There are 'BAD' foods

Options
1141517192056

Replies

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.

    Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
    ;

    One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them

    Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.

    Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute

    But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?

    Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.

    So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
    .
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    I used to consider foods as good and bad at some point in the past. In my experience, when I consumed a bad food I would feel bad about the choice and then bad about myself. Often leading to feelings of failure and then giving up. I hate for anyone to have to experience these emotions with regards to food. I have come to accept that for me, it makes no sense to assign values to foods. If you are able to assign labels to your food without having those feelings tied to it, then that is great. The reality is that for many people, they experience guilt and shame around their food choices. This is not a good mind frame to be approaching life from. So no, I eat my ice cream and I don't consider it a bad food. I enjoy a beer and I don't consider it a bad food.
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.

    Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
    ;

    One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them

    Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.

    Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute

    But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?

    Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.

    So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
    .
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.

    Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.

    I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.

    You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.

    this^^^^^.
    If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.

    Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.

    For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?

    How is it hurting you?

    How is what hurting me?

    The hot chocolate. What is bad about it if it fits in your day?
  • FMUP
    FMUP Posts: 34 Member
    Options
    I don't think there are bad foods... but I think there are foods I must restrict if I am going to ever re-loose this weight. I'm one of those people who can't eat just one when it comes to pastries, candy, chips, etc. They are all empty calories and if I could have enough self control to not eat more than one piece I would have a piece... but for me, that just doesn't seem possible. So I stay away from those all together - or only have them when we are dining out (since you can't eat "more" of a meal unless you are willing to pay for it - and I'm not willing). So I don't think the foods are bad, but it is my inability to deal with my cravings for it that is bad.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.

    Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
    ;

    One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them

    Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.

    Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute

    But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?

    Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.

    So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
    .
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    I used to consider foods as good and bad at some point in the past. In my experience, when I consumed a bad food I would feel bad about the choice and then bad about myself. Often leading to feelings of failure and then giving up. I hate for anyone to have to experience these emotions with regards to food. I have come to accept that for me, it makes no sense to assign values to foods. If you are able to assign labels to your food without having those feelings tied to it, then that is great. The reality is that for many people, they experience guilt and shame around their food choices. This is not a good mind frame to be approaching life from. So no, I eat my ice cream and I don't consider it a bad food. I enjoy a beer and I don't consider it a bad food.
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.

    Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
    ;

    One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them

    Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.

    Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute

    But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?

    Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.

    So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
    .
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.

    Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.

    I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.

    You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.

    this^^^^^.
    If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.

    Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.

    For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?

    How is it hurting you?

    How is what hurting me?

    The hot chocolate. You said it wasn't good for you. How is it harming you?
  • rankinsect
    rankinsect Posts: 2,238 Member
    Options
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.

    Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
    ;

    One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them

    Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.

    Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute

    But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?

    Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.

    So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
    .
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.

    Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.

    I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.

    You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.

    this^^^^^.
    If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.

    Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.

    For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?

    I understand it, but I disagree with it. I don't think it IS "not good" for you, as long as the rest of your diet is sufficient.

    Unless something in the food is actively harmful to you, the only other risk from eating the food would be malnutrition. Malnutrition would encompass overnutrition (e.g. caloric surplus or vitamin overdose) or undernutrition (e.g. vitamin or macronutrient deficiency).

    If your overall diet is still meeting your nutritional and caloric needs without malnourishment, and nothing in the hot chocolate is toxic or allergenic to you, it's neither good nor bad. You won't be any less healthy because you had the hot chocolate instead of, say, a salad, nor will you be any more healthy. It was simply one of a million choices you made that had no bearing on your health.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    FMUP wrote: »
    I don't think there are bad foods... but I think there are foods I must restrict if I am going to ever re-loose this weight. I'm one of those people who can't eat just one when it comes to pastries, candy, chips, etc. They are all empty calories and if I could have enough self control to not eat more than one piece I would have a piece... but for me, that just doesn't seem possible. So I stay away from those all together - or only have them when we are dining out (since you can't eat "more" of a meal unless you are willing to pay for it - and I'm not willing). So I don't think the foods are bad, but it is my inability to deal with my cravings for it that is bad.

    It has taken me two years to be able to have ice cream in the house without consuming the whole tub. Self control gets better with time and practice. :smile:
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    MKEgal wrote: »
    queenliz wrote:
    Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
    Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
    Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
    The 4-second rule is a myth.
    Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
    but they'll both have ick.

    http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/

    The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
    And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
    But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
    I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.

    I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years. :)

    rankinsect wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.

    Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.
  • suziecue20
    suziecue20 Posts: 567 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.

    Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
    ;

    One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them

    Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.

    Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

    In the red corner - 67 year old woman from Wales - in the blue corner lots of bodybuilders from America lol

    You are from Wales and I am 55 and from the U.S., same difference. The good, the bad and the ugly. I eat all foods in moderation. I am at my goal weight and holding. Let go of the thought that there is bad food. Food that has spoiled or way past expiration and foods that cause anphalaxic death are bad foods. Live a little, life's too short.[/quote

    Yes I know life's too short lol. I also eat ALL foods in moderation but I realise that some of them are not good for me - no big deal in my eyes. I admire your maintenance by the way and I hope you take that at face value.
    ,

    What do you mean at face value? I am proud of the fact that I am finally at my goal weight. It took me many years to figure out how to do this. I used to eat low fat because the "experts" said fats were bad. Thinking fast foods were bad. Eating carbs were bad. I have found that eating too many calories are bad. I now have perfect blood tests and have finally lost that last 20 pounds that have taken me 30 years to lose. Nope, no bad food just too many calories.

    Sorry, 'lost in translation' -by at face value I mean in the spirit it is meant, i.e. with sincerity.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MKEgal wrote: »
    queenliz wrote:
    Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
    Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
    Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
    The 4-second rule is a myth.
    Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
    but they'll both have ick.

    http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/

    The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
    And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
    But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
    I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.

    I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years. :)

    rankinsect wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.

    Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.

    Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,959 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MKEgal wrote: »
    queenliz wrote:
    Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
    Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
    Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
    The 4-second rule is a myth.
    Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
    but they'll both have ick.

    http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/

    The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
    And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
    But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
    I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.

    I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years. :)

    rankinsect wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.

    Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.

    Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!

    It weirded me out when I was in the USA and there were warnings on cookie dough and the like not to eat it raw because of eggs. Here, no one even bothers to warn you about that and families go to war over who gets to lick the beaters after making cake batter.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MKEgal wrote: »
    queenliz wrote:
    Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
    Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
    Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
    The 4-second rule is a myth.
    Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
    but they'll both have ick.

    http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/

    The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
    And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
    But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
    I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.

    I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years. :)

    rankinsect wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.

    Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.

    Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!

    I LOVE cookie dough. It's the main reason I make cookies.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    edited January 2016
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MKEgal wrote: »
    queenliz wrote:
    Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
    Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
    Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
    The 4-second rule is a myth.
    Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
    but they'll both have ick.

    http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/

    The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
    And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
    But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
    I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.

    I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years. :)

    rankinsect wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.

    Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.

    Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!

    It weirded me out when I was in the USA and there were warnings on cookie dough and the like not to eat it raw because of eggs. Here, no one even bothers to warn you about that and families go to war over who gets to lick the beaters after making cake batter.

    When I was a kid, my mom encouraged me to lick the spoon and then years later came this scary message not to do this anymore. A very sad few years but I have since come to my senses. I am licking away. Raw cookie dough is so good.
  • rankinsect
    rankinsect Posts: 2,238 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MKEgal wrote: »
    queenliz wrote:
    Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
    Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
    Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
    The 4-second rule is a myth.
    Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
    but they'll both have ick.

    http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/

    The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
    And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
    But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
    I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.

    I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years. :)

    rankinsect wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.

    Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.

    Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!

    It weirded me out when I was in the USA and there were warnings on cookie dough and the like not to eat it raw because of eggs. Here, no one even bothers to warn you about that and families go to war over who gets to lick the beaters after making cake batter.

    I live on the wild side and always sample the dough or batter of everything I bake. I think it's critical to make sure I didn't mess something up (and equally critical because man, I want it).

    Okay, I am willing to call my eating of raw egg products and medium rare hamburgers "bad food" in that each carries some real risk of food poisoning.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    edited January 2016
    Options
    rankinsect wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MKEgal wrote: »
    queenliz wrote:
    Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
    Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
    Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
    The 4-second rule is a myth.
    Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
    but they'll both have ick.

    http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/

    The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
    And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
    But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
    I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.

    I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years. :)

    rankinsect wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.

    Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.

    Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!

    It weirded me out when I was in the USA and there were warnings on cookie dough and the like not to eat it raw because of eggs. Here, no one even bothers to warn you about that and families go to war over who gets to lick the beaters after making cake batter.

    I live on the wild side and always sample the dough or batter of everything I bake. I think it's critical to make sure I didn't mess something up (and equally critical because man, I want it).

    Okay, I am willing to call my eating of raw egg products and medium rare hamburgers "bad food" in that each carries some real risk of food poisoning.

    I have eaten potato salad that was sitting out too long. It may have turned.
  • suziecue20
    suziecue20 Posts: 567 Member
    Options
    rankinsect wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MKEgal wrote: »
    queenliz wrote:
    Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
    Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
    Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
    The 4-second rule is a myth.
    Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
    but they'll both have ick.

    http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/

    The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
    And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
    But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
    I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.

    I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years. :)

    rankinsect wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.

    Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.

    Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!

    It weirded me out when I was in the USA and there were warnings on cookie dough and the like not to eat it raw because of eggs. Here, no one even bothers to warn you about that and families go to war over who gets to lick the beaters after making cake batter.

    I live on the wild side and always sample the dough or batter of everything I bake. I think it's critical to make sure I didn't mess something up (and equally critical because man, I want it).

    Okay, I am willing to call my eating of raw egg products and medium rare hamburgers "bad food" in that each carries some real risk of food poisoning.

    Yay RESULT and on that note I'm off to bed 1.25am here= lovely arguing with you :)
  • dbrook1967
    dbrook1967 Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    I believe in "bad for you foods" processed, sugar, fast food to name a few. There is nutrient value to "bad food" but the risk out weight the reward. Weight gain, heart disease, clogged arteries to name a few. For me personally I would rather stay with clean eating. I do have cheat meals but I have been able to keep them to less than once a week,
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    dbrook1967 wrote: »
    I believe in "bad for you foods" processed, sugar, fast food to name a few. There is nutrient value to "bad food" but the risk out weight the reward. Weight gain, heart disease, clogged arteries to name a few. For me personally I would rather stay with clean eating. I do have cheat meals but I have been able to keep them to less than once a week,

    How do you define processed food? And how do you only consume sugar less than once per week?
  • rankinsect
    rankinsect Posts: 2,238 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    rankinsect wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MKEgal wrote: »
    queenliz wrote:
    Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
    Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
    Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
    The 4-second rule is a myth.
    Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
    but they'll both have ick.

    http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/

    The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
    And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
    But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
    I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.

    I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years. :)

    rankinsect wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.

    Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.

    Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!

    It weirded me out when I was in the USA and there were warnings on cookie dough and the like not to eat it raw because of eggs. Here, no one even bothers to warn you about that and families go to war over who gets to lick the beaters after making cake batter.

    I live on the wild side and always sample the dough or batter of everything I bake. I think it's critical to make sure I didn't mess something up (and equally critical because man, I want it).

    Okay, I am willing to call my eating of raw egg products and medium rare hamburgers "bad food" in that each carries some real risk of food poisoning.

    I have eaten potato salad that was sitting out too long. It may have turned.

    If you were Icelandic you could make a national dish out of it. If they don't flinch at "poisonous shark meat that we buried for three months and then dug up and ate", I think they'd be OK if the potato salad was a bit off.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Options
    rankinsect wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    rankinsect wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MKEgal wrote: »
    queenliz wrote:
    Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
    Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
    Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
    The 4-second rule is a myth.
    Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
    but they'll both have ick.

    http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/

    The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
    And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
    But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
    I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.

    I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years. :)

    rankinsect wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.

    The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.

    Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.

    Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!

    It weirded me out when I was in the USA and there were warnings on cookie dough and the like not to eat it raw because of eggs. Here, no one even bothers to warn you about that and families go to war over who gets to lick the beaters after making cake batter.

    I live on the wild side and always sample the dough or batter of everything I bake. I think it's critical to make sure I didn't mess something up (and equally critical because man, I want it).

    Okay, I am willing to call my eating of raw egg products and medium rare hamburgers "bad food" in that each carries some real risk of food poisoning.

    I have eaten potato salad that was sitting out too long. It may have turned.

    If you were Icelandic you could make a national dish out of it. If they don't flinch at "poisonous shark meat that we buried for three months and then dug up and ate", I think they'd be OK if the potato salad was a bit off.

    They must have strong bacteria in their gut, mine however, was not up to task. Must do more pushups.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    dbrook1967 wrote: »
    I believe in "bad for you foods" processed, sugar, fast food to name a few. There is nutrient value to "bad food" but the risk out weight the reward. Weight gain, heart disease, clogged arteries to name a few. For me personally I would rather stay with clean eating. I do have cheat meals but I have been able to keep them to less than once a week,

    Plenty of foods I consider quite nutritious are processed -- smoked salmon, for example. How does eating smoked salmon cause any of those things?

    As for fast food, I just don't like most of it, but I tend to grab Chipotle when working on a Saturday maybe once every month or two, since it's the most convenient option if I'm too lazy to bring lunch. How does that risk weight gain, etc., if I pay attention to calories and don't eat more than I normally would at lunch? (Plus, there are plenty of reasonably nutritious options.)

    Seems to me that dosage matters, even for foods that should be limited. You simply choose to call your less nutrient rich meals "cheats" whereas I'd say I fit them into my overall week or day.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    dbrook1967 wrote: »
    I believe in "bad for you foods" processed, sugar, fast food to name a few. There is nutrient value to "bad food" but the risk out weight the reward. Weight gain, heart disease, clogged arteries to name a few. For me personally I would rather stay with clean eating. I do have cheat meals but I have been able to keep them to less than once a week,

    In the words of Yoda:
    "Much to learn, you still have."