Clean Eating v Organic
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
I personally don't generally think of things as good or bad - maybe beneficial or less beneficial or healthy and less healthy.
Personally, if people want to categories foods as good and bad or clean and dirty to help them make better decisions, then I'm all for that.
As an actual food eaten infrequently or in reasonable portion size (if eaten frequently) they are fine.
They are not unhealthy. But if a way of limiting your consumption of them is to think of them as bad - then that's all gravy.
0 -
I think you're missing a bit of the tone of the reply as it was joking.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Though I've seen posters and people link to things that claim X is the enemy and the cause of all current human (dietary though sometimes all period) misery. Taubes says it is all carbs. Lustig says it is sugar, particularly fructose. Paleo people claim it is all foods newer than 10,000 years (even though that really covers all food if you get technical).
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
0 -
Deep down everyone loves the bad boys of food.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.0 -
Deep down everyone loves the bad boys of food.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
True that! ::laugh::0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
Right, people can label all they want for themselves, but the minute it comes on to a public forum, it is no longer only about you. I'm not a fan of GM cars cause I've had some bad luck. That doesn't mean that I think all GM cars in all situations are "bad". They just didn't work for me. So if I was on a GM forum, I would give my story, but wouldn't insist to the entire forum that they are "bad". That's what happens here. People don't just give their story...they argue that stuff is "bad".
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »No one cares what any one of us chooses to eat or not to eat personally. Frankly, none of us are that interesting to the group as a whole.
People DO tend to care when people preach what other people MUST eat or (more commonly) MUST NOT eat.
Why this seems to constantly be a mystery to other long-time posters of this board baffles me.
Yep I find it annoying when people preach that others MUST eat in moderation and MUST NOT limit carbs, especially when the OP has expressed an interest in eating a way that is not 'portion restricted'!
Has anyone here (as in involved with this thread) done that?
Personally, I have NEVER said that anyone else must eat in moderation or must not limit carbs. (In that I've limited carbs from time to time -- and still will turn them down to meet my protein or fat goals or my calorie goal -- and don't eat certain foods (although I generally don't want them either), that would be awfully hypocritical, and hypocrisy is one of the things I'm arguing against here. Specifically, the hypocrisy of someone who eats processed foods preaching to others about how all processed foods are bad.)
Actually most of the threads I've read are where the OP explains how bad they believe processed food to be and that is why 'THEY' are limiting or avoiding them.
We must be reading different threads, as almost all either have an OP giving general rules that say WE ALL should limit processed foods or complaining that others here aren't as focused on nutrition since they eat BAD foods.
Sometimes OP seems worried about how to cut out foods and there I think it's worth seeing if she really wants to or has just read that one must to lose weight. Quite often these OP's are happy to learn they don't have to, and others have been successful without.
And more often than not the OP asks an innocuous question and gets helpful responses and then someone swoops in and tells her that she MUST cut out sugar or fruit or carbs or processed foods. Those are the ones that I seem to end up in most often lately.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10235669/clean-eating
- asking if anyone would like to join her (not saying they have to or even need to)
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10246844/transition-to-clean-eating-with-a-family-involved
- again not telling anyone to clean eat. She is asking for clean eating advice
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10191201/clean-eating
- just asking for advice.
I did a quick search on Clean Eating for the forum and these are three examples from the last couple of months. Couldn't find any that told anyone else they should be clean eating.
Maybe you can share the links if you can find them.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
Right, people can label all they want for themselves, but the minute it comes on to a public forum, it is no longer only about you. I'm not a fan of GM cars cause I've had some bad luck. That doesn't mean that I think all GM cars in all situations are "bad". They just didn't work for me. So if I was on a GM forum, I would give my story, but wouldn't insist to the entire forum that they are "bad". That's what happens here. People don't just give their story...they argue that stuff is "bad".
Which people?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
Right, people can label all they want for themselves, but the minute it comes on to a public forum, it is no longer only about you. I'm not a fan of GM cars cause I've had some bad luck. That doesn't mean that I think all GM cars in all situations are "bad". They just didn't work for me. So if I was on a GM forum, I would give my story, but wouldn't insist to the entire forum that they are "bad". That's what happens here. People don't just give their story...they argue that stuff is "bad".
Which people?
Bad people!
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
Right, people can label all they want for themselves, but the minute it comes on to a public forum, it is no longer only about you. I'm not a fan of GM cars cause I've had some bad luck. That doesn't mean that I think all GM cars in all situations are "bad". They just didn't work for me. So if I was on a GM forum, I would give my story, but wouldn't insist to the entire forum that they are "bad". That's what happens here. People don't just give their story...they argue that stuff is "bad".
Which people?
People that are being discussed in this thread? I thought that was obvious. I'm not singling anyone out.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
do I need to use a hypothetical political opinion to demonstrate?
0 -
Well I am sure there is at least one person on the forum that eats Doritos and doesn't want to be thought of as bad just for eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
do I need to use a hypothetical political opinion to demonstrate?
I don't know. Give it a try.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
No, it doesn't impact the world. Nothing on here is impacting the world. It's still a wrong statement so of course people will disagree.
0 -
Politics and religion will definitely make this thread come together over arguing over clean food.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
do I need to use a hypothetical political opinion to demonstrate?
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
Because your personal decision is clearly offensive to others.0 -
Well I am sure there is at least one person on the forum that eats Doritos and doesn't want to be thought of as bad just for eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
Luckily thinking Dortios is bad food is not even close to being the same as thinking someone that eats Dortios is bad.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions