There are 'BAD' foods
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »susan100df wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.)
Eating too much is also how I got fat lemurcat12, its the way most people do [unless they have a medical condition]. However I recognise that it was not the protein and the vegetables it was eating too many calorie dense foods, which I and everybody I've ever met call 'naughty' or 'bad'.
0 -
TheBeachgod wrote: »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 everybody else think in the same mind frame.
Bingo. I don't care if someone wants to use it personally, but this thread is an argument that there is some reason everyone should accept the term for themselves. Even apart from the serious concerns that diannethegeek brings up, I think it can be extremely counterproductive for many, as it may interfere with them thinking logically and unemotionally about food or in some cases may make foods more alluring (the whole forbidden fruit thing).
I cringe when other women feel compelled to say "being naughty" when ordering a baked good in front of me in line for coffee, and part of why is that my mother used to do that and would tell my sister and I not to tell my dad if we all stopped for a treat or lunch out, and I think the urge to hide what you are eating and to feel guilty about it which the language encourages -- yes, for some people, not all -- was not unrelated to her overeating or the overeating of others I know. It's also related to many bingeing conditions -- guilt, shame, restrictiveness, excess, the feeling that you are bad and ruined everything, so might as well eat more.
I really think that logical, unemotional thinking about food is something to be encouraged. From that perspective, I just don't understand what's wrong with eating some ice cream in appropriate portions, so the "bad" language for it makes no sense to me.0 -
TheBeachgod wrote: »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.
Yes I know they do for fruit and some vegetables - that was not the point I was making.
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »susan100df wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.)
Eating too much is also how I got fat lemurcat12, its the way most people do [unless they have a medical condition]. However I recognise that it was not the protein and the vegetables it was eating too many calorie dense foods, which I and everybody I've ever met call 'naughty' or 'bad'.
Many calorie dense foods are not ordinarily called "bad." I mostly ate higher cal savory stuff -- added too much butter or olive oil, high quality cheese, restaurant meals at high end restaurants, higher cal meats (or higher cal preparations of meat, like with a sauce on fish), stuff like that. Even roasting chicken with potatoes and vegetables can make the resulting potatoes and veg high cal, due to the chicken fat (that also makes them delicious). Eat too much of that and it's easy to gain weight, but who calls those foods "bad"? (And yes, that played a role.)
Sure I suppose some might say that butter and cheese are "bad" (like anti fat crusaders, bad in the day) but on the whole it seems weird to try and use the term for everything people overeat and not helpful. The only problem with high cal foods is dosage being excessive. They should be eaten more sparingly and with reference to your total needs.0 -
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.
Totally missed the point!
0 -
This 100%. I too don't think I know anyone IRL who would argue against the idea that bad foods exist.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »TheBeachgod 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.
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.
0 -
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.
nope, no bad foods, only bad diets.
what matters is that you hit micros and macors and hit your calorie target.
you do not eat one food in a vacuum, so you need to look at the overall diet.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »sunandmoons wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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 valuediannethegeek wrote: »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.
I agree.. Calling foods naughty is rediculous. As the thread moves along, she gets a thrill out of those who side with her because she wants to be proven right. Its worn out.0 -
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.
Keyword bolded.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
This 100%. I too don't think I know anyone IRL who would argue against the idea that bad foods exist.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »TheBeachgod 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.
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.
Did you see my post about people using two different meanings of "bad" and talking past each other.
I'm curious if you think everyone would agree that foods fall in the second meaning, which is what is being rejected. (I'd personally give you transfats, which I avoid.)
Obviously everyone agrees that some foods aren't that nutritious. To me, that doesn't make them bad. They might be very good in the right circumstances, in fact (if they are tasty).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »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 everybody else think in the same mind frame.
Bingo. I don't care if someone wants to use it personally, but this thread is an argument that there is some reason everyone should accept the term for themselves. Even apart from the serious concerns that diannethegeek brings up, I think it can be extremely counterproductive for many, as it may interfere with them thinking logically and unemotionally about food or in some cases may make foods more alluring (the whole forbidden fruit thing).
I cringe when other women feel compelled to say "being naughty" when ordering a baked good in front of me in line for coffee, and part of why is that my mother used to do that and would tell my sister and I not to tell my dad if we all stopped for a treat or lunch out, and I think the urge to hide what you are eating and to feel guilty about it which the language encourages -- yes, for some people, not all -- was not unrelated to her overeating or the overeating of others I know. It's also related to many bingeing conditions -- guilt, shame, restrictiveness, excess, the feeling that you are bad and ruined everything, so might as well eat more.
I really think that logical, unemotional thinking about food is something to be encouraged. From that perspective, I just don't understand what's wrong with eating some ice cream in appropriate portions, so the "bad" language for it makes no sense to me.
You are reading far too much into things - the women you refer to are just acknowledging they are knowingly going to eat something naughty - nothing shameful in that and they are like millions and millions of other people in real life.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
This 100%. I too don't think I know anyone IRL who would argue against the idea that bad foods exist.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »TheBeachgod 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.
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.
Did you see my post about people using two different meanings of "bad" and talking past each other.
I'm curious if you think everyone would agree that foods fall in the second meaning, which is what is being rejected. (I'd personally give you transfats, which I avoid.)
Obviously everyone agrees that some foods aren't that nutritious. To me, that doesn't make them bad. They might be very good in the right circumstances, in fact (if they are tasty).
Or my argument that most people just don't care enough to start an argument on the street about this kind of stuff.0 -
TheBeachgod wrote: »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.
/end thread0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 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.
That sounds like a problem with the plan, not the food. My snacks are part of my plan, just like everything else. I have no problem with eating snacks within the limits of my plan.
Sure, I might wish I had an extra serving of snacks, but I might wish to have an extra serving of anything I eat. I don't - I stick to the amounts I planned and prelogged.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 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.
So calling a food "naughty" is simply a way to keep yourself from over-eating it? It has no meaning beyond that?
I could easily over-eat pineapple if I didn't set goals for myself -- I find it so delicious. Does that mean you'd agree that it's accurate to call pineapple a "naughty" food?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
suziecue20 wrote: »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.
Totally missed the point!
This is ironic. I think YOU are the one missing the point. You are taking your direction from both for profit businesses, like WW and Slimming World, as well as not for profit but certainly not totally unbiased organizations like the article you listed earlier stating that eating bacon every day causes cancer.
You seem to want to form all your opinions based on (compelling) statements from large organizations (which certainly have bias and ulterior motives to convince people to follow their direction) and hold those as absolute truths. Many people in this thread have pointed out to you that the subjectivity and variability in those opinions makes them largely unhelpful as clear, defining terms which can be objectively applied across a population.
It's fine if you want to call things "naughty" and use that as a means to help control your food intake. What is not fine is insisting that the rest of us are somehow deluded or dishonest if we don't also use that terminology to describe our own food choices.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »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.
I haven't belittled anyone. I'm sorry you have issues with your relationship with food and if I missed a previous post of yours please accept my apologies but it has been a bit busy on here.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »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.
Once upon a time, I was a 12 year old boy whose mother was on WW. I retrieved an unopened bag of M&Ms from the cabinet and proceeded to attempt to open them. Watching me struggle to get the bag open, my mom became agitated at the thought that she wouldn't be allowed to have any of those M&Ms. As I continued to struggle, she became furious that I was making "such a big show" about opening a bag of something delicious that she couldn't have. So she snatched the bag out of my hand, ripped it open and said "and if you say one word about how good they are I'll shove one up your nose! It's bad enough I can't have any and here you are putting on a show about opening the bag."
Dad, sitting next to me at the table, says "Hey, Carlos, let me have one of those." Then my dad, crazy lunatic that he is, popped the M&M into his mouth and says, "Mmm, this is sooo goooood!!"
My mother then grabbed my dad by the face and literally shoved an M&M up his nose.0 -
This thread went from misguided to completely pointless. Why are we even arguing this anymore?0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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.
Once upon a time, I was a 12 year old boy whose mother was on WW. I retrieved an unopened bag of M&Ms from the cabinet and proceeded to attempt to open them. Watching me struggle to get the bag open, my mom became agitated at the thought that she wouldn't be allowed to have any of those M&Ms. As I continued to struggle, she became furious that I was making "such a big show" about opening a bag of something delicious that she couldn't have. So she snatched the bag out of my hand, ripped it open and said "and if you say one word about how good they are I'll shove one up your nose! It's bad enough I can't have any and here you are putting on a show about opening the bag."
Dad, sitting next to me at the table, says "Hey, Carlos, let me have one of those." Then my dad, crazy lunatic that he is, popped the M&M into his mouth and says, "Mmm, this is sooo goooood!!"
My mother then grabbed my dad by the face and literally shoved an M&M up his nose.
Thank you for letting this thread not be a complete waste.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.
We're on MFP, where every two seconds someone is posting about 'is my ice cream bad?' or 'how can I eat bad food such as cake and still lose weight?'. We're bombarded with every food or ingredient anyone or any government has ever thought could be defined as bad. Even baking soda.
People on here for any length of time would have to be complete morons to not know which foods are most commonly considered 'bad' whether they agree or not. So they respond with those and figure there's a good chance they're right.
But then they're wrong because one poster thinks baked Lays are fine because they're lower fat and low-ish cals for a snack (plus you can get a single-portion bag! Bonus!) and the next thinks they're the worst because of the added sugar. And a third thinks they're not a problem nutritionally, it's just that they can't stop eating them - so it's just non-filling, crunchy, salty foods that are 'bad'.
So no, we really don't know what is meant.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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.
I haven't belittled anyone. I'm sorry you have issues with your relationship with food and if I missed a previous post of yours please accept my apologies but it has been a bit busy on here.
And you love the attention OP. YOU are the one who has food relationship issues.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 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.
So calling a food "naughty" is simply a way to keep yourself from over-eating it? It has no meaning beyond that?
I could easily over-eat pineapple if I didn't set goals for myself -- I find it so delicious. Does that mean you'd agree that it's accurate to call pineapple a "naughty" food?
If I felt I could over-eat pineapple [which I actually can take or leave] then yes to me it would be naughty.
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 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.
So calling a food "naughty" is simply a way to keep yourself from over-eating it? It has no meaning beyond that?
I could easily over-eat pineapple if I didn't set goals for myself -- I find it so delicious. Does that mean you'd agree that it's accurate to call pineapple a "naughty" food?
If I felt I could over-eat pineapple [which I actually can take or leave] then yes to me it would be naughty.
And I could go along with that in general. Except that you're making a case all over this thread that everyone secretly has a list of naught foods or that everyone should have one. That's simply not true. And trying to make it true by twisting words or hammering your assumptions into place is belittling. Whether that was your intention or not.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 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.
So calling a food "naughty" is simply a way to keep yourself from over-eating it? It has no meaning beyond that?
I could easily over-eat pineapple if I didn't set goals for myself -- I find it so delicious. Does that mean you'd agree that it's accurate to call pineapple a "naughty" food?
If I felt I could over-eat pineapple [which I actually can take or leave] then yes to me it would be naughty.
What is the point of using demonizing language like "naughty" or "bad" when what we're really trying to communicate is "this is a food I could over-eat if I wasn't careful"?
If my food is tropical fruit and yours is hot chocolate, some else's is pork sausage, yet another person's is whole wheat pancakes -- and there is no overlap (that is, I never have to watch myself with hot chocolate or pork sausage or whole wheat pancakes), what is the benefit of using "naughty"? What does it mean to say that a food is "bad"?
That someone, somewhere, might be tempted to over-eat it? Then every food is naughty. Every food is bad.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 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.
So calling a food "naughty" is simply a way to keep yourself from over-eating it? It has no meaning beyond that?
I could easily over-eat pineapple if I didn't set goals for myself -- I find it so delicious. Does that mean you'd agree that it's accurate to call pineapple a "naughty" food?
If I felt I could over-eat pineapple [which I actually can take or leave] then yes to me it would be naughty.
If I called every food I could over-eat "naughty" then the only "nice" foods left would be completely unpalatable to me, and the "naughtiest" foods out there would be milk and cheese.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »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.
Totally missed the point!
This is ironic. I think YOU are the one missing the point. You are taking your direction from both for profit businesses, like WW and Slimming World, as well as not for profit but certainly not totally unbiased organizations like the article you listed earlier stating that eating bacon every day causes cancer.
You seem to want to form all your opinions based on (compelling) statements from large organizations (which certainly have bias and ulterior motives to convince people to follow their direction) and hold those as absolute truths. Many people in this thread have pointed out to you that the subjectivity and variability in those opinions makes them largely unhelpful as clear, defining terms which can be objectively applied across a population.
It's fine if you want to call things "naughty" and use that as a means to help control your food intake. What is not fine is insisting that the rest of us are somehow deluded or dishonest if we don't also use that terminology to describe our own food choices.
Other people feel as I do, so it's not 'the rest of us' but OK you don't use my terminology and I wont use yours.0 -
Ok, maybe not everyone I know would use the term "bad food". But I'm pretty sure people I know who buy mostly organic and non-GMO food would refer to foods such as pop tarts and other artificially colored foods as being "bad". And I'm also pretty sure I know a lot of people who would use the term "junk food" as well.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
This 100%. I too don't think I know anyone IRL who would argue against the idea that bad foods exist.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »TheBeachgod 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.
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.
Did you see my post about people using two different meanings of "bad" and talking past each other.
I'm curious if you think everyone would agree that foods fall in the second meaning, which is what is being rejected. (I'd personally give you transfats, which I avoid.)
Obviously everyone agrees that some foods aren't that nutritious. To me, that doesn't make them bad. They might be very good in the right circumstances, in fact (if they are tasty).
Or my argument that most people just don't care enough to start an argument on the street about this kind of stuff.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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.
Once upon a time, I was a 12 year old boy whose mother was on WW. I retrieved an unopened bag of M&Ms from the cabinet and proceeded to attempt to open them. Watching me struggle to get the bag open, my mom became agitated at the thought that she wouldn't be allowed to have any of those M&Ms. As I continued to struggle, she became furious that I was making "such a big show" about opening a bag of something delicious that she couldn't have. So she snatched the bag out of my hand, ripped it open and said "and if you say one word about how good they are I'll shove one up your nose! It's bad enough I can't have any and here you are putting on a show about opening the bag."
Dad, sitting next to me at the table, says "Hey, Carlos, let me have one of those." Then my dad, crazy lunatic that he is, popped the M&M into his mouth and says, "Mmm, this is sooo goooood!!"
My mother then grabbed my dad by the face and literally shoved an M&M up his nose.
Thank you for this little snippet. LOL0
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