Thoughts on my eating philosophy?
Replies
-
One does not need to shop a Whole Foods to eat a wide variety of nutritious foods for instance.
This is true, of course.
But if one is to criticize people for taking more than they need, I doubt that you could use how fat they are as a good way to pinpoint who they are.
I mean, the physically fat "fat cat" is quite outdated in our imagery.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But how much I eat has no bearing on how much anyone else has available.
There's also little connection between the cost of food and the calories in it.
You could even argue reasonably that me seeking our higher quality foods (and thus "wasting" money I could give to the less fortunate) helps create an industry and keeps people in business, as well as encouraging the production of certain kinds of foods--as with the current market in cities like mine for produce and meat from local small farms or for various high end or ethnic restaurants.
There's a better argument that I should take the money I spend on gym memberships, restaurants, CSAs, and at WF and give it to the poor.
Of course, feeling guilty about eating extra makes no sense when it pales in comparison to what I pay for my condo, say.
Yes, the discussion has so many facets. A person could save money by existing on calorie dense, nutrition-poor foods, but then he would become unhealthy and be a drain on the health care and/or welfare system, so it would be a false economy. So seeking out higher quality foods could also be a moral decision on that basis, as well as the ones you mentioned.
Then there's a different connundrum about how much we 'should' give to charity. Sure, you could give your gym membership money to charity, for example, but at what cost to your own health and well-being? Could you really say you don't 'need' your gym membership? Another principle is that we have a duty to look after ourselves first, otherwise we won't be capable of looking after our family, our community and beyond...
And your condo - somewhere to live is considered a basic need, so it wouldn't be reasonable to expect you to give that money to the poor instead.
But with food it's just really easy for a person to determine (and for everyone else to see) if they've taken too much or not.
Getting a bit sidetracked here, but it is an interesting topic.
0 -
As an aside, MFP discussions inspired me to go back to my roots when money was scarce, and say, challenge myself to make five meals out of a single chicken. I believe people can eat very well, and at a deficit, on a limited budget.
Ha ha - that sounds just like something my mum would do! She prides herself on getting at least ten family meals out of the Christmas turkey, for example and refuses to throw anything away. She takes it too far though and extends that philosophy to fruit that's gone mouldy and stale bread.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »
Not seeing the morality-overweight connection; would you care to elaborate?
And no, it just makes me roll my eyes - morality is pretty subjective which is why it's fairly foolish to reference it as a broad means for populations to utilize in any kind of decision making.
Some people believe in the principle that it is morally wrong to over-consume (i.e. take more than you need) of the world's basic resources, which ought to be shared out on the basis of need.
It's hard to define 'need' with some things, but with food it's pretty obvious. If someone is overweight (barring a rare medical condition), then they have taken more than they need.
I have a family member who finds this a very powerful motivation for keeping his weight under control. He loves food, but if he goes more than a pound or so over his ideal he claims he has no appetite and gets no pleasure out of eating until his weight returns to normal, usually within a day or two.
The point is, you need to keep your morality and its subsequent judgements to yourself - how moral is it for you to project your morality onto other people? Who made you the judge of how much of the Earth's resources I'm entitled to?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
But that assumes a zero sum game, which it is not.
Also, it ignores the more significant ways in which we take more than we need. Gluttony, properly understood, does not refer simply to food, and to call the overweight immoral while ignoring someone's McMansion or whatever seems really strange. I admit to overconsumption in many ways--heck, I own a car when I don't really need one, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. That I'm not currently overweight says nothing about my morality here.
Oh yeah, I agree food overconsumption is only the tip of the iceberg. And how we judge people's generosity is another interesting one. The McMillionaires you mentioned, for example, might give a million a year to charity but if it has zero impact on the luxuries they can still afford for themselves is it actually generous?
The little old lady giving a dollar out of her pension, on the other hand, is having to actually make a sacrifice to do so.
Again, straying from the topic!
0 -
I'm a chemist... I could probably make almost anything, including the chemicals, as long as I had the equipment... ;-)
But honestly. I don't see anything wrong with your philosophy at all. There have definitely been a lot of changes to how food is made, concerning chemicals, and personally I don't know if enough long term studies have been done on it...
That being said, I definitely enjoy my processed food. :-)0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »[
I think I can help you understand... see bolded - the OP didn't bring up this aspect, but most posts of that nature carry the 'morality' vibe. If you're being more moral in the choices you're making and I'm not making the same choices, that must make me...?
If someone else's stated principle makes another person feel bad, they must have some inner prompting already telling them they're behaving in an unprincipled manner, don't you think?[/b]
You presume that someone else's moralizing makes other people feel bad. That's a mistaken presumption. Being judged by someone else does not equate to feeling bad about one's own choices.
0 -
yes,I think its a good food philosophy bc its just another way of saying that u r 'eating clean' where you don't eat anything that comes in a package.Nakeshia88 wrote: »My new philosophy for food is that if you can't grow it, catch it, kill it or make it yourself then don't eat it. For example: I can grow fruits/vegetables/legumes/grains and nuts so these are OK; I can fish and shoot so meat is OK; and I can/could easily learn to do things like grow/grind my own flour, salt and coffee, I can brew beer, make bread and pasta so these are OK - however, I couldn't make something like Coca Cola or anything containing artificial ingredients/additives so I won't eat these things.
So lately when I'm picking up food that's in a tin, bag or box I'll read the ingredients and ask myself, could I grow or kill these ingredients, process and mix them together myself to make this? If so, then I'll buy it, if not, back it goes! What do you think of this philosophy?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think if everyone (including me) applied morality to their eating decisions no-one would be overweight (i.e applied the principle that it is wrong to over-consume).
Interesting.
We could get into a debate about gluttony--what it actually means and how it fits in here.
But assuming that one does not consume more calories than one needs (and again, what does that mean?) at the expense of someone else, why is it immoral to do so?
I'm correlating overweight with having consumed more calories than one needs (as I said in my last post, barring certain medical conditions).
Whether it's considered immoral depends on whether a person believes one shouldn't take more of the earth's resources than they need. For example, does my overeating mean that somewhere, someone else is going hungry? I remember the days of parents telling their children not to waste food because "there are children starving in Africa", but even at a local level, for example, I could take the food I overconsume and put it in the community food bank for someone who really needs it, at no extra cost to myself.lemurcat12 wrote: »Making overeating a moral issue seems really unhelpful, IMO, and achieves rather the opposite of helping people think about their decisions logically. It seems to invite shame and guilt.
I know one person (a family member) who applies this thinking succesfully; in fact it was he who suggested the idea to me. After being a yo-yo dieter and slightly overweight for most of his life, he now finds it a very powerful motivation to keep his weight in check and has applied this very successfully for the past 20 years. He claims he loses his appetite if he goes more than a pound or two over his ideal weight. There may be some guilt involved in this, but it doesn't seem to affect him apart from he will modify his food consumption for a day or two until his weight returns to normal.
It's all tied to the idea that people are more motivated to do things at higher levels of being. Wanting to lose weight just to look better is clearly a very superficial motivation. Wanting to lose weight to improve one's health is higher up the scale as it also benefits other people, your family for example, and means that you won't be a drain on the healthcare system. Wanting to not-overconsume food on the principle that you shouldn't take more than you need goes a notch further.
An interesting discussion, for sure.
After further research, I'm not too sure you're correct in that assessment of the disease to which you're referring, but that is a topic for another thread and another day.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »[
I think I can help you understand... see bolded - the OP didn't bring up this aspect, but most posts of that nature carry the 'morality' vibe. If you're being more moral in the choices you're making and I'm not making the same choices, that must make me...?
If someone else's stated principle makes another person feel bad, they must have some inner prompting already telling them they're behaving in an unprincipled manner, don't you think?[/b]
You presume that someone else's moralizing makes other people feel bad. That's a mistaken presumption. Being judged by someone else does not equate to feeling bad about one's own choices.
Oh, I agree that's if someone is sound in their own mind about the choices they've made then someone else 'judging' them won't make them feel bad. So my thinking is that if it does make them feel bad it must be because they already felt it was wrong, to some extent.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
After further research, I'm not too sure you're correct in that assessment of the disease to which you're referring, but that is a topic for another thread and another day.
Yeah, for sure. I'm trying to get some more info myself from some people I know who are personally affected (hence my awareness of its existence in the first place). Admittedly it's not likely to apply to many people on MFP.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »[
I think I can help you understand... see bolded - the OP didn't bring up this aspect, but most posts of that nature carry the 'morality' vibe. If you're being more moral in the choices you're making and I'm not making the same choices, that must make me...?
If someone else's stated principle makes another person feel bad, they must have some inner prompting already telling them they're behaving in an unprincipled manner, don't you think?[/b]
You presume that someone else's moralizing makes other people feel bad. That's a mistaken presumption. Being judged by someone else does not equate to feeling bad about one's own choices.
Oh, I agree that's if someone is sound in their own mind about the choices they've made then someone else 'judging' them won't make them feel bad. So my thinking is that if it does make them feel bad it must be because they already felt it was wrong, to some extent.
Gotcha. I admit I find it annoying (not quite the right word... perplexing... baffling maybe?) because I don't like that sort of thing, but ... how to explain... I'll give you an example.
I've dyed my hair weird colors for over 10 years now. We live in a pretty conservative suburban area. Usually, I get a positive response, but over the years, there has been the odd rude stare or comment. Now, my choice of hair color impacts those people no more than my eating legumes affects someone who eats Paleo. It's rather silly to be judged in either of those cases. I don't feel bad for either my hair or my lentils... just worth noting in a ... what's it to you? sort of way. (Not that I said anything to the rude hair comment people other than... Oh?)
0 -
mwebster11 wrote: »
yes,I think its a good food philosophy bc its just another way of saying that u r 'eating clean' where you don't eat anything that comes in a package.Nakeshia88 wrote: »My new philosophy for food is that if you can't grow it, catch it, kill it or make it yourself then don't eat it. For example: I can grow fruits/vegetables/legumes/grains and nuts so these are OK; I can fish and shoot so meat is OK; and I can/could easily learn to do things like grow/grind my own flour, salt and coffee, I can brew beer, make bread and pasta so these are OK - however, I couldn't make something like Coca Cola or anything containing artificial ingredients/additives so I won't eat these things.
So lately when I'm picking up food that's in a tin, bag or box I'll read the ingredients and ask myself, could I grow or kill these ingredients, process and mix them together myself to make this? If so, then I'll buy it, if not, back it goes! What do you think of this philosophy?
Why is Fage plain yogurt bad for me?
What about the Traders Point cottage cheese I picked up yesterday?
Maytag blue cheese (delicious, btw)?
The eggs I get from a local farm (they come in a carton since they'd be awfully hard to carry otherwise).
The frozen trout I got from a guy who caught it?
The steak I'm cooking tonight (from a local farm and pastured, but packaged because of state law).
The various oatmeals I prefer (my favorite comes in a bag, I've been eating one that comes in a box, both are oats only).
Spinach in a bag (I'm sometimes lazy).
Not seeing why any of these food are unhealthy.0 -
mwebster11 wrote: »
yes,I think its a good food philosophy bc its just another way of saying that u r 'eating clean' where you don't eat anything that comes in a package.Nakeshia88 wrote: »My new philosophy for food is that if you can't grow it, catch it, kill it or make it yourself then don't eat it. For example: I can grow fruits/vegetables/legumes/grains and nuts so these are OK; I can fish and shoot so meat is OK; and I can/could easily learn to do things like grow/grind my own flour, salt and coffee, I can brew beer, make bread and pasta so these are OK - however, I couldn't make something like Coca Cola or anything containing artificial ingredients/additives so I won't eat these things.
So lately when I'm picking up food that's in a tin, bag or box I'll read the ingredients and ask myself, could I grow or kill these ingredients, process and mix them together myself to make this? If so, then I'll buy it, if not, back it goes! What do you think of this philosophy?
Things I ate today from a package:
Fage 2% Yogurt
Cottage cheese
Frozen raspberries
Black beans (these were in burgers, which I made myself, they also included packaged garbanzo bean flour)
An egg
Pumpkin puree
Gluten free rolled oats
Tomato
Romaine Lettuce
How are these foods "unclean" or not healthy?
0 -
I don't think I've suggested anywhere to never eat food from a package have I? That would just be unnecessarily restricting, if not impossible!0
-
Luckily for me, I can grow sausage egg & cheese mcmuffins.0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »As an aside, MFP discussions inspired me to go back to my roots when money was scarce, and say, challenge myself to make five meals out of a single chicken. I believe people can eat very well, and at a deficit, on a limited budget.
Ha ha - that sounds just like something my mum would do! She prides herself on getting at least ten family meals out of the Christmas turkey, for example and refuses to throw anything away. She takes it too far though and extends that philosophy to fruit that's gone mouldy and stale bread.
Was she by chance Cajun or Creole?
That was my dad's philosophy growing up. We were nit allowed to throw out any spoiled or moldy food. It was just made into something else. We ate a lot of gumbos and jambalayas, with lots of spices.
Didn't learn about throwing out bad food until a few years into my marriage...That was a very interesting talk.
0 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Luckily for me, I can grow sausage egg & cheese mcmuffins.
That work for ya?
0 -
Was she by chance Cajun or Creole? That was my dad's philosophy growing up. We were nit allowed to throw out any spoiled or moldy food. It was just made into something else. We ate a lot of gumbos and jambalayas, with lots of spices.
Didn't learn about throwing out bad food until a few years into my marriage...That was a very interesting talk.
No, but her parents were Italian immigrant working people, and she grew up during the Depression/WW2.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions