There are 'BAD' foods
Options
Replies
-
LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »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.
I agree, the problem is once we being to label foods good and bad it sets its up for self destruction if we step out of the good food zone willingly or unwilling. That's something i just can't subscribe to.
No it doesn't set you up for self-destruction - you make choices, mine is lots of good, little bit of bad - you make things work your way.
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »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.
I agree, the problem is once we being to label foods good and bad it sets its up for self destruction if we step out of the good food zone willingly or unwilling. That's something i just can't subscribe to.
No it doesn't set you up for self-destruction - you make choices, mine is lots of good, little bit of bad - you make things work your way.
Initially you're probably right however I'm talking long term. And so you're clear I'm not anti processed food, I'm anti the good & bad food labelling. It's all fuel to me, I just choose the kind that makes me feel awesome, 90% of the time.0 -
LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »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.
I agree, the problem is once we being to label foods good and bad it sets its up for self destruction if we step out of the good food zone willingly or unwilling. That's something i just can't subscribe to.
No it doesn't set you up for self-destruction - you make choices, mine is lots of good, little bit of bad - you make things work your way.
Initially you're probably right however I'm talking long term. And so you're clear I'm not anti processed food, I'm anti the good & bad food labelling. It's all fuel to me, I just choose the kind that makes me feel awesome, 90% of the time.
My OH says he relates to you but then he doesn't have a weight problem.
0 -
Go ask a vegan, a vegetarian, a paleo dieter, a keto dieter, an IIFYM'er and an orthorexic what their definitions of "good" and "bad" foods are. Be sure to let us know what kind of consensus you reach.
Maybe then you'll understand why some say that "good" and "bad" are vague, arbitrary terms based entirely upon personal opinion. Dem feelz =/= science or common sense.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »LikeSeeds4Souls_ wrote: »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.
I agree, the problem is once we being to label foods good and bad it sets its up for self destruction if we step out of the good food zone willingly or unwilling. That's something i just can't subscribe to.
No it doesn't set you up for self-destruction - you make choices, mine is lots of good, little bit of bad - you make things work your way.
Initially you're probably right however I'm talking long term. And so you're clear I'm not anti processed food, I'm anti the good & bad food labelling. It's all fuel to me, I just choose the kind that makes me feel awesome, 90% of the time.
My OH says he relates to you but then he doesn't have a weight problem.
You shouldn't have a weight problem eating like that, that's why I do it. Makes maintaining 10% bf year round pretty easy tbh.0 -
Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.0
-
-
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?0
-
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.0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions