There are 'BAD' foods
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »i know that anything can be considered processing,(chopping, cooking, baking). i mean the heavy processing with tons of chemicals and additives that you wouldnt normally put on the food that you would cook at home, (McDonalds, cheetos, coke, candy, hot dogs)
Most (probably all) knew what you meant.
of course they do. they're just trying to out witty each other. some questions are probably genuine, but mostly people out for a laugh, which is ok with me
I just get frustrated when people use "processed" or "not natural" as if they meant bad or were on their face bad things. Technological advancements and doing what's not natural (like carting veg in from elsewhere or freezing them) seems to me a huge advantage for those of us in climates that wouldn't have fresh veg available much of the year. It's a sincere point. Same with making lots more fish available to people who live where I do, so on.
Not sure how freezing food is not natural. But I think it's just frustrating when people act as if all foods are equal.
I haven't seen anyone suggesting that foods are all the same (or equal). Saying no foods are inherently "bad" as I think of them doesn't mean that I think they are equal. They are quite different.
Whether they are "processed" or not doesn't seem to me an important difference given how diverse the group of foods that are "processed" is.
And having asparagus easily available in January, at least where I live, whether frozen or carted in from elsewhere, is not "natural" to the extent that "natural" as any real meaning at all (human nature is to figure out how to do stuff like that, after all). It is a positive thing, IMO.
If they aren't equal, then what? Why is it okay to say I eat 80/20 (which is posted on MFP all the time without all the ridicule)? What is the 20 if not foods that aren't as good as those in the 80%. It's just so silly. They are bad foods or worse foods or junk foods. They are foods that shouldn't be the mainstay of your diet.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
There's no guarantee that your cells won't be damaged by non-preservatives or additives either.
If you need a guarantee before eating a food, you won't eat anything.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
Stay home, don't use knives and stay away from fire and electricity.
Probably best to just lie in bed all day.
Then again...the ceiling could cave in too...
And you could get blood clots, bed sores...0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
I agree that you should make choices based on a risk assessment.
I just disagree that the risk is anywhere near the degree where most people, given all known relevant information, would come to the same conclusion.
And ETA: Isn't minimizing (ie - moderating) what many of us have been advocating for all through the thread? It's those that are arguing elimination that are getting the push back.0 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
A lot of places have secret ingredients in their food that aren't disclosed to the public. I have my doubts that beef, salt, and pepper are the only ingredients in McDonald's beef patties.I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Because i prefer my food to be made of food
What part of the 100% beef McDonald's patty is not food? The beef or the beef?
lol. i used to sell natures harvest bread. 100% whole wheat. here are the ingredients
Whole wheat flour, water, cracked wheat, yeast, wheat gluten, sugar, wheat bran, soybean oil, honey, molasses, raisin juice concentrate, salt, mono- and diglycerides, datum, calcium propionate (preservative), grain vinegar, calcium sulfate, monocalcium phosphate, cornstarch, soy lecithin, citric acid, whey, soy flour, nonfat milk.
how is that 100% whole wheat? well, the whole wheat that is in it is 100% whole wheat. lol im sure that the beef in the mcdonalds patty is 100% beef. that doesnt mean its not full of other things
Actually it's just beef, salt and pepper.
Secret ingredients? Care to elaborate? What are they, who uses them, how do you know? Just a hunch? I don't think a company like McDonald's would risk the lawsuit by lying to their billions of customers world wide.
I don't know if you'd call ammonia an ingredient, but I'd call it a factor if you put it in your mouth.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/mcdonalds-use-ammonium-hydroxide-wash-meat-angers-chef-jamie-oliver-theyre-not-only-249387
If I wash an apple with a bit of soap, I still don't include soap in my recipe for apple butter - even though it includes the peel.
The ammonia is a processing agent, and doesn't stick around at levels high enough to be an issue. It's used by most meat processing plants, not just the ones supplying McDonalds.0 -
Please...demonstrate that the risk even exists.ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
If we're going to live by every possible "just in case" that we can conceive, then where's my portable bubble?
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.
This, to me, is why *on MFP* some of us push back on the "bad foods" rhetoric. There are people here who have a disordered relationship with food, who feel their food inherently has some moral value, and is somehow a measure of their human worth. Even when they're not the ones posting, they can be the ones reading. This is a small segment of the MFP population, but a larger segment than we encounter in real life, and they deserve our attention.
. . . because this:lemurcat12 wrote: »
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.
Yes. Language has power. Because I'm one of those icky relativists, I think it only has meaning when we *share* a meaning . . . which we rarely do, beyond the approximate. Therefore, it pays to be careful and thoughtful about audience and impact, not just what we mean when we think a word. I *do* think that trying to be helpful to as wide a range of people as possible *does* have a moral value, especially in a place like this.
For some people, the concept of "bad foods" is helpful. Popular culture gives them endless reinforcement for various loosely-common definitions of "bad foods". I'm happy for them to use those definitions in their heads as a help. For some other people, the concept of "bad foods" is *severely* destructive, and the pop-culture views are bashing their bruises. Here, I think it's helpful to provide some counterweight in the MFP forums.
Throughout this thread, Dianne's and many others' more-nuanced contributions are ignored, in favor of a cutsie-snarky back & forth, cartoon characterizations of others' views by people who probably know better, arguments about specific foods, etc. 'Cause, y'know, y'all are having fun. Swell.
I just want to bump these comments back up again. Because 10 pages later we're circling down a very familiar drain, again.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Please...demonstrate that the risk even exists.ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
If we're going to live by every possible "just in case" that we can conceive, then where's my portable bubble?
I'm sorry...the card said "Moops"
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
JustinAnimal wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
A lot of places have secret ingredients in their food that aren't disclosed to the public. I have my doubts that beef, salt, and pepper are the only ingredients in McDonald's beef patties.I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Because i prefer my food to be made of food
What part of the 100% beef McDonald's patty is not food? The beef or the beef?
lol. i used to sell natures harvest bread. 100% whole wheat. here are the ingredients
Whole wheat flour, water, cracked wheat, yeast, wheat gluten, sugar, wheat bran, soybean oil, honey, molasses, raisin juice concentrate, salt, mono- and diglycerides, datum, calcium propionate (preservative), grain vinegar, calcium sulfate, monocalcium phosphate, cornstarch, soy lecithin, citric acid, whey, soy flour, nonfat milk.
how is that 100% whole wheat? well, the whole wheat that is in it is 100% whole wheat. lol im sure that the beef in the mcdonalds patty is 100% beef. that doesnt mean its not full of other things
Actually it's just beef, salt and pepper.
Secret ingredients? Care to elaborate? What are they, who uses them, how do you know? Just a hunch? I don't think a company like McDonald's would risk the lawsuit by lying to their billions of customers world wide.
I don't know if you'd call ammonia an ingredient, but I'd call it a factor if you put it in your mouth.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/mcdonalds-use-ammonium-hydroxide-wash-meat-angers-chef-jamie-oliver-theyre-not-only-249387
If I wash an apple with a bit of soap, I still don't include soap in my recipe for apple butter - even though it includes the peel.
The ammonia is a processing agent, and doesn't stick around at levels high enough to be an issue. It's used by most meat processing plants, not just the ones supplying McDonalds.
Even the ones providing grass-fed beef for my homemade burgers on bakery baked bread cooked over non-carcinogenic flames???0 -
This content has been removed.
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
Please...demonstrate that the risk even exists.ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
If we're going to live by every possible "just in case" that we can conceive, then where's my portable bubble?
I'm sorry...the card said "Moops"
lol!0 -
I think part of the problem though is that not everyone is on the same page with what constitutes a nutrient dense/healthy food.juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
I agree that you should make choices based on a risk assessment.
I just disagree that the risk is anywhere near the degree where most people, given all known relevant information, would come to the same conclusion.
And ETA: Isn't minimizing (ie - moderating) what many of us have been advocating for all through the thread? It's those that are arguing elimination that are getting the push back.
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »JustinAnimal wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
A lot of places have secret ingredients in their food that aren't disclosed to the public. I have my doubts that beef, salt, and pepper are the only ingredients in McDonald's beef patties.I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Because i prefer my food to be made of food
What part of the 100% beef McDonald's patty is not food? The beef or the beef?
lol. i used to sell natures harvest bread. 100% whole wheat. here are the ingredients
Whole wheat flour, water, cracked wheat, yeast, wheat gluten, sugar, wheat bran, soybean oil, honey, molasses, raisin juice concentrate, salt, mono- and diglycerides, datum, calcium propionate (preservative), grain vinegar, calcium sulfate, monocalcium phosphate, cornstarch, soy lecithin, citric acid, whey, soy flour, nonfat milk.
how is that 100% whole wheat? well, the whole wheat that is in it is 100% whole wheat. lol im sure that the beef in the mcdonalds patty is 100% beef. that doesnt mean its not full of other things
Actually it's just beef, salt and pepper.
Secret ingredients? Care to elaborate? What are they, who uses them, how do you know? Just a hunch? I don't think a company like McDonald's would risk the lawsuit by lying to their billions of customers world wide.
I don't know if you'd call ammonia an ingredient, but I'd call it a factor if you put it in your mouth.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/mcdonalds-use-ammonium-hydroxide-wash-meat-angers-chef-jamie-oliver-theyre-not-only-249387
If I wash an apple with a bit of soap, I still don't include soap in my recipe for apple butter - even though it includes the peel.
The ammonia is a processing agent, and doesn't stick around at levels high enough to be an issue. It's used by most meat processing plants, not just the ones supplying McDonalds.
Even the ones providing grass-fed beef for my homemade burgers on bakery baked bread cooked over non-carcinogenic flames???
Of course not. Those burgers include the bacteria the ammonia would have killed.
ETA
0 -
So would this be good or bad?
Organic = good?
Sand = blech?
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »JustinAnimal wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
A lot of places have secret ingredients in their food that aren't disclosed to the public. I have my doubts that beef, salt, and pepper are the only ingredients in McDonald's beef patties.I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Because i prefer my food to be made of food
What part of the 100% beef McDonald's patty is not food? The beef or the beef?
lol. i used to sell natures harvest bread. 100% whole wheat. here are the ingredients
Whole wheat flour, water, cracked wheat, yeast, wheat gluten, sugar, wheat bran, soybean oil, honey, molasses, raisin juice concentrate, salt, mono- and diglycerides, datum, calcium propionate (preservative), grain vinegar, calcium sulfate, monocalcium phosphate, cornstarch, soy lecithin, citric acid, whey, soy flour, nonfat milk.
how is that 100% whole wheat? well, the whole wheat that is in it is 100% whole wheat. lol im sure that the beef in the mcdonalds patty is 100% beef. that doesnt mean its not full of other things
Actually it's just beef, salt and pepper.
Secret ingredients? Care to elaborate? What are they, who uses them, how do you know? Just a hunch? I don't think a company like McDonald's would risk the lawsuit by lying to their billions of customers world wide.
I don't know if you'd call ammonia an ingredient, but I'd call it a factor if you put it in your mouth.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/mcdonalds-use-ammonium-hydroxide-wash-meat-angers-chef-jamie-oliver-theyre-not-only-249387
If I wash an apple with a bit of soap, I still don't include soap in my recipe for apple butter - even though it includes the peel.
The ammonia is a processing agent, and doesn't stick around at levels high enough to be an issue. It's used by most meat processing plants, not just the ones supplying McDonalds.
Even the ones providing grass-fed beef for my homemade burgers on bakery baked bread cooked over non-carcinogenic flames???
Of course not. Those burgers include the bacteria the ammonia would have killed.
On that note, I read an interesting opinion piece suggesting this was at least a reason Chipotle was having all of their food-borne illness issues of late.0 -
Prior to the past 100 years (and certainly 200 years), none of our ancestors ate foods like that. So that's a huge chunk of mankind that has never eaten foods with that kind of stuff. Even if science hasn't definitively proven that those things are harmful for us, logically it makes sense to me that maybe we shouldn't be eating artificial stuff manufactured just to enhance the color or flavor of something.Carlos_421 wrote: »
Please...demonstrate that the risk even exists.ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
If we're going to live by every possible "just in case" that we can conceive, then where's my portable bubble?
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Prior to the past 100 years (and certainly 200 years), none of our ancestors ate foods like that. So that's a huge chunk of mankind that has never eaten foods with that kind of stuff. Even if science hasn't definitively proven that those things are harmful for us, logically it makes sense to me that maybe we shouldn't be eating artificial stuff manufactured just to enhance the color or flavor of something.Carlos_421 wrote: »
Please...demonstrate that the risk even exists.ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
If we're going to live by every possible "just in case" that we can conceive, then where's my portable bubble?
Ok, so how about reasonable cause for suspicion?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Prior to the past 100 years (and certainly 200 years), none of our ancestors ate foods like that. So that's a huge chunk of mankind that has never eaten foods with that kind of stuff. Even if science hasn't definitively proven that those things are harmful for us, logically it makes sense to me that maybe we shouldn't be eating artificial stuff manufactured just to enhance the color or flavor of something.Carlos_421 wrote: »
Please...demonstrate that the risk even exists.ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
If we're going to live by every possible "just in case" that we can conceive, then where's my portable bubble?
That's not how logic works.
Of course, there's also the observation that average life spans are increasing, not decreasing, despite the increase consumption of these ingredients.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
Stay home, don't use knives and stay away from fire and electricity.
And wear a filtration mask whenever you go outside, because teh toxinzzz in the air we breathe. Not to mention the chances of getting hit by a car, struck by lightning (and poisoned by the ozone associated with it), skin cancer from sun exposure, toxinzzz leaching into your skin from the clothes you wear, etc. And don't ever drink from municipal water sources because, you know, teh toxinzzz. In fact, why would you wash your homegrown, organically farmed veggies with that municipal water that many crackpots say is poisoned and bad for you?
Something is going to kill all of us eventually. I'll avoid the obvious ones, but I'm not going to creep around in fear of anything and everything that has even the slightest, most remote (albeit scientifically unproven) chance that it might cause damage to me.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I could be wrong on that, but it's not like they haven't been previously sued for providing misinformation regarding their ingredients for other products. In summary, I would say you just never know sometimes.I_Will_End_You wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
A lot of places have secret ingredients in their food that aren't disclosed to the public. I have my doubts that beef, salt, and pepper are the only ingredients in McDonald's beef patties.I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Because i prefer my food to be made of food
What part of the 100% beef McDonald's patty is not food? The beef or the beef?
lol. i used to sell natures harvest bread. 100% whole wheat. here are the ingredients
Whole wheat flour, water, cracked wheat, yeast, wheat gluten, sugar, wheat bran, soybean oil, honey, molasses, raisin juice concentrate, salt, mono- and diglycerides, datum, calcium propionate (preservative), grain vinegar, calcium sulfate, monocalcium phosphate, cornstarch, soy lecithin, citric acid, whey, soy flour, nonfat milk.
how is that 100% whole wheat? well, the whole wheat that is in it is 100% whole wheat. lol im sure that the beef in the mcdonalds patty is 100% beef. that doesnt mean its not full of other things
Actually it's just beef, salt and pepper.
Secret ingredients? Care to elaborate? What are they, who uses them, how do you know? Just a hunch? I don't think a company like McDonald's would risk the lawsuit by lying to their billions of customers world wide.
So you don't know that restaurants have secret ingredients in their food, you just think they do?
I don't think something mislabeled prior to 2002 really constitutes as proof to back up your point. Laws with food and ingredient labeling have changed drastically.
It baffles me to think that people are so damned determined that food purchased from a restaurant is somehow "not real food".0 -
I_Will_End_You wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I could be wrong on that, but it's not like they haven't been previously sued for providing misinformation regarding their ingredients for other products. In summary, I would say you just never know sometimes.I_Will_End_You wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
A lot of places have secret ingredients in their food that aren't disclosed to the public. I have my doubts that beef, salt, and pepper are the only ingredients in McDonald's beef patties.I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Because i prefer my food to be made of food
What part of the 100% beef McDonald's patty is not food? The beef or the beef?
lol. i used to sell natures harvest bread. 100% whole wheat. here are the ingredients
Whole wheat flour, water, cracked wheat, yeast, wheat gluten, sugar, wheat bran, soybean oil, honey, molasses, raisin juice concentrate, salt, mono- and diglycerides, datum, calcium propionate (preservative), grain vinegar, calcium sulfate, monocalcium phosphate, cornstarch, soy lecithin, citric acid, whey, soy flour, nonfat milk.
how is that 100% whole wheat? well, the whole wheat that is in it is 100% whole wheat. lol im sure that the beef in the mcdonalds patty is 100% beef. that doesnt mean its not full of other things
Actually it's just beef, salt and pepper.
Secret ingredients? Care to elaborate? What are they, who uses them, how do you know? Just a hunch? I don't think a company like McDonald's would risk the lawsuit by lying to their billions of customers world wide.
So you don't know that restaurants have secret ingredients in their food, you just think they do?
I don't think something mislabeled prior to 2002 really constitutes as proof to back up your point. Laws with food and ingredient labeling have changed drastically.
It baffles me to think that people are so damned determined that food purchased from a restaurant is somehow "not real food".
Not to mention it wasn't a missing ingredient, just the incorrect assumption/declaration that one of the ingredients was vegetarian-friendly0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Prior to the past 100 years (and certainly 200 years), none of our ancestors ate foods like that. So that's a huge chunk of mankind that has never eaten foods with that kind of stuff. Even if science hasn't definitively proven that those things are harmful for us, logically it makes sense to me that maybe we shouldn't be eating artificial stuff manufactured just to enhance the color or flavor of something.Carlos_421 wrote: »
Please...demonstrate that the risk even exists.ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
If we're going to live by every possible "just in case" that we can conceive, then where's my portable bubble?
That's not how logic works.
Of course, there's also the observation that average life spans are increasing, not decreasing, despite the increase consumption of these ingredients.
And using the same false logic, we should also be living in caves or grass huts, cooking everything outdoors over open fires, walking everywhere we go instead of using cars/mass transit (our ancestors didn't have them, you know) and using leeches to cure diseases instead of medicine.0 -
Well, if we DID have to walk everywhere, life would be quite a bit different, wouldn't it? Eating local stuff would be the norm, we wouldn't have to "go" someplace to get exercise, and it would be (in some cases) easier to grow/can/make your own food than have to walk X miles to get something to eat. !!! But right, progress has changed all that and now it's a "thing" to try to eat local food, and to try to get exercise... not a bad thing - but we can't always know what that restaurant does behind closed doors. I tend to believe they cook like (hopefully better than!) I do - and I don't expect them to give me all the micro-facts about what they serve....
But I do think often about "I can't believe I have to create time in my day to get exercise" - when our ancestors - that's ALL they did all day was physical work just to survive. Good and bad, all of the above!!!0 -
Yes, so true.Well, if we DID have to walk everywhere, life would be quite a bit different, wouldn't it? Eating local stuff would be the norm, we wouldn't have to "go" someplace to get exercise, and it would be (in some cases) easier to grow/can/make your own food than have to walk X miles to get something to eat. !!! But right, progress has changed all that and now it's a "thing" to try to eat local food, and to try to get exercise... not a bad thing - but we can't always know what that restaurant does behind closed doors. I tend to believe they cook like (hopefully better than!) I do - and I don't expect them to give me all the micro-facts about what they serve....
But I do think often about "I can't believe I have to create time in my day to get exercise" - when our ancestors - that's ALL they did all day was physical work just to survive. Good and bad, all of the above!!!
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »i know that anything can be considered processing,(chopping, cooking, baking). i mean the heavy processing with tons of chemicals and additives that you wouldnt normally put on the food that you would cook at home, (McDonalds, cheetos, coke, candy, hot dogs)
And again...the important question is...why?
I mean if it's a choice you're making for yourself...I got no issues. But when making blanket recommendations for others to follow, the "why" suddenly becomes a lot more important.
I just trust food with less chemicals in it. I don't care if they haven't been proven harmful. I just trust that the closer food is to its natural form, the better it is for you, usually.( i know, meat, bread, juice, yadayada) absolutely not scientific in anyway, never claimed it was
Pure natural form:
Again...there's a HUGE difference between saying YOU choose not to eat things for personal reasons/beliefs and:Of course there are bad foods. Foods with artificial dyes, unnatural chemicals, cancer causing agents, artificial sweetners.some of these are bad at any amount.
Are those mushrooms "food"?
Some people had to suffer for them to not be considered that anymore. I think that was about your quote, yes?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »i know that anything can be considered processing,(chopping, cooking, baking). i mean the heavy processing with tons of chemicals and additives that you wouldnt normally put on the food that you would cook at home, (McDonalds, cheetos, coke, candy, hot dogs)
Most (probably all) knew what you meant.
of course they do. they're just trying to out witty each other. some questions are probably genuine, but mostly people out for a laugh, which is ok with me
I just get frustrated when people use "processed" or "not natural" as if they meant bad or were on their face bad things. Technological advancements and doing what's not natural (like carting veg in from elsewhere or freezing them) seems to me a huge advantage for those of us in climates that wouldn't have fresh veg available much of the year. It's a sincere point. Same with making lots more fish available to people who live where I do, so on.
Not sure how freezing food is not natural. But I think it's just frustrating when people act as if all foods are equal.
I haven't seen anyone suggesting that foods are all the same (or equal). Saying no foods are inherently "bad" as I think of them doesn't mean that I think they are equal. They are quite different.
Whether they are "processed" or not doesn't seem to me an important difference given how diverse the group of foods that are "processed" is.
And having asparagus easily available in January, at least where I live, whether frozen or carted in from elsewhere, is not "natural" to the extent that "natural" as any real meaning at all (human nature is to figure out how to do stuff like that, after all). It is a positive thing, IMO.
If they aren't equal, then what? Why is it okay to say I eat 80/20 (which is posted on MFP all the time without all the ridicule)? What is the 20 if not foods that aren't as good as those in the 80%. It's just so silly. They are bad foods or worse foods or junk foods. They are foods that shouldn't be the mainstay of your diet.
If they are in one's diet on a consistent basis, even if for only 20% of time, would they still not be a mainstay? They could be important to keep one sane and be able to adhere their diet goals. So yes, those nutrient dense foods are the 80, and 20 percent are the the foods you enjoy, regardless of macros. Still doesn't make them bad. Just different.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »i know that anything can be considered processing,(chopping, cooking, baking). i mean the heavy processing with tons of chemicals and additives that you wouldnt normally put on the food that you would cook at home, (McDonalds, cheetos, coke, candy, hot dogs)
Most (probably all) knew what you meant.
of course they do. they're just trying to out witty each other. some questions are probably genuine, but mostly people out for a laugh, which is ok with me
I just get frustrated when people use "processed" or "not natural" as if they meant bad or were on their face bad things. Technological advancements and doing what's not natural (like carting veg in from elsewhere or freezing them) seems to me a huge advantage for those of us in climates that wouldn't have fresh veg available much of the year. It's a sincere point. Same with making lots more fish available to people who live where I do, so on.
Not sure how freezing food is not natural. But I think it's just frustrating when people act as if all foods are equal.
I haven't seen anyone suggesting that foods are all the same (or equal). Saying no foods are inherently "bad" as I think of them doesn't mean that I think they are equal. They are quite different.
Whether they are "processed" or not doesn't seem to me an important difference given how diverse the group of foods that are "processed" is.
And having asparagus easily available in January, at least where I live, whether frozen or carted in from elsewhere, is not "natural" to the extent that "natural" as any real meaning at all (human nature is to figure out how to do stuff like that, after all). It is a positive thing, IMO.
If they aren't equal, then what? Why is it okay to say I eat 80/20 (which is posted on MFP all the time without all the ridicule)? What is the 20 if not foods that aren't as good as those in the 80%. It's just so silly. They are bad foods or worse foods or junk foods. They are foods that shouldn't be the mainstay of your diet.
If they are in one's diet on a consistent basis, even if for only 20% of time, would they still not be a mainstay? They could be important to keep one sane and be able to adhere their diet goals. So yes, those nutrient dense foods are the 80, and 20 percent are the the foods you enjoy, regardless of macros. Still doesn't make them bad. Just different.
Too bad this simple concept seems to be lost on so many. This thread wouldn't have existed otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lpNS3Jd37k
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »i know that anything can be considered processing,(chopping, cooking, baking). i mean the heavy processing with tons of chemicals and additives that you wouldnt normally put on the food that you would cook at home, (McDonalds, cheetos, coke, candy, hot dogs)
Most (probably all) knew what you meant.
of course they do. they're just trying to out witty each other. some questions are probably genuine, but mostly people out for a laugh, which is ok with me
I just get frustrated when people use "processed" or "not natural" as if they meant bad or were on their face bad things. Technological advancements and doing what's not natural (like carting veg in from elsewhere or freezing them) seems to me a huge advantage for those of us in climates that wouldn't have fresh veg available much of the year. It's a sincere point. Same with making lots more fish available to people who live where I do, so on.
Not sure how freezing food is not natural. But I think it's just frustrating when people act as if all foods are equal.
I haven't seen anyone suggesting that foods are all the same (or equal). Saying no foods are inherently "bad" as I think of them doesn't mean that I think they are equal. They are quite different.
Whether they are "processed" or not doesn't seem to me an important difference given how diverse the group of foods that are "processed" is.
And having asparagus easily available in January, at least where I live, whether frozen or carted in from elsewhere, is not "natural" to the extent that "natural" as any real meaning at all (human nature is to figure out how to do stuff like that, after all). It is a positive thing, IMO.
If they aren't equal, then what? Why is it okay to say I eat 80/20 (which is posted on MFP all the time without all the ridicule)? What is the 20 if not foods that aren't as good as those in the 80%. It's just so silly. They are bad foods or worse foods or junk foods. They are foods that shouldn't be the mainstay of your diet.
I have not said people shouldn't use the term "bad food," so I don't know what you are arguing here. I said in another ongoing thread (and I think in this one) that I use the term "junk food" sometimes. To me "good food" would refer to taste, but if someone else wants to use it differently, I do not care.
What I am arguing against is OP's assertion that we all should admit there are bad foods and that we all secretly know there is. That is false. For some of us that doesn't make sense or it is better not to think of them that way. There are foods I don't eat (I wouldn't buy pasta sauce in a jar, because I'm a snob and picky about certain things), but I don't assert that such pasta sauce is therefore "bad" or that my choices are better for anyone but me.
As for foods not being equal, that has nothing to do with inherent goodness or badness in my mind. Broccoli and chicken are very different and there are times when chicken might be a poor choice and broccoli a good choice or vice versa (usually broccoli would be a fine choice, unless you were making yourself so full you couldn't eat something else you needed). From the perspective of nutrients and calories, broccoli is usually a better choice than cheese or ice cream or a glass of wine. I just don't see how being less nutrient dense (or even low in nutrients) makes a food inherently "bad" or always a bad choice.
I don't care if you do see bad and not nutrient dense as synonyms. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't think of it that way. It's just not a way of thinking of it that makes sense to me. To me "bad" suggests "should not be eaten, ever."0 -
oyChihuahua wrote: »Can bad foods be forgiven, like if they go to confession or something?
Some. But not sugar. Sugar is Satan, remember.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions