Can I petition MFP users to use the terms "more ideal" and "less ideal" instead of good/bad foods?
Options
Replies
-
Using the terms "bad" or "good" aren't harmful to my health, so why should I change the way I reference food? If your world is shattered because somebody calls something you eat "bad", clearly there are deeper issues here than just the titling of inanimate objects in your life0
-
Using the terms "bad" or "good" aren't harmful to my health, so why should I change the way I reference food? If your world is shattered because somebody calls something you eat "bad", clearly there are deeper issues here than just the titling of inanimate objects in your life
I love a good train wreck as much as the next guy, but it gets tiring arguing the same *kitten* all the time. Sorry my attempt to slap noggins on both side to come to a philosophical agreement has been found offensive to you.
0 -
Kudos to you for trying to make things better! Sorry to be pessimistic but I have a feeling no matter what you call it there will be some kind of argument. I sometimes feel like I'm an observer of the debate team in high school! Best wishes....0
-
Jackie0Marie wrote: »I've seen "fun food". That seems pretty accurate and doesn't start a major rage fest.
It got one guy on my case when I called it fun food. He made snarky comments about "Dia-fun-beetus" and other remarks, fully missing the point that "fun" is a "treat" not "main component of a sensible diet."
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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."
So most of the arguing over good/bad food is just a benevolent effort to help those with an ED? ::huh::
I can't speak for others who are arguing about it, you'll have to ask them, but that's my reason for not wanting to discuss food that way, yes.
@tincanonastring, you are good people
0 -
I'm in, but, there is always going to be a continuous stream of new users who won't be familiar with MFP insider jargon. They will use the "wrong" adjectives to describe there eating patterns. Overzealous insiders will lecture them for being ignorant or mock them with snarky, animated gifs. Drama will ensue. Tears will be shed.0
-
I'm in, but, there is always going to be a continuous stream of new users who won't be familiar with MFP insider jargon. They will use the "wrong" adjectives to describe there eating patterns. Overzealous insiders will lecture them for being ignorant or mock them with snarky, animated gifs. Drama will ensue. Tears will be shed.
Face it, we could call them orange foods and purple foods, and there'd still be someone wanting to complain that purple is more negative because it's a cool color instead of a warm color. A lot of the arguments here could be resolved if people actually did work at work instead of surfing the forums.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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."
So most of the arguing over good/bad food is just a benevolent effort to help those with an ED? ::huh::
I can't speak for others who are arguing about it, you'll have to ask them, but that's my reason for not wanting to discuss food that way, yes.
@tincanonastring, you are good people
Let's not use the terms good or bad to describe people, okay? I'm nutrient dense, or most ideal if you please.
But thanks!
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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."
So most of the arguing over good/bad food is just a benevolent effort to help those with an ED? ::huh::
I can't speak for others who are arguing about it, you'll have to ask them, but that's my reason for not wanting to discuss food that way, yes.
@tincanonastring, you are good people
Let's not use the terms good or bad to describe people, okay? I'm nutrient dense, or most ideal if you please.
But thanks!
0 -
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.0
-
Hairy or non-hairy. . .foods hit the floor. . . hairy. Or yummy more yummy. . . . .I could subscribe to this.0
-
Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.0
-
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.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."
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).0 -
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?
0 -
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?
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?0 -
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.0 -
That is the whole point.isulo_kura 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.
0 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions