Can I petition MFP users to use the terms "more ideal" and "less ideal" instead of good/bad foods?
_John_
Posts: 8,646 Member
I think a simple changing of wording will make everyone happy and fit inside everyone's safety box...
-1
Replies
-
I prefer "yummy" and "more yummy" to be honest.0
-
I've seen "fun food". That seems pretty accurate and doesn't start a major rage fest.0
-
Good advice. Also when comparing foods, it could be helpful to offer one as a "better choice" over something else.0
-
@_John_
I'm pretty offended by your use of the word safety box. Let me tell you, being in an alternative lifestyle relationship, there is no safety in boxes.
Also it could be confused with slang for female anatomy.
-1 -
Good luck. :flowerforyou:
ETA: Also, apparently dirt food exists, and I'm an idiot for not knowing what the hell it means...0 -
That implies that certain foods are better than other foods though, which is the entire idea that spawned that mess.
I think just changing the wording to something more specific would work much better. "In the context of the rest of your diet, [food1] would be a better choice than [food2]."
@auddii: Dirt food is what you have before you wash your spinach, of course.0 -
well, by nature, a food as vile as say raw kale is MUCH more likely to be needed in someone's overall diet than say white bread, which has FAR less micronutrition for the calories.0
-
however if someone ate say 5 cups of raw kale, then they would likely benefit by eating the white bread for the rest of their carbs as it would decrease the bulk in their diet as they would have gotten most of the micronutrition one needs from carbs (if not too much) in that 5 cups.0
-
I usually say "foods that are traditionally thought of as 'healthy'" because most people can figure out what that means. Anyone who claims they can't is being disingenuous and just trying to start a fight IMO.0
-
What would we argue about?0
-
dunno. but I'm running out of popcorn for watching that other thread.
It's all a philosophical battle over whether "we'd" like someone to think exclusionary about food or inclusionary...
Is there butter on your popcorn? Because I'd like to suggest plain popcorn, which is more ideal.
Or, you could switch to something more nutrient dense, like kale!0 -
I need fat though. so I chose to butter my popcorn and eat less of it to make it fit my macros. Popcorn still helps me hit my fiber goal...0
-
I prefer angelic and evil. With no in between. It has to be one or the other.
or 
0 -
well, in the context of an otherwise total lack of calories, EVERY food is good food...0
-
-
-
melimomTARDIS wrote: »
no, because there are arguably no bad foods. There are no less ideal foods.
Arguably, yes, definitively, no. You can argue against anything, doesn't mean you're correct.0 -
MB_Positif wrote: »I prefer "yummy" and "more yummy" to be honest.
Word.0 -
Can i petition MFP users to be less sensitive about the way others describe food? And also let people have their opinions? 'Cause it's not that serious.0
-
I usually say "foods that are traditionally thought of as 'healthy'" because most people can figure out what that means. Anyone who claims they can't is being disingenuous and just trying to start a fight IMO.
Me too. Although I do continue to describe the midnight greasey drunk burger from the death vans as 'bad food' or 'a loose facsimile for food' or 'questionably edible' or other such euphemism for the disgusting snacks that are so yummy to eat when drunk but you would not touch with a barge pole when sober.
0 -
PeachyPlum wrote: »
Is there butter on your popcorn? Because I'd like to suggest plain popcorn, which is more ideal.
Or, you could switch to something more nutrient dense, like kale!
Just give me the butter thanks. Fat is not "bad" after all, but corn is toxic for me :.
0 -
Can we just call it food and leave the value statements out of it?0
-
Trans fats are pretty unarguably bad.melimomTARDIS wrote: »no, because there are arguably no bad foods. There are no less ideal foods.
That's all I got.
Edit: No they're not, tincanonastring is right.0 -
clipartghost wrote: »
Truth0 -
This content has been removed.
-
clipartghost wrote: »
And here's where it turns into a bad food thread. I've heard there's already one of those going on. Grass-fed dairy and meet products have trans fat. Are those bad foods? No, they are food that one either chooses to eat or chooses not to eat. There's no reason to place a judge the value of food outside of a contextual conversation.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »
And here's where it turns into a bad food thread. I've heard there's already one of those going on. Grass-fed dairy and meet products have trans fat. Are those bad foods? No, they are food that one either chooses to eat or chooses not to eat. There's no reason to place a judge the value of food outside of a contextual conversation.
but those fall under the "natural" umbrella and are protected. As are "oreos" made from organic ingredients...
0 -
I checked with my food, none of it is offended by any terms used to describe it & it promised it's feelings won't get hurt..........0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.1K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 446 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions