaters!

    Yep, I think it's fitness community food bloggers that are responsible for this. Not the foodies, well not in the way I understand foodies anyway.

    I don't have a problem per say with making a more nutrient dense, higher protein or less calorie dense version or a particular food. I think the issue with labelling foods as "clean" or "guilt-free" is that it reinforces the other side of the coin, i.e. that the other version of these foods should somehow be associated with guilt or shame. Delicious food should never be associated with guilt or shame, it should simply be savoured slowly and in moderation as part of an overall healthy diet.



  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    Options
    All the foodies I know are chubby.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    seltzermint555 wrote: »
    lthames0810 wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    Foodie, that's such a stupid label, something a toddler came up with.

    I really dislike it.

    Me too. I associate it with food snobs.

    I do, too, and that's why this whole thread is very confusing to me.

    I like OP's intentions though.

    Agreed.

    Food snobs can certainly be annoying (I suspect I have some tendencies that way, and that they are annoying, although I occasionally try to be self-aware), but I don't think they normally talk about stuff being guilt free. I separate out "foodie" food blogger types from "low cal" food blogger types from still other kinds of "healthy eating" or "certain ways of eating" food blogger types.

    But yes, I like the intentions.

    I mentioned the Matt Fitzgerald Diet Cults book in another thread today and one thing I liked about it is that he points out that eating a generally healthy diet is really quite simple and something we all know how to do (and not inconsistent with some splurging that might satisfy other needs, like pure enjoyment). Making it super complicated or about guilt vs. not or the like is something else, and I tend to agree with the posters who say that focusing on that is what takes something that should be pretty simple and non loaded and makes it into a minefield, with negative results for many.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Lourdesong wrote: »
    But I agree with the general sentiment about not categorizing foods into good and bad, I'm just not convinced that bloggers using terms like "guilt-free" gives us any real insight into their food philosophy.

    Probably true, but I do think it's interesting and not irrelevant how often religious and guilt-based language gets used in the food context.

    I read some analysis once of the use of economic/legal language in Christianity, and you could certainly do such an analysis with religious language in food talk.
  • JPW1990
    JPW1990 Posts: 2,424 Member
    Options
    gmallan wrote: »
    UpEarly wrote: »
    Don't blame 'foodies'. We don't care about calories, fat, or sugar... as long as it tastes beautiful! I think your blame needs to go to fad dieters and clean eaters!

    Yep, I think it's fitness community food bloggers that are responsible for this. Not the foodies, well not in the way I understand foodies anyway.

    I don't have a problem per say with making a more nutrient dense, higher protein or less calorie dense version or a particular food. I think the issue with labelling foods as "clean" or "guilt-free" is that it reinforces the other side of the coin, i.e. that the other version of these foods should somehow be associated with guilt or shame. Delicious food should never be associated with guilt or shame, it should simply be savoured slowly and in moderation as part of an overall healthy diet.



    The elephant in the room, it's very specific to diabetic and gluten-free bloggers. The thing is, when you single them out, 9 times out of 10 you're dealing with someone who has a diabetic or celiac kid or has it herself, so blowing it off as "fad" is pretty rude. They're the ones who have a vested interest in starting those blogs more than anyone else, because it's only recently they had grocery store resources available at all. Even diabetic friendly foods were a lot more scarce, and what was out there was pretty rancid. It's probably a lot more convenient to call it a "foodie" stereotype than admit it's really about looking up a recipe and having to skip over ones that have carb or gluten alternatives in them.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    I ate a snickers today. I didn't realize the calorie count was for half the bar. sweet.
  • Lourdesong
    Lourdesong Posts: 1,492 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Lourdesong wrote: »
    But I agree with the general sentiment about not categorizing foods into good and bad, I'm just not convinced that bloggers using terms like "guilt-free" gives us any real insight into their food philosophy.

    Probably true, but I do think it's interesting and not irrelevant how often religious and guilt-based language gets used in the food context.

    I read some analysis once of the use of economic/legal language in Christianity, and you could certainly do such an analysis with religious language in food talk.

    I think it's interesting too.
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    Options
    OdesAngel wrote: »
    All the foodies I know are chubby.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^does that mean I'm chubby?
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    Options
    JoRocka wrote: »
    OdesAngel wrote: »
    All the foodies I know are chubby.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^does that mean I'm chubby?
    All the foodies I know irl are chubby.

    FIFM

Categories