There are 'BAD' foods

1111214161737

Replies

  • MaternalCopulator
    MaternalCopulator Posts: 125 Member
    The terms you're using as 'proof' for your claim are marketing terms.

    People are told to indulge themselves and that they 'deserve to be pampered', just buy this artisan chocolate, or this decadent ice cream.


    Congratulations, you bought the marketing hook line and sinker.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are bad foods.

    LOL And I feel the exact opposite.

    I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are not bad foods.

    So which foods are bad? Name them and there's a thousand people who don't feel that way and another thousand who will tell you some of the foods you think are "good" are bad.
    The fact we can argue about this for so many pages, with a good dose of woo in here too to argue for "bad" foods, shows there is no such thing. It's just as arbitrary as clean and all that other stuff where ten people will have ten different ideas of what it means.

    I posted my definition of bad foods above. I have no doubt that people would/will argue with it. Isn't that why many are here. :p

    But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Annie_01 wrote: »
    I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are bad foods.

    LOL And I feel the exact opposite.

    I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are not bad foods.

    I stated my reasoning back in this thread and calling me naive because of it is insulting. You may not care about my mental health, but I have to. And falling into the good food/bad food trap affects it immensely.

    For me putting a label on the food has no direct impact upon me. I use the word "bad" with food to denote which foods that I find highly unpalatable...such as...cottage cheese, boiled okra, liver, seaweed...etc...etc.

    I think that most people IRL associate the words good/bad/junk/healthy/unhealthy with foods based on their own preferences. Unless someone is or has experienced an eating disorder they are just words that divide food in to subgroups. They use them as way to categorize the foods in their diet.

    As long as people leave my plate of food alone I really see no reason to be upset about the terminology that other people use.

    I could get behind that, except the post I quoted and others like it are talking specifically about how I choose to use the words.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    susan100df wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    I have no problem admitting it. I call foods good and bad all the time. Bad, crap, junk. I've never had anyone IRL ask we what I meant by those terms. They know. We all know.

    Only on MFP have I encountered the militant phenomenon of "no food is bad". I think it's whacky thinking. Not determining that some foods are bad is how I got into this predicament to begin with. And if I have a prayer of maintaining my loss, I have to continue thinking that some foods are bad for me.

    Are there obese people that gained their weight via vegetables? I've never met one.

    It would be pretty difficult to gain weight eating only vegetables, I think. I've never met anyone that did that. But it is not hard to gain weight eating a lot of vegetables or a lot of foods normally deemed healthy.

    I don't eat a lot of bad foods (my definition - chips, candy, ice cream, pastries, premade meals/foods, processed meats, most fast food).

    I gained weight eating mostly whole natural foods, much of it organic. My problem is fat, specifically the ultra-healthy extra virgin olive oil. Olive oil is a 'good food' IMO, but I can easily overeat it.

    and yet. A study found 29% of vegans in a sample pop. are overweight or obese...

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/6/1267/T1.expansion.html

    But vegans don't eat ONLY vegetables. As I've often seen pointed out on MFP, Oreos are vegan.

    Most assuredly. I've also yet to meet someone that eats ONLY vegetables, is highly active and is healthy.

    I've never met anyone who eats ONLY vegetables no matter their activity or health status. At least not for more than a short period of time as some sort of ultra restrictive diet.
  • itsthehumidity
    itsthehumidity Posts: 351 Member
    The second part that's often missing after "There are no bad foods" is "... but there are bad diets." It's important to understand what's intended here.

    A good diet is one that:
    • Aligns closely with your calorie goals (lose/gain/maintain)
    • Is reasonably split among the macronutrients (protein/fat/carbohydrate)
    • Includes all necessary vitamins, minerals, and fiber

    If you can accomplish all three of those, then it doesn't matter what foods you use, possibly with the exception of foods containing trans fats. Those do seem to be detrimental to our health according to research. Otherwise, any food has a green light. This is, of course, ignoring any cases when a doctor/dietitian has restricted foods for other reasons like sensitivities, allergies, and so on.

    Let's say you have all your protein, vitamins, minerals, and fiber for the day, and you just need some fat and carbs to reach your calorie goal. A slice of (trans fat free) cake might be the perfect solution. Too much cake is, however, easy to eat, and lead to a bad diet for the day, but any food could do the same thing. The fact that it's cake doesn't matter, and thus cake isn't a bad food.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are bad foods.

    LOL And I feel the exact opposite.

    I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are not bad foods.

    So which foods are bad? Name them and there's a thousand people who don't feel that way and another thousand who will tell you some of the foods you think are "good" are bad.
    The fact we can argue about this for so many pages, with a good dose of woo in here too to argue for "bad" foods, shows there is no such thing. It's just as arbitrary as clean and all that other stuff where ten people will have ten different ideas of what it means.

    I posted my definition of bad foods above. I have no doubt that people would/will argue with it. Isn't that why many are here. :p

    But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.

    Most people don't feel like discussing those things with people. Or they just assume you have the same idea of it that they have even if that's not actually the case.
    I know I would usually just smile and nod if someone talked about this kind of stuff, same with detoxes or whatever. Unless I am very close to them.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    I have no problem admitting it. I call foods good and bad all the time. Bad, crap, junk. I've never had anyone IRL ask we what I meant by those terms. They know. We all know.

    Isn't the point of the counter-argument that actually you don't know because there is no consensus on what 'bad' means. You know what you mean by it. Other people hear you say 'bad' and think it's what they mean by it. But in reality, it's unlikely you both are thinking the same thing.

    It's like the 'clean eating' label. No two people ever seem to mean it the same way, which makes it a meaningless term unless the personal definition is also provided.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?

    I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?

    There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.

    I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.

    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    I do agree with you. You're more specific. But you mean the same thing as everyone who says "there are no bad foods" since all they mean is that eating a little to some of it as part of an overall balanced and healthy diet is fine.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?

    I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?

    There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.

    I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.

    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    "Full fat cheese" is not "bad" by any means. Eaten in moderation, it can fit very easily into a well-balanced, low-calorie diet. And the fat helps you feel full longer, so you eat fewer overall calories.

    You seem to have a poor understanding of nutrition if you think cheese falls into the same category as cookies. And, no, they aren't "bad." They just aren't something you should pig out on. Everything in moderation.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    edited January 2016
    stealthq wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    I have no problem admitting it. I call foods good and bad all the time. Bad, crap, junk. I've never had anyone IRL ask we what I meant by those terms. They know. We all know.

    Isn't the point of the counter-argument that actually you don't know because there is no consensus on what 'bad' means. You know what you mean by it. Other people hear you say 'bad' and think it's what they mean by it. But in reality, it's unlikely you both are thinking the same thing.

    It's like the 'clean eating' label. No two people ever seem to mean it the same way, which makes it a meaningless term unless the personal definition is also provided.

    I think it's colloquial.

    If meanings were really so different responses would not be so consistent when specific foods are mentioned. "What's bad about my daily ice cream?" "I had chips yesterday and I'm not dead." "I eat fast food once a week and I've lost X lbs."

    There will be some arguable points but generally we all know what is meant. Whether we admit it or agree, we know.
  • longlostyeti
    longlostyeti Posts: 27 Member
    lets stop labeling foods good or bad and lets just enjoy life YOLO.. o:)
  • suziecue20
    suziecue20 Posts: 567 Member
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?

    I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?

    There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.

    I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.

    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    I do agree with you. You're more specific. But you mean the same thing as everyone who says "there are no bad foods" since all they mean is that eating a little to some of it as part of an overall balanced and healthy diet is fine.

    I still call them bad though because I differentiate between my main daily diet and my 'naughty' snacks.

  • suziecue20
    suziecue20 Posts: 567 Member
    rml_16 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?

    I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?

    There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.

    I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.

    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    "Full fat cheese" is not "bad" by any means. Eaten in moderation, it can fit very easily into a well-balanced, low-calorie diet. And the fat helps you feel full longer, so you eat fewer overall calories.

    You seem to have a poor understanding of nutrition if you think cheese falls into the same category as cookies. And, no, they aren't "bad." They just aren't something you should pig out on. Everything in moderation.

    Full fat cheese is a no no for me on doctor's orders - my OH eats loads of it
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    lets stop labeling foods good or bad and lets just enjoy life YOLO.. o:)

    I've lived long enough to know I can do both.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    lets stop labeling foods good or bad and lets just enjoy life YOLO.. o:)

    I've lived long enough to know I can do both.

    So I just haven't lived long enough is what you're saying. Holy dismissive posts, Batman.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited January 2016
    susan100df wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    I have no problem admitting it. I call foods good and bad all the time. Bad, crap, junk. I've never had anyone IRL ask we what I meant by those terms. They know. We all know.

    Only on MFP have I encountered the militant phenomenon of "no food is bad". I think it's whacky thinking. Not determining that some foods are bad is how I got into this predicament to begin with. And if I have a prayer of maintaining my loss, I have to continue thinking that some foods are bad for me.

    Are there obese people that gained their weight via vegetables? I've never met one.

    Eating too much is how I got fat.

    And I gained lots of weight eating foods most would not call bad (and which I continue to eat in better quantities). This includes by adding butter and/or olive oil to vegetables (I have always eaten lots of veg), but also just basically meat, starchy carbs (generally homemade), stuff like that. It's easy to made foods high cal.

    I started gaining weight, in fact, when on a "all natural" food kick, where I didn't worry about how much I ate but was super picky about making everything from scratch. I probably bought into the "some foods are bad" the most at that time.

    Now I think the issue isn't the food, but how much you eat, although I mostly eat in a similar way because I like cooking and eating lots of veg, etc. I don't understand why thinking ice cream is bad (or bad for me) is necessary or even helpful to not gaining weight. I don't overeat ice cream, but even if I did I'd simply have to understand that eating too much ice cream is bad for me.

    (As is eating too much of anything. Some things just don't have that many calories, so are hard to overeat. Well, unless you load them up with higher cal ingredients.)
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?

    I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?

    There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.

    I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.

    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    I do agree with you. You're more specific. But you mean the same thing as everyone who says "there are no bad foods" since all they mean is that eating a little to some of it as part of an overall balanced and healthy diet is fine.

    I still call them bad though because I differentiate between my main daily diet and my 'naughty' snacks.

    Serious question, why do you have to label them naughty? Why not just "snacks"? And what is naughty about it if it fits in your day and doesn't keep you from eating your nutritious foods?
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?

    I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?

    There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.

    I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.

    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    I do agree with you. You're more specific. But you mean the same thing as everyone who says "there are no bad foods" since all they mean is that eating a little to some of it as part of an overall balanced and healthy diet is fine.

    I still call them bad though because I differentiate between my main daily diet and my 'naughty' snacks.

    But if you don't exceed your calorie goals, what makes them naughty?
  • suziecue20
    suziecue20 Posts: 567 Member
    Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I'm always interested in these types of threads which comments are acknowledged and which aren't. The OP seems to want nothing to do with my contributions in favor of arguing with others and we've covered the cancer meats pretty heavily already. Going around in circles.

    I was feeling the same way. Oh, well. ;-)
  • Clobern80
    Clobern80 Posts: 714 Member
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.

    And want you to purchase their products.
  • TheBeachgod
    TheBeachgod Posts: 825 Member
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.

    You'd think wrong then since WW has Zero Points foods.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are bad foods.

    LOL And I feel the exact opposite.

    I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are not bad foods.

    The discussion is silly because people just mean different things by "bad food."

    Some seem to mean "low in nutrients/high in calories" (the usual understanding of junk food).

    Others mean "actively harmful or foods I should always avoid."

    To me "bad" suggests more the latter, but if people want to use the term for the former I get it and don't care.

    What I find puzzling is OP's statement that we all know we should not eat bad foods. I don't think foods in the first category are foods I should not eat, and don't aspire to have a "perfect" diet in that sense. I wouldn't want to not ever want to eat some higher cal/lower nutrient foods.

    I do think it's best not to have a bad diet--by which I mean a diet that lacks nutrients overall or causes weight gain or loss that is inappropriate.
  • suziecue20
    suziecue20 Posts: 567 Member
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?

    I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?

    There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.

    I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.

    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    I do agree with you. You're more specific. But you mean the same thing as everyone who says "there are no bad foods" since all they mean is that eating a little to some of it as part of an overall balanced and healthy diet is fine.

    I still call them bad though because I differentiate between my main daily diet and my 'naughty' snacks.

    Serious question, why do you have to label them naughty? Why not just "snacks"? And what is naughty about it if it fits in your day and doesn't keep you from eating your nutritious foods?

    Valid question -Because if I didn't Steven I would eat too much of them too many times and my MFP plan would go flying out of the window - truthful answer.

  • suziecue20
    suziecue20 Posts: 567 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?

    I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?

    There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.

    I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.

    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    I do agree with you. You're more specific. But you mean the same thing as everyone who says "there are no bad foods" since all they mean is that eating a little to some of it as part of an overall balanced and healthy diet is fine.

    I still call them bad though because I differentiate between my main daily diet and my 'naughty' snacks.

    But if you don't exceed your calorie goals, what makes them naughty?

    See my answer to StevenCloser Carlos.
  • ClicquotBubbles
    ClicquotBubbles Posts: 66 Member
    poison mushrooms- that's a bad food. Some berries can poison you and I suppose anything that has fur growing on it that looks sort of bluey green could be classed as a bad food. Apart from that I cant think of anymore...
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.

    Let me lay this out a second time. When I was at my strictest with weight loss and foods, I was regularly breaking into tears in restaurants while I was out with my family. I was regularly having breakdowns in my friends' driveways because I didn't know what kind of snacks they had laid out or did and knew that I couldn't moderate myself well with them. I was not in a good place and dieting, good/bad foods, were seriously affecting my mental health.

    Fortunately, my therapist saw it and insisted that I stop the diet for a while until we could work through what was going on. We also worked out some things so that I could continue losing weight without it becoming a full blown eating disorder (closing my diary at the time and accepting the foods that I eat as being neutral rather than good or bad).

    I was completely convinced by the dieting industry and posts like this one that what I was going through was normal and I would just have to suffer through it until the end. If not for my therapist, I would have continued down that path. Knowing my history, I likely would have killed myself along the way.

    Every time you put down or belittle people for not believing that foods are good or bad (and many people in this thread have made it a point to do so) this is what you believe is a healthy thing for me.

    Stop it.
  • TheBeachgod
    TheBeachgod Posts: 825 Member
    So it is something that works for you. Great! But there are no bad foods.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited January 2016
    So it is something that works for you. Great! But there are no bad foods.

    Exactly. It's one thing to say "it's a mind game that works for me because I can't help myself from bingeing". It's quite something else to insist that it's a universal truth and everybody else needs to think in the same mind frame.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?

    I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?

    There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.

    I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.

    So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

    I do agree with you. You're more specific. But you mean the same thing as everyone who says "there are no bad foods" since all they mean is that eating a little to some of it as part of an overall balanced and healthy diet is fine.

    I still call them bad though because I differentiate between my main daily diet and my 'naughty' snacks.

    Serious question, why do you have to label them naughty? Why not just "snacks"? And what is naughty about it if it fits in your day and doesn't keep you from eating your nutritious foods?

    Valid question -Because if I didn't Steven I would eat too much of them too many times and my MFP plan would go flying out of the window - truthful answer.

    Maybe I'm different, but there's a lot of foods I could easily blow my calories on, sweets, fastfood, but also fruits and homemade meals. I'm making a curry right now, all good fresh ingredients but also high in calories.
    The only thing all these things have in common is that I find them delicious. Their nutrition is all over the place but I could overeat on any of them.