There are 'BAD' foods
Replies
-
LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »I agree, no one is disputing whether they're vague or not. Out of curiosity when you eat say a bad food and it wasn't planned, what are your initial thoughts?
Oh dear, heck how sad, never mind, tomorrow is another day.
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »vaguelyvegan wrote: »Of course there are bad foods, items that are barely food at all but are food-like substances in pretty packages with pictures of actual food on the label but little to no nutritional value. In small amounts they may not kill you or even make you fat, but they are exactly the opposite of good. In other words, bad.
Exactly vaguelyvegan - all I am saying is for goodness sake people own up to the fact that not every foodstuff available to you is good for you.
Regardless of the rest of the disagreement, do you not understand that if something isn't good, that doesn't necessarily mean bad? There is also indifferent... You keep saying that something isn't "good" for you, well that doesn't mean it's bad either. It can just be food/energy.
Like I eat pure sugar and sodium gels basically on a long bike ride. They are by nearly everyone's definition that thinks like you "bad". They give me quick energy though so they are perfect for endurance work. I then burn that sugar off. Neither good nor bad nutrition wise, but gave me energy and was burned off rather quickly, so "indifferent".
ETA: you can replace those gels with any bad food you want and the point remains true...
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly. -nods-0 -
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Which makes it a vague term because 10 different people will have 10 different ideas about what is what. Gravity is absolute because it's the same for everyone on earth (minus the slight differences due to elevation). This is not.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
When you post in a public forum you are trying to make it absolute for all which is obviously not the case...
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »vaguelyvegan wrote: »Of course there are bad foods, items that are barely food at all but are food-like substances in pretty packages with pictures of actual food on the label but little to no nutritional value. In small amounts they may not kill you or even make you fat, but they are exactly the opposite of good. In other words, bad.
Exactly vaguelyvegan - all I am saying is for goodness sake people own up to the fact that not every foodstuff available to you is good for you.
Regardless of the rest of the disagreement, do you not understand that if something isn't good, that doesn't necessarily mean bad? There is also indifferent... You keep saying that something isn't "good" for you, well that doesn't mean it's bad either. It can just be food/energy.
Like I eat pure sugar and sodium gels basically on a long bike ride. They are by nearly everyone's definition that thinks like you "bad". They give me quick energy though so they are perfect for endurance work. I then burn that sugar off. Neither good nor bad nutrition wise, but gave me energy and was burned off rather quickly, so "indifferent".
ETA: you can replace those gels with any bad food you want and the point remains true...
OK we'll have indifferent as well - like QueenLiz's the good, the bad and the ugly lol
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
The fact they are absolute terms is exactly why they are no good when applied to foods, because you cannot judge a food choice except in the context of the overall diet.
Is a salad healthier than a cheeseburger? In some cases, yes; in other cases, the burger is the much healthier choice. It depends not just on the food items, but on the context of the larger diet and health of the person eating.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »I agree, no one is disputing whether they're vague or not. Out of curiosity when you eat say a bad food and it wasn't planned, what are your initial thoughts?
Oh dear, heck how sad, never mind, tomorrow is another day.
Meh, that's a non food labellers train of thought not a good and bad food champion. I've been both. But hey, if it works for you who am I to say otherwise.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
So therefore when it comes to food, good or bad is based upon personal opinion and feelings, and not universal to everybody. And can also vary by situation, as in Hornsby's bicycling example above. Got it.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute0 -
LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »I agree, no one is disputing whether they're vague or not. Out of curiosity when you eat say a bad food and it wasn't planned, what are your initial thoughts?
Oh dear, heck how sad, never mind, tomorrow is another day.
Meh, that's a non food labellers train of thought not a good and bad food champion. I've been both. But hey, if it works for you who am I to say otherwise.
I recognise when I've eaten a bad food - I own it if you like - then I move on. The point is I own it.
0 -
There is always this notion of "bad foods and clean foods" and all the media/ads/calories want us to believe that its all about calories.
In my opinion the notion of categorizing foods good or bad leads to failure, because it will lead to all sorts of issues whether you are trying loosing weight or trying to build muscle. In addition to this we bombarded with commercials of food that we should only eat in moderation.
Now im not saying to deprived yourself with those kinds of foods, its still okay once and awhile you can still eat them as long as you eat them in moderation and have self control while enjoying life. Once again if people want to loose weight its about Energy Balance sure you can say calories in and calories out, so if i eat twinkies all day and fill my diet with twinkies, but what Nutritional value does my body get from it?
For me its about eating Nutritious food and colorful foods that fulfills me, plus at the end of the day our body only understand (protein, fats, carbs) macro nutrients and micro nutrients. Here's my rule to myself 90% of diet comes from Whole nutritious food and the rest of 10% i can eat whatever i want. Now this rule depends on what my goals are.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk 0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolutehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
In the red corner - 67 year old woman from Wales - in the blue corner lots of bodybuilders from America lol
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »OP I'm with you. I'm not going to pretend that a Keebler cookie is not 'bad' food. Doesn't mean I won't eat it, doesn't mean I feel guilty about it either (as long as I only eat one or two), but I'd be in denial if I didn't realize that there could be better choices.
Why would a Keebler cookie be a "bad" food if you've eaten a balanced diet all day, are within your calorie goals, have hit/come reasonably close to your macro goals, and are having that cookie as a snack because you have room under your calorie limit for it and it sounds good at the moment?
Context and dosage. No such thing as bad foods, but there is such a thing as a bad diet/eating habits overall. A Keebler cookie, or a bowl of ice cream, or a Big Mac or french fries or whatever aren't "bad" within the context of an overall balanced diet. Subsisting mostly or entirely upon those items would be a bad idea, just as subsisting entirely upon a diet of broccoli or kale or fresh fruits or chicken would be.
Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 7:30 am on a weekday would be bad. Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 1:00 am on a Saturday wouldn't carry the same risks. Context.
A-fricking-men.
I just think there are two views on this issue and I doubt anyone here is going to change anyone else's mind. Bottom line? I think the right attitude for this whole site is "do what works for you." If labeling something as 'bad' helps you? Terrific. Others, like me, might not agree, but what does that matter? Do what works as long as you aren't hurting yourself.
In general I agree with you, that since different people may have different reasons to choose or restrict certain foods, we should just let people make their own choices. However, there are many people who come to these forums with clear misconceptions about food based on clickbait articles, things they've heard from friends about "bad foods", etc. When people have the mindset that certain foods are "bad" and must be avoided at all costs, it can often set them up for failure because if they do indulge in one of those foods, then they throw everything out the window and just give up. That's why I think it is important to continue to have these discussions and make sure that we do talk about things like context and dosage and that there is no such thing as a bad individual food, there may be bad foods for an individual or bad diets made of lots of individual foods...
I still maintain that there are 'bad' foods. This doesn't mean that I never eat any of them, I do so in moderation. I'm afraid I cannot go along with we must never say there are such things as bad food because some people will be set up for failure because they eat too much, or none of them. edit.
I'm not saying that I don't use the phrase "bad foods" because I'm trying to protect people from failing their diet. I don't use "bad and good" as adjectives to describe food because they apply arbitrary, subjective judgement to a food. Same thing with clean and unclean. I say, "I try to eat a primarily nutrient dense diet, regardless of the source of the food, but I eat all sorts of food in moderation." It's a lot more words than to say, "I don't eat bad foods" or "I eat clean" but it gets the point across without 10 pages of arguments over semantics...
What I was saying to the poster above was that the reason I participate in these semantics debates and try to articulate the viewpoint that there are no bad individual foods, it's the context of the overall diet that matters, is so that people don't put so much pressure on themselves to adhere to a set of arbitrary, subjective rules that they don't know what to do if they slip up.
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Is chicken a bad food? If I've had lots of protein and no fruit and veg all week it's certainly a bad CHOICE. Similarly, is broccoli a bad food? If I've had loads of vegetables but am short on calories, protein, and essential fatty acid, it's also a bad CHOICE. Neither is a bad food because you can make bad choices with them.
I looked at cronometer and found a day when I hit all my micros tracked there and have 5350 mg of potassium and only 1450 calories. On that day I had some ice cream. Not a bad choice, IMO, so is it a bad food? That doesn't make sense to me.
To be a bad food isn't a food that's lower in nutrients or higher in calories than something else, since you can always find something that's better in some way. It's a food that's actively bad for me.
Otherwise, it makes more sense (again) to talk about good and bad diets. Is a diet based mostly on ice cream (or broccoli or chicken) a bad diet? Sure. Is a diet that includes a sensible amount of ice cream a bad diet? No.
Does context affect whether a particular food is a good or bad choice? Again, my example from yesterday. Usually a toasted miga sandwich isn't a choice I make, but when I was in need of some food after running a lot and wanted carbs and had a huge number of calories available, I think it was a great choice. (And delicious.)0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolutehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
In the red corner - 67 year old woman from Wales - in the blue corner lots of bodybuilders from America lol
You are from Wales and I am 55 and from the U.S., same difference. The good, the bad and the ugly. I eat all foods in moderation. I am at my goal weight and holding. Let go of the thought that there is bad food. Food that has spoiled or way past expiration and foods that cause anphalaxic death are bad foods. Live a little, life's too short.0 -
There are less nutritious foods of course, but I guess it's up the person and their lifestyle as to how they want to label their foods. For me I am happy to eat what I want in moderation (while trying to eat more nutritious food for the most part), for other people it helps to cut things they consider "bad" out. Just don't be bugging me about the "bad" donut I am eating and we're all good. I do sometimes think of things in terms of the better choice, but overall I try not to label things as good/bad.0
-
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
But isn't the whole point that each individual assigns a value to a food which would make it something they should or should not have had, therefore the blanket definition is useless?0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »I agree, no one is disputing whether they're vague or not. Out of curiosity when you eat say a bad food and it wasn't planned, what are your initial thoughts?
Oh dear, heck how sad, never mind, tomorrow is another day.
Meh, that's a non food labellers train of thought not a good and bad food champion. I've been both. But hey, if it works for you who am I to say otherwise.
I recognise when I've eaten a bad food - I own it if you like - then I move on. The point is I own it.
Why is it better to "own it" by saying "I was naughty and ate a bad food" (which is the kind of statement that makes me cringe) vs. "I ate a variety of foods, most which provided a good number of nutrients I need, and a few that merely are foods I really like and work into my calories." For me, the latter seems to better promote making thoughtful choices as to one's overall diet. After all, people can obsess about avoiding whatever foods they claim are bad and still fail to get enough protein or vegetables or essential fatty acids or fiber, etc.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
No. When I thought like this I was in the throes of some kind of orthorexia. Not thinking like this and interrupting those thoughts when they happen has made all the difference to both my weight loss and my mental health. You're making an awful lot of assumptions and projections in this thread.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
The bolded part is really the crux of the argument. I just finished dinner. Chicken, roast potatoes (even purple ones!) and green beans. I have 400 cals left. I'm either going to eat some ice cream or have a glass of wine with a cookie. When I get done, I will absolutely not think that I shouldn't have eaten them. I will think that I had a really tasty, balanced day.
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
Wrong again. The only food I ever feel I shouldn't have eaten is food that takes me over my calorie goal - and in all honesty, sometimes I don't even care about that. If I decide to grab a fast food burger or a quesadilla or a candy bar or whatever, I have absolutely zero guilt or regret about it. None. Because I understand how it fits in the overall context of my diet and there's nothing whatsoever "bad" about it. There's nothing that even makes me feel as though I shouldn't have eaten it. It fit within my calorie goal, I enjoyed it and my overall diet is reasonably balanced so no harm done.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions