Can I petition MFP users to use the terms "more ideal" and "less ideal" instead of good/bad foods?

13468921

Replies

  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    Hairy or non-hairy. . .foods hit the floor. . . hairy. Or yummy more yummy. . . . .I could subscribe to this.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.

    Well, we are telling it like it is. Very rarely are foods "crappy for you" because they come as a part of an overall diet. If you eat nothing but celery, which is supposed to be "good for you" it becomes "crappy for you". Unless the food is mouldy or you have some kind of allergy the "crappy" label rarely applies.
  • dragonmaster69
    dragonmaster69 Posts: 131 Member
    edited March 2015
    Can we just call it food and leave the value statements out of it?

    Can you just release yourself of the need to feel in any way impacted by someone else's value statements about food?

    Because a value statement about a food that I eat is a value statement about my diet, even if that's not the intent of the person making the statement. I, personally, don't give a flying *kitten* because I'm gonna eat whatever I want and anyone who has something to say about it can kindly *kitten* right off, but for a lurker with an eating disorder, they don't need to be constantly reading that something they have successfully incorporated into their diet to aid in their recovery is "bad."

    Just this last comment..

    I don't care about the previous quotes and I have my opinion on the original post, but I'm not going to share it. I will, however, say that this last comment by tincanonstring sums a lot of my feelings.

    Dang it...Here I go, getting involved...

    I wonder about the "good food vs bad food" idea all the time. My friends will so often say "ugh, I'm dieting I can't eat ____ " but the reality is they CAN eat whatever and they're depriving themselves completely which often sends them into a binge of it as soon as their water gets rough. They just haven't mastered self control or they have never really looked at their relationship with food (self control- which we all fail to have from time to time).
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.

    Well, we are telling it like it is. Very rarely are foods "crappy for you" because they come as a part of an overall diet. If you eat nothing but celery, which is supposed to be "good for you" it becomes "crappy for you". Unless the food is mouldy or you have some kind of allergy the "crappy" label rarely applies.

    So cookies, chips, pop, etc aren't crappy?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.

    Well, we are telling it like it is. Very rarely are foods "crappy for you" because they come as a part of an overall diet. If you eat nothing but celery, which is supposed to be "good for you" it becomes "crappy for you". Unless the food is mouldy or you have some kind of allergy the "crappy" label rarely applies.

    So cookies, chips, pop, etc aren't crappy?

    The only thing those foods have in common (assuming non diet soda) are relatively high calories and relatively low micronutrients (although some of the ingredients, like potatoes, oatmeal, etc., would never be called "crappy" by most who use the term in others contexts).

    Some versions of them also have added ingredients that people might have reservations about, like HFCS, or are prepared in a way that is not the healthiest (deep fat fried), but obviously not all do, so that can't be the commonality. If you want to argue that foods with some ingredient are inherently crappy, fine, but you'd have to be more specific.

    So really the argument becomes "are foods that don't contribute lots of micronutrients and have lots of calories bad or 'crappy' always?" I don't see why, as there are certainly circumstances where micros are reasonably met and people might actually have a need for more calories or be able to fit in more calories of enjoyable food. Thinking of all food that's not strictly utilitarian for micros or as low calorie as possible seems screwed up to me. So when we have pie on Thanksgiving that's not a celebration of your blessings and family and a time for love and togetherness and all that, but simply indulging in "crap"? It really seems like a messed up and unhelpful way to think of food to me. Why are some so wedded to such terminology?
  • isulo_kura
    isulo_kura Posts: 818 Member
    eudemonia wrote: »
    I think using terms "nutritionally dense" and "nutritionally sparse" conveys a better idea of what is more mindful to eat or not eat, since it's more objective.

    At what level does a food change from sparse to dense? You see the problem here it's all objective. These things need to be taken as a whole and in context. There is no point at looking at one element when you should be looking at the diet as a whole.
  • This content has been removed.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,261 Member
    isulo_kura wrote: »
    eudemonia wrote: »
    I think using terms "nutritionally dense" and "nutritionally sparse" conveys a better idea of what is more mindful to eat or not eat, since it's more objective.

    At what level does a food change from sparse to dense? You see the problem here it's all objective. These things need to be taken as a whole and in context. There is no point at looking at one element when you should be looking at the diet as a whole.
    That is the whole point.

  • KathyMBragg
    KathyMBragg Posts: 48 Member
    JohnBarth wrote: »
    Good advice. Also when comparing foods, it could be helpful to offer one as a "better choice" over something else.

    I like that, instead of good and bad food, good choice and bad choice.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,261 Member
    writerkat wrote: »
    JohnBarth wrote: »
    Good advice. Also when comparing foods, it could be helpful to offer one as a "better choice" over something else.

    I like that, instead of good and bad food, good choice and bad choice.
    wut?

  • scottacular
    scottacular Posts: 597 Member
    Can we not just go with highly nutritious food and less nutritious food? Or food that's good for your insides/food that's good for your mind?
  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    edited March 2015
    writerkat wrote: »
    JohnBarth wrote: »
    Good advice. Also when comparing foods, it could be helpful to offer one as a "better choice" over something else.

    I like that, instead of good and bad food, good choice and bad choice.
    wut?

    Oreon....I choose you!

    3332300_700b.jpg
  • pkw58
    pkw58 Posts: 2,038 Member
    eudemonia wrote: »
    I think using terms "nutritionally dense" and "nutritionally sparse" conveys a better idea of what is more mindful to eat or not eat, since it's more objective.

    Concur!

  • Capt_Apollo
    Capt_Apollo Posts: 9,026 Member
    writerkat wrote: »
    JohnBarth wrote: »
    Good advice. Also when comparing foods, it could be helpful to offer one as a "better choice" over something else.

    I like that, instead of good and bad food, good choice and bad choice.
    wut?

    Oreon....I choose you!

    3332300_700b.jpg


    man, Eevee has all kinds of evolutions these days.
  • @Macstraw‌
    L O L, see what she did there? The food has feelings and says it won't get hurt. Sounds like a co-dependent relationship in which the food is seeking validation and is giving control of it's destiny to another to avoid feeling irrelevant. Anthropomorphism can be fun.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    edited March 2015
    I think people are just being overly sensitive. If just seeing the word bad causes them such angst, then they need to get a little perspective. We all have our own opinions and should feel free to express those in the words that feel natural to us. Others are free to disagree using their own word choices...and they do. Not using the words bad and good because somebody might get offended by it is taking PC just a little too far.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    isulo_kura wrote: »
    eudemonia wrote: »
    I think using terms "nutritionally dense" and "nutritionally sparse" conveys a better idea of what is more mindful to eat or not eat, since it's more objective.

    At what level does a food change from sparse to dense? You see the problem here it's all objective. These things need to be taken as a whole and in context. There is no point at looking at one element when you should be looking at the diet as a whole.

    It's a spectrum not a binary definition, but it's simplified into a binary definition because people seem to have issues with with the farther extremes of the spectrum not the middle.

    Nutrient density, by definition, is the amount of micronutrients per calorie. Some food items like spinach are clearly to the far right of the spectrum, so can be called nutrient dense. Other food items like sugar are clearly to the far left of the spectrum and can be called nutrient poor. The ones that are somewhere in the middle are rarely the center of controversy when it comes to nutrients.

    Focusing on including various nutrient dense foods in ones diet allows them to get as much nutrition as the body needs in as few calories as possible, which leaves room for less nutrient dense but equally important (psychologically, socially, fuel-wise..etc) foods.

    Issues arise when people isolate foods with the intention of labeling instead of looking at them as pieces in a bigger puzzle. It's better to judge the full picture rather than individual pieces.

    Yesterday, for example, I was chasing a very stressful deadline and I did not have time to prepare food, and grabbing something like an apple would not provide me with enough energy to perform my job efficiently. My whole day was made of nuts and chocolate because you can get a good amount of energy in small amounts of these. If someone looked at yesterday they would judge my diet as horrible right away, but a more observant person would go through my whole week, or even month, to see that in the grand scheme of things I'm getting a respectable amount of nutrients.
  • jddnw
    jddnw Posts: 319 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    I think people are just being overly sensitive. If just seeing the word bad causes them such angst, then they need to get a little perspective. We all have our own opinions and should feel free to express those in the words that feel natural to us. Others are free to disagree using their own word choices...and they do. Not using the words bad and good because somebody might get offended by it is taking PC just a little too far.


    Agree.
  • melimomTARDIS
    melimomTARDIS Posts: 1,941 Member
    We do "sometimes" foods and "always" foods in our house. Seems to work. :)

    we do this too!
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    I prefer "Food I like" and "Food I don't like".

    Super. Until someone says"What is FIL and FIDK" and a poster states the "FIL crowd just eat until they're full" Fill. . . .full. . . .I tried. Eat the veal, I'm here all week.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    writerkat wrote: »
    JohnBarth wrote: »
    Good advice. Also when comparing foods, it could be helpful to offer one as a "better choice" over something else.

    I like that, instead of good and bad food, good choice and bad choice.

    Even that would depend. Because each choice doesn't happen in a vacuum when it comes to your overall diet. It's the sum of your choices that matters. You're still qualifying the nature of something using this language.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    I think people are just being overly sensitive. If just seeing the word bad causes them such angst, then they need to get a little perspective. We all have our own opinions and should feel free to express those in the words that feel natural to us. Others are free to disagree using their own word choices...and they do. Not using the words bad and good because somebody might get offended by it is taking PC just a little too far.

    LOL

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    I prefer "Food I like" and "Food I don't like".

    Super. Until someone says"What is FIL and FIDK" and a poster states the "FIL crowd just eat until they're full" Fill. . . .full. . . .I tried. Eat the veal, I'm here all week.

    Also? For people who have poor eyesight FIDK does not look like a description of food.

  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    I prefer "Food I like" and "Food I don't like".

    Super. Until someone says"What is FIL and FIDK" and a poster states the "FIL crowd just eat until they're full" Fill. . . .full. . . .I tried. Eat the veal, I'm here all week.

    Also? For people who have poor eyesight FIDK does not look like a description of food.

    very true; full disclosure in the 'bad food' thread I used 'more ideal'. . . . .LAWDY help me.
  • GoPerfectHealth
    GoPerfectHealth Posts: 254 Member
    Instead, how about an online party where we focus on acceptance and love? :smile: We can ZEN OUT.
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    Instead, how about an online party where we focus on acceptance and love? :smile: We can ZEN OUT.

    Please go to the LAME jokes thread. I left a few Buddhist jokes for the Zen in all of us.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    I prefer "Food I like" and "Food I don't like".

    Super. Until someone says"What is FIL and FIDK" and a poster states the "FIL crowd just eat until they're full" Fill. . . .full. . . .I tried. Eat the veal, I'm here all week.

    Also? For people who have poor eyesight FIDK does not look like a description of food.

    very true; full disclosure in the 'bad food' thread I used 'more ideal'. . . . .LAWDY help me.

    It's the idealiest ideal that ever idealed!!!!

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.

    Well, we are telling it like it is. Very rarely are foods "crappy for you" because they come as a part of an overall diet. If you eat nothing but celery, which is supposed to be "good for you" it becomes "crappy for you". Unless the food is mouldy or you have some kind of allergy the "crappy" label rarely applies.

    So cookies, chips, pop, etc aren't crappy?



    So really the argument becomes "are foods that don't contribute lots of micronutrients and have lots of calories bad or 'crappy' always?" I don't see why, as there are certainly circumstances where micros are reasonably met and people might actually have a need for more calories or be able to fit in more calories of enjoyable food. Thinking of all food that's not strictly utilitarian for micros or as low calorie as possible seems screwed up to me. So when we have pie on Thanksgiving that's not a celebration of your blessings and family and a time for love and togetherness and all that, but simply indulging in "crap"? It really seems like a messed up and unhelpful way to think of food to me. Why are some so wedded to such terminology?

    Why not eat the extra calories in food that is good for you instead of crap? Don't go dragging up the food as celebration garbage. Sure there is nothing wrong with having a piece of pie on Thanksgiving, just as there is nothing wrong with skipping it. You can still spend time with family and celebrate your blessings.

    Acknowledge that nutritionally sparse foods are crappy for you and if they are used, they should be seldom used, not as a way to fill in daily calorie needs.
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.

    Well, we are telling it like it is. Very rarely are foods "crappy for you" because they come as a part of an overall diet. If you eat nothing but celery, which is supposed to be "good for you" it becomes "crappy for you". Unless the food is mouldy or you have some kind of allergy the "crappy" label rarely applies.

    So cookies, chips, pop, etc aren't crappy?



    So really the argument becomes "are foods that don't contribute lots of micronutrients and have lots of calories bad or 'crappy' always?" I don't see why, as there are certainly circumstances where micros are reasonably met and people might actually have a need for more calories or be able to fit in more calories of enjoyable food. Thinking of all food that's not strictly utilitarian for micros or as low calorie as possible seems screwed up to me. So when we have pie on Thanksgiving that's not a celebration of your blessings and family and a time for love and togetherness and all that, but simply indulging in "crap"? It really seems like a messed up and unhelpful way to think of food to me. Why are some so wedded to such terminology?

    Why not eat the extra calories in food that is good for you instead of crap? Don't go dragging up the food as celebration garbage. Sure there is nothing wrong with having a piece of pie on Thanksgiving, just as there is nothing wrong with skipping it. You can still spend time with family and celebrate your blessings.

    Acknowledge that nutritionally sparse foods are crappy for you and if they are used, they should be seldom used, not as a way to fill in daily calorie needs.

    This is a great idea. 2,700 calories of non-crap. . . .yes I need to do this. Or, I can have a few EACH day and eat non-crap food too.

    Please do not define crap and non-crap. . .honestly I do not give a *kitten*.

This discussion has been closed.