There are 'BAD' foods
Options
Replies
-
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 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?
Baddies??? The hot chocolate I am drinking has 30% calcium, and 90 calories. Again not bad or what you call (baddies) I think youve ran this thread to the point of begging for attention.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »
The 4-second rule is a myth.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.
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.
Never stopped licking batter or sampling small amounts of dough when I bake- never gotten sick from it in 41 years. I don't eat a giant amount raw because I think it is better cooked- and easy to go over calories with too much sampling.
They put warnings on store bought dough so they can't be sued. I don't think it really stops people from eating it raw.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »ClicquotBubbles wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
When did that happen? I must have totally missed it and I do read the Daily Fail. Surely it would have been a headline?
It was on the BBC morning and evening news about a week ago.
Most of these studies are crap. They can't agree on what's bad for you and what isn't. One minute eggs, wine and coffee are bad for you, the next minute they have health benefits.
One minute high fat food will give you a heart attack, the next it's anything with trans fats.
Until they stop doing half assed studies, eat and drink in moderation and you're much better off.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have to say, good job! I guess it's fair to say that without potatoes (whether white or sweet), it's quite a challenge, considering that made up almost one quarter of your total intake.HappyCampr1 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'd love to see a diary of someone who is getting in 4700 mg of potassium from food alone.
Not quite there, but since I thought I should be aiming for 3600 as listed in my goals I feel pretty good about this. Considering I'm eating at a pound a week loss at this intake, I think this is pretty darned close to your request. I'm sure if I had more calories I could have squeezed an additional couple hundred mg of potassium into my day. Or maybe I should have skipped my Tostitos and leftover Christmas cookie and eaten another banana. If I'd known there would be a test, I might have considered that.
Those are bad right? Potatoes I mean? Or only when they are potato chips. I get confused...WinoGelato 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 value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
The bolded part is really the crux of the argument. I just finished dinner. Chicken, roast potatoes (even purple ones!) and green beans. I have 400 cals left. I'm either going to eat some ice cream or have a glass of wine with a cookie. When I get done, I will absolutely not think that I shouldn't have eaten them. I will think that I had a really tasty, balanced day.
I took a look at your food log, as I want to see how people are fitting in "treats/bad foods" on lower calorie diets. I looked back a week or so and didn't see one serving of fruit and very few vegetables but usually 25%+ of daily calories from nutrient sparse foods like cookies, wine, ice cream, etc.
Not to pick on this poster, as I think this has to be fairly common case when someone is eating 400 or so calories of treats on less than 2000 calories a day.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have to say, good job! I guess it's fair to say that without potatoes (whether white or sweet), it's quite a challenge, considering that made up almost one quarter of your total intake.HappyCampr1 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'd love to see a diary of someone who is getting in 4700 mg of potassium from food alone.
Not quite there, but since I thought I should be aiming for 3600 as listed in my goals I feel pretty good about this. Considering I'm eating at a pound a week loss at this intake, I think this is pretty darned close to your request. I'm sure if I had more calories I could have squeezed an additional couple hundred mg of potassium into my day. Or maybe I should have skipped my Tostitos and leftover Christmas cookie and eaten another banana. If I'd known there would be a test, I might have considered that.
Those are bad right? Potatoes I mean? Or only when they are potato chips. I get confused...WinoGelato 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 value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
The bolded part is really the crux of the argument. I just finished dinner. Chicken, roast potatoes (even purple ones!) and green beans. I have 400 cals left. I'm either going to eat some ice cream or have a glass of wine with a cookie. When I get done, I will absolutely not think that I shouldn't have eaten them. I will think that I had a really tasty, balanced day.
I took a look at your food log, as I want to see how people are fitting in "treats/bad foods" on lower calorie diets. I looked back a week or so and didn't see one serving of fruit and very few vegetables but usually 25%+ of daily calories from nutrient sparse foods like cookies, wine, ice cream, etc.
Not to pick on this poster, as I think this has to be fairly common case when someone is eating 400 or so calories of treats on less than 2000 calories a day.
Why would you think this would be common? Vegetables have very few calories and would be easy to fit into one's calorie allotment with calories to spare (12 ounces of broccoli, for example, have about 120 calories). Are you saying that people are skipping vegetables to make room for cookies, wine, and ice cream?
I think it's more logical that some people may not ENJOY vegetables as much as others do. It isn't that they are skipping them to make room for treats.0 -
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 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?
Baddies??? The hot chocolate I am drinking has 30% calcium, and 90 calories. Again not bad or what you call (baddies) I think youve ran this thread to the point of begging for attention.
That must be some gritty hot chocolate.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have to say, good job! I guess it's fair to say that without potatoes (whether white or sweet), it's quite a challenge, considering that made up almost one quarter of your total intake.HappyCampr1 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'd love to see a diary of someone who is getting in 4700 mg of potassium from food alone.
Not quite there, but since I thought I should be aiming for 3600 as listed in my goals I feel pretty good about this. Considering I'm eating at a pound a week loss at this intake, I think this is pretty darned close to your request. I'm sure if I had more calories I could have squeezed an additional couple hundred mg of potassium into my day. Or maybe I should have skipped my Tostitos and leftover Christmas cookie and eaten another banana. If I'd known there would be a test, I might have considered that.
Those are bad right? Potatoes I mean? Or only when they are potato chips. I get confused...WinoGelato 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 value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
The bolded part is really the crux of the argument. I just finished dinner. Chicken, roast potatoes (even purple ones!) and green beans. I have 400 cals left. I'm either going to eat some ice cream or have a glass of wine with a cookie. When I get done, I will absolutely not think that I shouldn't have eaten them. I will think that I had a really tasty, balanced day.
I took a look at your food log, as I want to see how people are fitting in "treats/bad foods" on lower calorie diets. I looked back a week or so and didn't see one serving of fruit and very few vegetables but usually 25%+ of daily calories from nutrient sparse foods like cookies, wine, ice cream, etc.
Not to pick on this poster, as I think this has to be fairly common case when someone is eating 400 or so calories of treats on less than 2000 calories a day.
To be clear, he isn't talking about me even though I'm quoted0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have to say, good job! I guess it's fair to say that without potatoes (whether white or sweet), it's quite a challenge, considering that made up almost one quarter of your total intake.HappyCampr1 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'd love to see a diary of someone who is getting in 4700 mg of potassium from food alone.
Not quite there, but since I thought I should be aiming for 3600 as listed in my goals I feel pretty good about this. Considering I'm eating at a pound a week loss at this intake, I think this is pretty darned close to your request. I'm sure if I had more calories I could have squeezed an additional couple hundred mg of potassium into my day. Or maybe I should have skipped my Tostitos and leftover Christmas cookie and eaten another banana. If I'd known there would be a test, I might have considered that.
Those are bad right? Potatoes I mean? Or only when they are potato chips. I get confused...WinoGelato 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 value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
The bolded part is really the crux of the argument. I just finished dinner. Chicken, roast potatoes (even purple ones!) and green beans. I have 400 cals left. I'm either going to eat some ice cream or have a glass of wine with a cookie. When I get done, I will absolutely not think that I shouldn't have eaten them. I will think that I had a really tasty, balanced day.
I took a look at your food log, as I want to see how people are fitting in "treats/bad foods" on lower calorie diets. I looked back a week or so and didn't see one serving of fruit and very few vegetables but usually 25%+ of daily calories from nutrient sparse foods like cookies, wine, ice cream, etc.
Not to pick on this poster, as I think this has to be fairly common case when someone is eating 400 or so calories of treats on less than 2000 calories a day.
Funny you should mention this. Today I was actually able to fit two snack items, not just one.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have to say, good job! I guess it's fair to say that without potatoes (whether white or sweet), it's quite a challenge, considering that made up almost one quarter of your total intake.HappyCampr1 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'd love to see a diary of someone who is getting in 4700 mg of potassium from food alone.
Not quite there, but since I thought I should be aiming for 3600 as listed in my goals I feel pretty good about this. Considering I'm eating at a pound a week loss at this intake, I think this is pretty darned close to your request. I'm sure if I had more calories I could have squeezed an additional couple hundred mg of potassium into my day. Or maybe I should have skipped my Tostitos and leftover Christmas cookie and eaten another banana. If I'd known there would be a test, I might have considered that.
Those are bad right? Potatoes I mean? Or only when they are potato chips. I get confused...WinoGelato 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 value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
The bolded part is really the crux of the argument. I just finished dinner. Chicken, roast potatoes (even purple ones!) and green beans. I have 400 cals left. I'm either going to eat some ice cream or have a glass of wine with a cookie. When I get done, I will absolutely not think that I shouldn't have eaten them. I will think that I had a really tasty, balanced day.
I took a look at your food log, as I want to see how people are fitting in "treats/bad foods" on lower calorie diets. I looked back a week or so and didn't see one serving of fruit and very few vegetables but usually 25%+ of daily calories from nutrient sparse foods like cookies, wine, ice cream, etc.
Not to pick on this poster, as I think this has to be fairly common case when someone is eating 400 or so calories of treats on less than 2000 calories a day.
To be clear, he isn't talking about me even though I'm quoted
No he's talking about me. I was a super picky eater as a child (a karmic fact that is coming around to haunt me now with my own children). I never ate fruits or vegetables, and I still don't eat a lot of fruit, especially in winter. I've worked as an adult and especially in the last couple of years since finding MFP to try to eat more vegetables and more different types of foods. Am I perfect, hardly. I do enjoy treats (usually wine, some small sweet treat daily) but as Janejellyroll pointed out, it's not that I'm sacrificing the veggies and going for ice cream instead. I've worked to make my diet healthier in the last few years, along with meeting my weight loss goals. I will continue to improve it during maintenance.
It always baffles me in these discussions on here that people think in such absolutes or extreme examples. You're either eating entirely "clean" or you must be eating a diet of nothing but "junk". A can of Coke had 150 cals and little nutritional value, why not go for broccoli instead (a comparison from another thread yesterday). As if a thirsty person would say, "hey maybe I should wash this hamburger down with broccoli instead of a soda".
I think my diet is fairly representative of the average person - I like to cook but am a busy working mom so I rely on convenience foods when I don't have time. Many of those are things like Greek yogurt, frozen vegetables, and even the dreaded frozen meal. I try to eat vegetables daily but on days when I'm shuffling the kids to birthday parties, sporting events, and then coming home to watch the NFL playoffs you're going to see a lot more frozen pizza and beer than whole foods in my diary. I don't usually eat waffles and bacon for breakfast but on a day my husband wants to make a big breakfast, I'm definitely going to enjoy it.
It doesn't change the fact that I think labeling food as good or bad is not helpful to a person. In the meantime, I'm going to go finish my workout and then eat a frozen egg white and spinach breakfast sandwich on my way to work. I might throw in some of the leftover bacon from yesterday. Cos bacon.0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »Why do people have to black and white about this? All food is good. All of it.
Oh and I suppose your statement isn't black and white.
0 -
food is neither good or bad. however, some food is more nutritious than others.0
-
GuitarJerry wrote: »Why do people have to black and white about this? All food is good. All of it.
You haven't tasted vegemite.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »Why do people have to black and white about this? All food is good. All of it.
You haven't tasted vegemite.
Touché0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »Why do people have to black and white about this? All food is good. All of it.
You haven't tasted vegemite.
or cottage cheese, celery, avocados, olives
0 -
Don't use government pronouncements as a basis for foods that are "good", "bad", or otherwise.
Those statements are not based on science, they are based in Politics. Everything they say and do is the result of a lobbyist writing a check.
0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »Why do people have to black and white about this? All food is good. All of it.
You haven't tasted vegemite.
or cottage cheese, celery, avocados, olives
lies.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »Why do people have to black and white about this? All food is good. All of it.
You haven't tasted vegemite.
or cottage cheese, celery, avocados, olives
I was starting to like you
but now, without these foods 
life is incomplete without olives. They really aren't the pits.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »Why do people have to black and white about this? All food is good. All of it.
You haven't tasted vegemite.
or cottage cheese, celery, avocados, olives
I was starting to like you but now, without these foods life is incomplete without olives. They really aren't the pits.
Olive you.
0 -
you guys are making me laugh. honestly if i was on a desert island with cottage cheese, celery, avocados, olives. i would eat the sand. ha
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 981 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions