Can I petition MFP users to use the terms "more ideal" and "less ideal" instead of good/bad foods?
Replies
-
Why is any label necessary?0
-
Here's a quote that I live by: "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food." - Eric Helms0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey 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?
(1) I don't define a homemade apple pie as crap. You've yet to give me a reason to do so.
(2) I eat the apple pie (well, a piece) on occasion because it tastes good.
(3) I don't think the apple pie is NOT good for me. It gives me calories and carbs I need, some okay fat and micronutrients. I'm not sure why it's worse for me than, say, a steak if I have my protein needs met.
(4) Depending on how restrictively you define "good for me," it might be hard to get adequate calories on only such foods (which goes bad to that 17 year old girl). But if I've met my micros, why would any food be especially better for me than another, beyond how it makes me feel?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.
If there's nothing wrong with it, why are you saying it's the equivalent of "eating crap"? That we eat food for pleasure, among other things, and as part of social events is not irrelevant at all. I take pride in making a good pie that people will enjoy, it's a skill I worked on. I like it if people are happy when they eat it. That doesn't mean it bothers me if people choose not to eat it because it doesn't fit in their diets (I really don't care, I do the same sometimes). But I don't agree it's "crap."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.
Why are they crappy for me? I simply think that's false. Should they replace foods that will fulfill your nutritional needs? Of course not, but no one is saying otherwise. Most people have room in their diets for both more and less nutritionally dense foods, however, and diversity is also important. (Cheese isn't that nutritionally dense, but having some fat and protein isn't a bad thing and many find it filling. I just find it really tasty. So I eat it, although somewhat sparingly.)0 -
I think this is all BS and way too politically correct for me!!0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »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."
This is such an important statement! I don't consider myself to have an ED per se (maybe dabbled a bit along the way but don't feel I am dealing with any of that now) but my head spins when I hear 'good' vs. 'bad'.
I still buy into there being 2 groups of foods (I know it's purely psychological for me and something I have to break away from). It's an old thought pattern that was taught by WW in the past.
This is something I'm working on... here's a rather drastic example that in the back of my mind I still struggle with but it was so engrained back in the day.
I went to a couple WW meetings eons ago, I was young and just tagged along with my older sister, I might have been 15. I recall being told corn and peas are very bad foods, it had a huge impact on me. I believe what they were basing that on is the GI factor is higher on those veggies than others, so more sugars. Carrots are higher in sugar as well but that was not on their list back then. I think the word 'starchy' was a buzz word back then.
But to this day it lingers in my head even when I crack open a frozen bag of peas.
I want to break the habit and some of the statements in these types of threads do help, they are logical and make sense. But when the fights break out it's confusing to me and I have to get out of the thread.
Sorry for the length but I think this was a teaching moment for myself as I was typing it. lol
0 -
clipartghost wrote: »
I agree0 -
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.
Why are they crappy for me? I simply think that's false. Should they replace foods that will fulfill your nutritional needs? Of course not, but no one is saying otherwise. Most people have room in their diets for both more and less nutritionally dense foods, however, and diversity is also important. (Cheese isn't that nutritionally dense, but having some fat and protein isn't a bad thing and many find it filling. I just find it really tasty. So I eat it, although somewhat sparingly.)[/quote]
Sorry, here is the response
A race car will run on gas from the convenient store, but not very well. Runs much better on racing fuel. Why fill your extra calories with junk when good, nutritionally dense food is available? Maybe a bit here and there, but not on a daily basis.0 -
This is a lovely issue to talk about. Language is so powerful isn't it? The implicit meanings of "good" and "bad" are so individual. Perhaps we can try to remember that as we speak with one another about food. . . .
I, for one, will refrain from using good and bad to describe food simply because it seems to upset people. But I will keep my own private list of indulgences, my personal "bad foods" list. I won't become upset when people define foods as good and bad. I'll just seek to understand.
Smiling all the way to tomorrow. . . .
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
so for the most part the main players on both sides agree to just perpetuate the argument?
I'm cool with that...makes for better internetting than all sitting around singing cumbaya anyway.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »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.
Why are they crappy for me? I simply think that's false. Should they replace foods that will fulfill your nutritional needs? Of course not, but no one is saying otherwise. Most people have room in their diets for both more and less nutritionally dense foods, however, and diversity is also important. (Cheese isn't that nutritionally dense, but having some fat and protein isn't a bad thing and many find it filling. I just find it really tasty. So I eat it, although somewhat sparingly.)
Sorry, here is the response
A race car will run on gas from the convenient store, but not very well. Runs much better on racing fuel. Why fill your extra calories with junk when good, nutritionally dense food is available? Maybe a bit here and there, but not on a daily basis.
If eat a well rounded diet that allows you to meet your nutritional requirements and have some discretionary calories left do you get extra credit for going above and beyond your requirements? Do you get extra healthy? If you fill those discretionary calories with something different did that now undo the nutritional markers you hit for for the day?[/quote]
What are you calling "requirements"? The CDC says men should get 56g of protein a day
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I think if you talk to most people that lift weights or train people that lift they will recommend more protein. I would suggest that eating protein with the "extra" calories would make you healthier than filling in the calories with Ding Dongs, Cheetos, etc.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »What are you calling "requirements"? The CDC says men should get 56g of protein a day
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I think if you talk to most people that lift weights or train people that lift they will recommend more protein. I would suggest that eating protein with the "extra" calories would make you healthier than filling in the calories with Ding Dongs, Cheetos, etc.
You're making the assumption that macro and micro goals aren't met first, but that isn't what's being advocated. What is being said is once your macro and micro goals are met then eat ice cream, Oreos, etc.
Edited to fix quotes as best I can.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
OP, if people did what you suggest, the MFP hive mind would wither and die. Half the population is sustained on these debates alone. Whether or not these debates contain more or less ideal nutrition is beyond me, but it keeps them going.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »What are you calling "requirements"? The CDC says men should get 56g of protein a day
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I think if you talk to most people that lift weights or train people that lift they will recommend more protein. I would suggest that eating protein with the "extra" calories would make you healthier than filling in the calories with Ding Dongs, Cheetos, etc.
You're making the assumption that macro and micro goals aren't met first, but that isn't what's being advocated. What is being said is once your macro and micro goals are met then eat ice cream, Oreos, etc.
Edited to fix quotes as best I can.
Say you meet your macro and micro goals daily and have 500 calories "left over". If you go to a nutrition expert and ask them the best way to fill in the additional calories do you think they will say Ding Dongs, ice cream, etc on a daily basis. Or do you think they will say eat a bit more of the nutritionally dense foods you are eating and occasionally have a treat?
0 -
Maybe we could put this whole thread into the "safety box." It would be safe and warm there and no one would be offended.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.
Exactly because what works for one person may not work for another. We are all fighting the same fight here...can't we all just get along!0 -
47Jacqueline wrote: »Why is any label necessary?
That's my approach. The only label I need is the name of the food. Today I will eat yogurt, pear, smoked cheddar cheese, apple, banana, Skippy peanut butter (regular creamy...get that natural *kitten* outta here), coffee with cream and splenda, eggs, cheddar jack cheese, bacon, potatoes, ketchup, cottage cheese, pineapple, breyer's vanilla ice cream, Hershey chocolate syrup, and a cookie I bought from a grocery store bakery. With sprinkles. And a maraschino cherry.
In other words, today I will eat food. I don't see the words good or bad anywhere in that list. More importantly, I* don't see those concepts either.
* I don't care if you do. I don't.0 -
If the all day ding dong diet didn't fly, how about the 500 calorie a day ding dong diet. lolPackerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »What are you calling "requirements"? The CDC says men should get 56g of protein a day
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I think if you talk to most people that lift weights or train people that lift they will recommend more protein. I would suggest that eating protein with the "extra" calories would make you healthier than filling in the calories with Ding Dongs, Cheetos, etc.
You're making the assumption that macro and micro goals aren't met first, but that isn't what's being advocated. What is being said is once your macro and micro goals are met then eat ice cream, Oreos, etc.
Edited to fix quotes as best I can.
Say you meet your macro and micro goals daily and have 500 calories "left over". If you go to a nutrition expert and ask them the best way to fill in the additional calories do you think they will say Ding Dongs, ice cream, etc on a daily basis. Or do you think they will say eat a bit more of the nutritionally dense foods you are eating and occasionally have a treat?
0 -
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »What are you calling "requirements"? The CDC says men should get 56g of protein a day
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I think if you talk to most people that lift weights or train people that lift they will recommend more protein. I would suggest that eating protein with the "extra" calories would make you healthier than filling in the calories with Ding Dongs, Cheetos, etc.
You're making the assumption that macro and micro goals aren't met first, but that isn't what's being advocated. What is being said is once your macro and micro goals are met then eat ice cream, Oreos, etc.
Edited to fix quotes as best I can.
Say you meet your macro and micro goals daily and have 500 calories "left over". If you go to a nutrition expert and ask them the best way to fill in the additional calories do you think they will say Ding Dongs, ice cream, etc on a daily basis.
That's exactly what my dietician said. First and foremost you should not deprive yourself. If you have room for a treat have one, but only if you have room for it. And you know what, it's so much better now then cutting everything I thought was bad out then binging and purging all of it later because I did a bad thing. It's okay to enjoy food. It's okay to enjoy life. Do not deprive yourself.Or do you think they will say eat a bit more of the nutritionally dense foods you are eating and occasionally have a treat?
So when people have already eating their nutritionally dense food and met their needs then it's okay to have a treat right? Isn't that what everyone is already saying? Moderation and finding balance is what works. If you're only worried about nutrition I have a product for you it's called soylent.0 -
0
-
More gifs please.0
-
-
This poor guy got one look at what happens in the safety box and was scarred for life!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tincanonastring wrote: »
That there is a beautiful kitty cat gif and very appropriate! No worries.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Sorry, here is the response
A race car will run on gas from the convenient store, but not very well. Runs much better on racing fuel. Why fill your extra calories with junk when good, nutritionally dense food is available? Maybe a bit here and there, but not on a daily basis.
I will use your same analogy. What happens when the race car's fuel tank is full of racing fuel? Any extra racing fuel is wasted. Most water soluble micronutrients are wasted in excess, and fat soluble ones can build up to amounts that aren't necessary and in some cases dangerous. By your same analogy, you are advocating that if you have extra money in your car's budget it's better to spend it on on more fuel, even if it goes down the drain rather than give your race car a fresh coat of trendy decoration because decoration is "not important to the function of the car", totally disregarding the psychological and social factors of it.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Sorry, here is the response
A race car will run on gas from the convenient store, but not very well. Runs much better on racing fuel. Why fill your extra calories with junk when good, nutritionally dense food is available? Maybe a bit here and there, but not on a daily basis.
I will use your same analogy. What happens when the race car's fuel tank is full of racing fuel? Any extra racing fuel is wasted.
For that analogy to hold, someone would have to be running a smaller-than-optimal deficit.
IE, over-eating for their goals.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions