Can I petition MFP users to use the terms "more ideal" and "less ideal" instead of good/bad foods?
Options
Replies
-
tincanonastring wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.tincanonastring wrote: »clipartghost wrote: »
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.
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.
I understand that, but how does the statement "trans fats are bad" make that distinction?
To be honest, I would shy away from calling foods that have trans fats bad too, even the manufactured stuff. Trans fats are not a food, they're in some foods. I may be swimming against the current here when I [GASP] don't mind eating trans fat containing foods every once in a long while. In the grand scheme of things I don't believe they're the scary closet monster who would devour you as soon as they pass your lips. Heck, rice, apple juice, and green veggies have arsenic in them, rhubarb has oxalic acid, almonds have cyanide, some beans have lectin, and brazil nuts are radioactive - but those are less trendy than trans fats so you don't see them turned into boogie men as often. Key is in the amount and frequency, so yeah...
I concur. I probably don't eat a lot trans fat because of the foods I choose to eat, but I wouldn't call it bad, either. I was trying to point out how the act of labeling something like that discourages any conversation around nuance.
I eat regular Jif..and at least in the early 2000's it had as much as 0.0032g trans fat/serving...0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.tincanonastring wrote: »clipartghost wrote: »
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.
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.
I understand that, but how does the statement "trans fats are bad" make that distinction?
To be honest, I would shy away from calling foods that have trans fats bad too, even the manufactured stuff. Trans fats are not a food, they're in some foods. I may be swimming against the current here when I [GASP] don't mind eating trans fat containing foods every once in a long while. In the grand scheme of things I don't believe they're the scary closet monster who would devour you as soon as they pass your lips. Heck, rice, apple juice, and green veggies have arsenic in them, rhubarb has oxalic acid, almonds have cyanide, some beans have lectin, and brazil nuts are radioactive - but those are less trendy than trans fats so you don't see them turned into boogie men as often. Key is in the amount and frequency, so yeah...
I concur. I probably don't eat a lot trans fat because of the foods I choose to eat, but I wouldn't call it bad, either. I was trying to point out how the act of labeling something like that discourages any conversation around nuance.
I eat regular Jif..and at least in the early 2000's it had as much as 0.0032g trans fat/serving...
I should probably check my Skippy it's probably swimming in less ideal trans fat. So, we should probably also have the conversation, what is the best peanut butter and why is it Skippy Creamy Peanut Butter?0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.tincanonastring wrote: »clipartghost wrote: »
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.
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.
I understand that, but how does the statement "trans fats are bad" make that distinction?
To be honest, I would shy away from calling foods that have trans fats bad too, even the manufactured stuff. Trans fats are not a food, they're in some foods. I may be swimming against the current here when I [GASP] don't mind eating trans fat containing foods every once in a long while. In the grand scheme of things I don't believe they're the scary closet monster who would devour you as soon as they pass your lips. Heck, rice, apple juice, and green veggies have arsenic in them, rhubarb has oxalic acid, almonds have cyanide, some beans have lectin, and brazil nuts are radioactive - but those are less trendy than trans fats so you don't see them turned into boogie men as often. Key is in the amount and frequency, so yeah...
I concur. I probably don't eat a lot trans fat because of the foods I choose to eat, but I wouldn't call it bad, either. I was trying to point out how the act of labeling something like that discourages any conversation around nuance.
I eat regular Jif..and at least in the early 2000's it had as much as 0.0032g trans fat/serving...
I should probably check my Skippy it's probably swimming in less ideal trans fat. So, we should probably also have the conversation, what is the best peanut butter and why is it Skippy Creamy Peanut Butter?
my lab measured aflatoxin levels in commercial and organic peanut butters for a rotation student project one time. Skippy had the most...and all had measurable levels. All levels were below action levels. Jif tasted the best to me...
The measurements will be irrelevant now as peanut batches will have changed...0 -
How about we all just use the phrase we learned when we were 6yrs old.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me"
Every word offends someone and there is no way to avoid it so we can only control our own reactions and we can only expect others to control theirs. When I was little I was taught to say "yes ma'am and no sir" to non acquaintances as a means of showing respect. When I moved to NJ and took a retail job I found out very quickly that a lot of people get offended by those terms. Where I was from it was a compliment but in other parts it was an insult. We all need to stop assuming others mean to be offensive and just try to cut everyone a bit of slack.0 -
Partially hydrogenated oils wouldn't be considered healthy based on how they're metabolised. Unlike natural saturated fat they reduce HDL and increase the small dense lipoprotein size. Also there is a dosage issue that while may appear small, it's the daily consumption that adds up over time. canola oil, soy and corn all have some trace trans fats in them and if that's what people use over a lifetime, then there is a reason to be concerned, not to mention the foods available that actually have grams attached to their consumption, as opposed to milligrams in the former.tincanonastring wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.tincanonastring wrote: »clipartghost wrote: »
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.
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.
I understand that, but how does the statement "trans fats are bad" make that distinction?
To be honest, I would shy away from calling foods that have trans fats bad too, even the manufactured stuff. Trans fats are not a food, they're in some foods. I may be swimming against the current here when I [GASP] don't mind eating trans fat containing foods every once in a long while. In the grand scheme of things I don't believe they're the scary closet monster who would devour you as soon as they pass your lips. Heck, rice, apple juice, and green veggies have arsenic in them, rhubarb has oxalic acid, almonds have cyanide, some beans have lectin, and brazil nuts are radioactive - but those are less trendy than trans fats so you don't see them turned into boogie men as often. Key is in the amount and frequency, so yeah...
I concur. I probably don't eat a lot trans fat because of the foods I choose to eat, but I wouldn't call it bad, either. I was trying to point out how the act of labeling something like that discourages any conversation around nuance.
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!
lol. nice!
0 -
How about we all just use the phrase we learned when we were 6yrs old.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me"
Every word offends someone and there is no way to avoid it so we can only control our own reactions and we can only expect others to control theirs. When I was little I was taught to say "yes ma'am and no sir" to non acquaintances as a means of showing respect. When I moved to NJ and took a retail job I found out very quickly that a lot of people get offended by those terms. Where I was from it was a compliment but in other parts it was an insult. We all need to stop assuming others mean to be offensive and just try to cut everyone a bit of slack.
Are people really offended, though? I definitely feel that I would never have successfully lost weight if I continued to regard some foods as bad (btw, I eat less of it when I did when I demonized foods), but I don't take it personally if someone describes food as bad or junk. You get what they mean.
0 -
This has gotten way too complicated. As an English teacher, I'd like to petition that people who use message boards learn correct grammar. But since I'm not in charge of the world, I've learned to mind my own business. . . . though my heart skips a beat at the lose/loose confusion and I have to step away from the screen and eat a bite of chocolate, a food that is yummy, healthy, clean, ideal, and very good.0
-
SherryTeach wrote: »This has gotten way too complicated. As an English teacher, I'd like to petition that people who use message boards learn correct grammar. But since I'm not in charge of the world, I've learned to mind my own business. . . . though my heart skips a beat at the lose/loose confusion and I have to step away from the screen and eat a bite of chocolate, a food that is yummy, healthy, clean, ideal, and very good.
lol
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
What fascinates me most about that point is that the exclusionists quite often include the very things that they say are awful in their diets. For them, it's all about how they position themselves.
I suppose the same is true for the inclusionists (regarding the positioning), but being one myself, I can't be objective about any of this.
I don't know if there's some deeper psychology behind the two types of thinking, or if it just boils down to people being different. It really interests me on some level, though.
Cosign all of this.
I wonder if part of it is "if I position myself as a person who does what I aspire to, that will help make me such a person"?
On the other hand, there was some TED talk (which admittedly I did not watch, but just heard about) about some study showing that announcing that you were going to do something (lose weight, say) tended to make people LESS likely to do it. The theory was that you got the payoff when announcing it, so it undermined the motivation. Obviously, I am not in a position to say if this is true or not--or why it might be--but it kind of rings true for me. I tend to be a person who underplays my goals publicly at risk of ending up sabotaging myself. So for me announcing that I eat no processed food or some such (which I don't even see as a good goal--there are lots of processed foods that are nutritionally beneficial, of course, and no particular reason to never eat even more calorically dense, less nutritionally dense stuff) would be a weird and hypocritical thing to do, aspirationally, even if those were my aspirations. So I'm just fascinated by the mindset.
There also seems to be some element of "I will stay away from the bad influences and surround myself with good influences," at least from some of the people who post on the forums complaining about other people's diaries.0 -
No.0
-
It will still all come down to context anyway, "ideal" is just a euphemism for "good" or "healthy".
While I use "nutrient-dense" or "calorie-dense", I really like the suggestion of "sometimes" and "always" foods, especially for MFP. I think what causes a lot of clean eaters and newbies grief, is that IIFYM followers sometimes come across as though they can eat ANYTHING and ALL THE FOODS and GELATO and still lose weight with ease. The reality is, most people who do IIFYM find it ideal to hit their macros with nutrient-dense foods, and they use the excess to eat fun stuff.
Using "sometimes" and "always" really drives this point home, in ways that "eat whatever you want, cauliflower is disgusting" doesn't (because the person who is trying to spackle together a cauliflower pizza is thinking, I can't eat whatever I want, that's why I'm on this site now).0 -
no0
-
"Nutrient dense" and "not so nutrient dense" really roll off the tongue. Wonder why those labels didn't catch on.
The one thing consistent here is disagreement.
Good ole Dr. Agotston and his "good carbs". He should have gone with nutrient dense, low glycemic carbs, and nutrient poor high glycemic carbs. I'm sure he woulda sold lots of books with that.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.tincanonastring wrote: »clipartghost wrote: »
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.
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.
I understand that, but how does the statement "trans fats are bad" make that distinction?
To be honest, I would shy away from calling foods that have trans fats bad too, even the manufactured stuff. Trans fats are not a food, they're in some foods. I may be swimming against the current here when I [GASP] don't mind eating trans fat containing foods every once in a long while. In the grand scheme of things I don't believe they're the scary closet monster who would devour you as soon as they pass your lips. Heck, rice, apple juice, and green veggies have arsenic in them, rhubarb has oxalic acid, almonds have cyanide, some beans have lectin, and brazil nuts are radioactive - but those are less trendy than trans fats so you don't see them turned into boogie men as often. Key is in the amount and frequency, so yeah...
I concur. I probably don't eat a lot trans fat because of the foods I choose to eat, but I wouldn't call it bad, either. I was trying to point out how the act of labeling something like that discourages any conversation around nuance.
I eat regular Jif..and at least in the early 2000's it had as much as 0.0032g trans fat/serving...
I should probably check my Skippy it's probably swimming in less ideal trans fat. So, we should probably also have the conversation, what is the best peanut butter and why is it Skippy Creamy Peanut Butter?
I just checked the 2 jars in my cupboard - Natural Skippy has 0 transfat, and so does the store brand super chunky my kid eats.
I concur if it's Natural, only because it means I can have more of it in a given day. I was partial to Peter Pan when I was little, but their little salmonella incident killed the last of any of that nostalgia for me.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.tincanonastring wrote: »clipartghost wrote: »
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.
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.
I understand that, but how does the statement "trans fats are bad" make that distinction?
To be honest, I would shy away from calling foods that have trans fats bad too, even the manufactured stuff. Trans fats are not a food, they're in some foods. I may be swimming against the current here when I [GASP] don't mind eating trans fat containing foods every once in a long while. In the grand scheme of things I don't believe they're the scary closet monster who would devour you as soon as they pass your lips. Heck, rice, apple juice, and green veggies have arsenic in them, rhubarb has oxalic acid, almonds have cyanide, some beans have lectin, and brazil nuts are radioactive - but those are less trendy than trans fats so you don't see them turned into boogie men as often. Key is in the amount and frequency, so yeah...
I concur. I probably don't eat a lot trans fat because of the foods I choose to eat, but I wouldn't call it bad, either. I was trying to point out how the act of labeling something like that discourages any conversation around nuance.
I eat regular Jif..and at least in the early 2000's it had as much as 0.0032g trans fat/serving...
I should probably check my Skippy it's probably swimming in less ideal trans fat. So, we should probably also have the conversation, what is the best peanut butter and why is it Skippy Creamy Peanut Butter?
I just checked the 2 jars in my cupboard - Natural Skippy has 0 transfat, and so does the store brand super chunky my kid eats.
I concur if it's Natural, only because it means I can have more of it in a given day. I was partial to Peter Pan when I was little, but their little salmonella incident killed the last of any of that nostalgia for me.
Yes, um, that's totally what I meant. Skippy is the best because of the 0 trans fat. 0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »"Nutrient dense" and "not so nutrient dense" really roll off the tongue. Wonder why those labels didn't catch on.
The one thing consistent here is disagreement.
Good ole Dr. Agotston and his "good carbs". He should have gone with nutrient dense, low glycemic carbs, and nutrient poor high glycemic carbs. I'm sure he woulda sold lots of books with that.
Eh, people seem to go on about GI all the time, even to (on a misunderstanding) slam fruit.
IMO, since I don't eat foods alone, GI and GL don't matter so much.
For example, I consider the potato somewhat nutrient dense (more than some things, less than others) and, if you forced me to pick one, a "good" food. And yet it gets slammed all the time by those obsessed with the GI.
Shows the problem with trying to define foods in a vacuum, once again.
If someone eats mainly carbs and doesn't get enough protein or non starchy veggies and is a bit high in calories, potatoes might, indeed, be a poor choice to include with dinner. But for me, they are usually a perfectly good/healthy/whatever choice.
That's why I'm quite happy that I don't buy into ignorant ways of viewing nutrition, like labeling some foods ("white foods," perhaps) "bad" and others "good" out of context. I know from your posts that you don't really do that either, so it beats me why you so often seem to want to defend such an approach (or nonsense about cutting out all "processed" foods or "eating clean") rather than pushing for a more nuanced one.
IMO, having a more nuanced understanding of nutrition makes it more likely that one will be successful in eating a nutrient-dense diet, and not freak out because you get told that some random food is "processed" as we've seen lately. (And yes, it probably is.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »"Nutrient dense" and "not so nutrient dense" really roll off the tongue. Wonder why those labels didn't catch on.
The one thing consistent here is disagreement.
Good ole Dr. Agotston and his "good carbs". He should have gone with nutrient dense, low glycemic carbs, and nutrient poor high glycemic carbs. I'm sure he woulda sold lots of books with that.
Eh, people seem to go on about GI all the time, even to (on a misunderstanding) slam fruit.
IMO, since I don't eat foods alone, GI and GL don't matter so much.
For example, I consider the potato somewhat nutrient dense (more than some things, less than others) and, if you forced me to pick one, a "good" food. And yet it gets slammed all the time by those obsessed with the GI.
Shows the problem with trying to define foods in a vacuum, once again.
If someone eats mainly carbs and doesn't get enough protein or non starchy veggies and is a bit high in calories, potatoes might, indeed, be a poor choice to include with dinner. But for me, they are usually a perfectly good/healthy/whatever choice.
That's why I'm quite happy that I don't buy into ignorant ways of viewing nutrition, like labeling some foods ("white foods," perhaps) "bad" and others "good" out of context. I know from your posts that you don't really do that either, so it beats me why you so often seem to want to defend such an approach (or nonsense about cutting out all "processed" foods or "eating clean") rather than pushing for a more nuanced one.
IMO, having a more nuanced understanding of nutrition makes it more likely that one will be successful in eating a nutrient-dense diet, and not freak out because you get told that some random food is "processed" as we've seen lately. (And yes, it probably is.)
I was speaking of GL. But sure, the potato is much maligned.
GL does (in many views) consider foods in context. The potato plus the lovely butter, for example.
I think education is a grand thing. Folks often get snippets and run with them.
I do what I do, often, because I know where I was when I began this journey (sorry, journey is also apparently now out of fashion).
If you read my posts with a fresh perspective you might find them nuanced as well.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 995 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions