There are 'BAD' foods
Options
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
And want you to purchase their products.
Totally missed the point!
This is ironic. I think YOU are the one missing the point. You are taking your direction from both for profit businesses, like WW and Slimming World, as well as not for profit but certainly not totally unbiased organizations like the article you listed earlier stating that eating bacon every day causes cancer.
You seem to want to form all your opinions based on (compelling) statements from large organizations (which certainly have bias and ulterior motives to convince people to follow their direction) and hold those as absolute truths. Many people in this thread have pointed out to you that the subjectivity and variability in those opinions makes them largely unhelpful as clear, defining terms which can be objectively applied across a population.
It's fine if you want to call things "naughty" and use that as a means to help control your food intake. What is not fine is insisting that the rest of us are somehow deluded or dishonest if we don't also use that terminology to describe our own food choices.
Other people feel as I do, so it's not 'the rest of us' but OK you don't use my terminology and I wont use yours.
You are largely ignoring the majority of my post and fixating on one phrase in one sentence so that you can leave a sound bite response and move on. That seems to be a recurring theme throughout this thread, as @AnnPT77 points out...
Yup, my earlier comments regarding emotional connections to foods through labels have gone unaddressed as well. While not everyone makes these connections, I feel that many people who are trying to sift through all the hype and fallacies being put out there through sensationalization and misappropriation of studies are only harmed by continuing this use of labeling foods. Once I stopped labelling foods, I was able to better recognize that my choices were not a failure but simply choices. Dissociating the emotional connection with food was incredibly helpful in making successful changes. Of course, N=1, so take that for what it's worth.
All of this. And it seems to derail a lot of newbies, in my experience. How many times do we see the "I screwed up and I'm a failure at dieting" posts around here? For some of those newbies, getting them to think in more neutral terms and log the "bad" food to see that it's not all that damaging is a game changer. I recognize that it doesn't work the same for everyone, but the OP that sparked this conversation is all about applying the bad foods label to everyone or insisting that everyone must have a list of them. It's just not productive.
I do feel like this is a part that is getting missed. OP seems to be implying that most people can assign value judgments to food without feeling said value judgment about food. I'm going to suggest that that is not the case, and I think, if I'm reading it correctly, many other posters here are getting at this as well.
A lot of people do feel guilt and negative emotions when doing something they have labelled as "bad." To be so dismissive of this is confusing at best.0 -
MommyL2015 wrote: »lets stop labeling foods good or bad and lets just enjoy life YOLO..
I've lived long enough to know I can do both.So I just haven't lived long enough is what you're saying. Holy dismissive posts, Batman.IF you think no one can label foods good or bad and live a happy life, then yes.
Maybe I am reading that wrong.
Oh, wait, I did read that wrong. It just read very strangely. That's what I get for trying to piece together parts of a thread. LOL
I think the confusion comes in because diannethegeek (if my memory is correct) was saying that it was dismissive to suggest that everyone should use the term "bad food" or to ignore the fact that it's a bad way for many of us to think about food. Need2 responded as if dianne was saying that applied to everyone, when of course she was not.
Personally, I don't use the term "bad food." I'm prone to guilt about stupid stuff and to me thinking about food based on nutrition and logic and not appeals to morals or emotion is helpful, and saying something is "bad" to me means I should not ever partake. Also, I've seen lots of people messed up due to black and white thinking about food or guilt/shame about food.
I do not think this is the case for everyone, and do not mind if others use the term "good food" and "bad food" unless they seem to assume that everyone agrees on what those foods are or know what they mean.
My disagreement with OP is not that she uses the term herself, but that she has indicated that it is a term that we all secretly use or should use, that we all should agree to use the term -- "So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods."
Also, it may be inconsistent, but I don't have an issue with the casual use of "junk food" by me or anyone else. I think it's sufficiently in the lexicon that junk isn't taken all that literally or seriously and that it normally just means high cal/lower nutrient foods (although there seems to be some degree of ambiguity, as even that reference to the original usage indicates).
I continue to think "clean" in reference to food is idiotic and annoying jargon, but I concede that's particially just my thing. I also hate "impactful," "journey" for dieting, and the current bizarre prevalence of "packed" (lately everyone wants to pack in nutrients or talks about foods being packed with nutrients or, on the other hand, calories, it seems). But I admit I can be a crank.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
And want you to purchase their products.
Totally missed the point!
This is ironic. I think YOU are the one missing the point. You are taking your direction from both for profit businesses, like WW and Slimming World, as well as not for profit but certainly not totally unbiased organizations like the article you listed earlier stating that eating bacon every day causes cancer.
You seem to want to form all your opinions based on (compelling) statements from large organizations (which certainly have bias and ulterior motives to convince people to follow their direction) and hold those as absolute truths. Many people in this thread have pointed out to you that the subjectivity and variability in those opinions makes them largely unhelpful as clear, defining terms which can be objectively applied across a population.
It's fine if you want to call things "naughty" and use that as a means to help control your food intake. What is not fine is insisting that the rest of us are somehow deluded or dishonest if we don't also use that terminology to describe our own food choices.
Other people feel as I do, so it's not 'the rest of us' but OK you don't use my terminology and I wont use yours.
You are largely ignoring the majority of my post and fixating on one phrase in one sentence so that you can leave a sound bite response and move on. That seems to be a recurring theme throughout this thread, as @AnnPT77 points out...
Yup, my earlier comments regarding emotional connections to foods through labels have gone unaddressed as well. While not everyone makes these connections, I feel that many people who are trying to sift through all the hype and fallacies being put out there through sensationalization and misappropriation of studies are only harmed by continuing this use of labeling foods. Once I stopped labelling foods, I was able to better recognize that my choices were not a failure but simply choices. Dissociating the emotional connection with food was incredibly helpful in making successful changes. Of course, N=1, so take that for what it's worth.
All of this. And it seems to derail a lot of newbies, in my experience. How many times do we see the "I screwed up and I'm a failure at dieting" posts around here? For some of those newbies, getting them to think in more neutral terms and log the "bad" food to see that it's not all that damaging is a game changer. I recognize that it doesn't work the same for everyone, but the OP that sparked this conversation is all about applying the bad foods label to everyone or insisting that everyone must have a list of them. It's just not productive.
I have no idea if this is true of the OP or not, but I agree it would not be productive. Just as insisting that everyone should not use the terms is not productive.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
And want you to purchase their products.
Totally missed the point!
This is ironic. I think YOU are the one missing the point. You are taking your direction from both for profit businesses, like WW and Slimming World, as well as not for profit but certainly not totally unbiased organizations like the article you listed earlier stating that eating bacon every day causes cancer.
You seem to want to form all your opinions based on (compelling) statements from large organizations (which certainly have bias and ulterior motives to convince people to follow their direction) and hold those as absolute truths. Many people in this thread have pointed out to you that the subjectivity and variability in those opinions makes them largely unhelpful as clear, defining terms which can be objectively applied across a population.
It's fine if you want to call things "naughty" and use that as a means to help control your food intake. What is not fine is insisting that the rest of us are somehow deluded or dishonest if we don't also use that terminology to describe our own food choices.
Other people feel as I do, so it's not 'the rest of us' but OK you don't use my terminology and I wont use yours.
You are largely ignoring the majority of my post and fixating on one phrase in one sentence so that you can leave a sound bite response and move on. That seems to be a recurring theme throughout this thread, as @AnnPT77 points out...
Yup, my earlier comments regarding emotional connections to foods through labels have gone unaddressed as well. While not everyone makes these connections, I feel that many people who are trying to sift through all the hype and fallacies being put out there through sensationalization and misappropriation of studies are only harmed by continuing this use of labeling foods. Once I stopped labelling foods, I was able to better recognize that my choices were not a failure but simply choices. Dissociating the emotional connection with food was incredibly helpful in making successful changes. Of course, N=1, so take that for what it's worth.
All of this. And it seems to derail a lot of newbies, in my experience. How many times do we see the "I screwed up and I'm a failure at dieting" posts around here? For some of those newbies, getting them to think in more neutral terms and log the "bad" food to see that it's not all that damaging is a game changer. I recognize that it doesn't work the same for everyone, but the OP that sparked this conversation is all about applying the bad foods label to everyone or insisting that everyone must have a list of them. It's just not productive.
I do feel like this is a part that is getting missed. OP seems to be implying that most people can assign value judgments to food without feeling said value judgment about food. I'm going to suggest that that is not the case, and I think, if I'm reading it correctly, many other posters here are getting at this as well.
A lot of people do feel guilt and negative emotions when doing something they have labelled as "bad." To be so dismissive of this is confusing at best.
Yes, this.0 -
A random thought. I decided to try a protein smoothie recipe. It was nice, but it wasn't worth the 400 calories it had, predominantly from nutrient rich sources. At the end of the day when wished I had saved more calories for sunflower seeds I instantly regretted the smoothie, not the twix bar I had earlier, because I spent calories on something that wasn't filling and wasn't amazing enough to justify the calories. I ended up going over my allowance. I wished I had half the portion. That was my bad food for the day because it had a bad effect on my diet.
I understand what most people mean by bad food, but that doesn't mean I agree with the label because I feel it's arbitrary and polarizing. Potatoes are good, make them into potato chips, they suddenly turn into junk. Is it because of the oil? Then how come when oil is added to salad it doesn't instantly turn it into junk? It's not an on and off switch, it's a spectrum that depends on several factors which make a certain food better for a certain individual in a certain situation. Those jelly beans you consider junk may be the best fuel of choice for a long distance runner and that pop tart may be what helps a certain person adhere to their healthy diet.0 -
I get the point of what you mean. But, that still doesn't mean people need to label foods as bad. I think naughty but nice means a sweet person that likes sex.0
-
GuitarJerry wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
And want you to purchase their products.
Totally missed the point!
This is ironic. I think YOU are the one missing the point. You are taking your direction from both for profit businesses, like WW and Slimming World, as well as not for profit but certainly not totally unbiased organizations like the article you listed earlier stating that eating bacon every day causes cancer.
You seem to want to form all your opinions based on (compelling) statements from large organizations (which certainly have bias and ulterior motives to convince people to follow their direction) and hold those as absolute truths. Many people in this thread have pointed out to you that the subjectivity and variability in those opinions makes them largely unhelpful as clear, defining terms which can be objectively applied across a population.
It's fine if you want to call things "naughty" and use that as a means to help control your food intake. What is not fine is insisting that the rest of us are somehow deluded or dishonest if we don't also use that terminology to describe our own food choices.
Other people feel as I do, so it's not 'the rest of us' but OK you don't use my terminology and I wont use yours.
You are largely ignoring the majority of my post and fixating on one phrase in one sentence so that you can leave a sound bite response and move on. That seems to be a recurring theme throughout this thread, as @AnnPT77 points out...
Yup, my earlier comments regarding emotional connections to foods through labels have gone unaddressed as well. While not everyone makes these connections, I feel that many people who are trying to sift through all the hype and fallacies being put out there through sensationalization and misappropriation of studies are only harmed by continuing this use of labeling foods. Once I stopped labelling foods, I was able to better recognize that my choices were not a failure but simply choices. Dissociating the emotional connection with food was incredibly helpful in making successful changes. Of course, N=1, so take that for what it's worth.
All of this. And it seems to derail a lot of newbies, in my experience. How many times do we see the "I screwed up and I'm a failure at dieting" posts around here? For some of those newbies, getting them to think in more neutral terms and log the "bad" food to see that it's not all that damaging is a game changer. I recognize that it doesn't work the same for everyone, but the OP that sparked this conversation is all about applying the bad foods label to everyone or insisting that everyone must have a list of them. It's just not productive.
I do feel like this is a part that is getting missed. OP seems to be implying that most people can assign value judgments to food without feeling said value judgment about food. I'm going to suggest that that is not the case, and I think, if I'm reading it correctly, many other posters here are getting at this as well.
A lot of people do feel guilt and negative emotions when doing something they have labelled as "bad." To be so dismissive of this is confusing at best.
Once you free your mind of the labels, you realize how silly it is. Sugar is not bad. You need sugar. Sugar is in everything, including the "good" things. Stop saying a thing is bad, and just start to enjoy the food and nutritional aspect of eating. The more you eat for nutrition, the less important are the labels. But, it's difficult for newbies because they are trying to make sense of their "diet" among all the information they keep reading from sources that should be legitimate, but aren't.
The biggest problem we have, IMO, is you all want something else to blame other than yourself. You want something to be the culprit. The culprit is basically, eating too much food. It could be eating too much of a particular thing. But, it isn't that thing, it's the amount of that thing. If you eat a cheesecake everyday, that's excessive. If you have a small piece once a week, that's a whole different ball game.
Not sure who mean by "you all" but as one who commonly uses the terms good and bad when referring to food I would say you are wrong. My use of the word has nothing to do with blame and only a little to do with weight. I used the term for decades before I had a weight problem.
I use it in terms of nutrition and health, of which weight is just one factor.0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
And want you to purchase their products.
Totally missed the point!
This is ironic. I think YOU are the one missing the point. You are taking your direction from both for profit businesses, like WW and Slimming World, as well as not for profit but certainly not totally unbiased organizations like the article you listed earlier stating that eating bacon every day causes cancer.
You seem to want to form all your opinions based on (compelling) statements from large organizations (which certainly have bias and ulterior motives to convince people to follow their direction) and hold those as absolute truths. Many people in this thread have pointed out to you that the subjectivity and variability in those opinions makes them largely unhelpful as clear, defining terms which can be objectively applied across a population.
It's fine if you want to call things "naughty" and use that as a means to help control your food intake. What is not fine is insisting that the rest of us are somehow deluded or dishonest if we don't also use that terminology to describe our own food choices.
Other people feel as I do, so it's not 'the rest of us' but OK you don't use my terminology and I wont use yours.
You are largely ignoring the majority of my post and fixating on one phrase in one sentence so that you can leave a sound bite response and move on. That seems to be a recurring theme throughout this thread, as @AnnPT77 points out...
Yup, my earlier comments regarding emotional connections to foods through labels have gone unaddressed as well. While not everyone makes these connections, I feel that many people who are trying to sift through all the hype and fallacies being put out there through sensationalization and misappropriation of studies are only harmed by continuing this use of labeling foods. Once I stopped labelling foods, I was able to better recognize that my choices were not a failure but simply choices. Dissociating the emotional connection with food was incredibly helpful in making successful changes. Of course, N=1, so take that for what it's worth.
All of this. And it seems to derail a lot of newbies, in my experience. How many times do we see the "I screwed up and I'm a failure at dieting" posts around here? For some of those newbies, getting them to think in more neutral terms and log the "bad" food to see that it's not all that damaging is a game changer. I recognize that it doesn't work the same for everyone, but the OP that sparked this conversation is all about applying the bad foods label to everyone or insisting that everyone must have a list of them. It's just not productive.
I do feel like this is a part that is getting missed. OP seems to be implying that most people can assign value judgments to food without feeling said value judgment about food. I'm going to suggest that that is not the case, and I think, if I'm reading it correctly, many other posters here are getting at this as well.
A lot of people do feel guilt and negative emotions when doing something they have labelled as "bad." To be so dismissive of this is confusing at best.
Once you free your mind of the labels, you realize how silly it is. Sugar is not bad. You need sugar. Sugar is in everything, including the "good" things. Stop saying a thing is bad, and just start to enjoy the food and nutritional aspect of eating. The more you eat for nutrition, the less important are the labels. But, it's difficult for newbies because they are trying to make sense of their "diet" among all the information they keep reading from sources that should be legitimate, but aren't.
The biggest problem we have, IMO, is you all want something else to blame other than yourself. You want something to be the culprit. The culprit is basically, eating too much food. It could be eating too much of a particular thing. But, it isn't that thing, it's the amount of that thing. If you eat a cheesecake everyday, that's excessive. If you have a small piece once a week, that's a whole different ball game.
Not sure who mean by "you all" but as one who commonly uses the terms good and bad when referring to food I would say you are wrong. My use of the word has nothing to do with blame and only a little to do with weight. I used the term for decades before I had a weight problem.
I use it in terms of nutrition and health, of which weight is just one factor.
I guess, then, by your definition, I am referring to you. I can't believe after reading all of this, you still believe that there is bad food. WOW! Not much more to say.
I do. Do you seriously think a few "you shouldn't do that" posts from strangers on the internet should make me change a lifetime of behavior? LOL0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
And want you to purchase their products.
Totally missed the point!
This is ironic. I think YOU are the one missing the point. You are taking your direction from both for profit businesses, like WW and Slimming World, as well as not for profit but certainly not totally unbiased organizations like the article you listed earlier stating that eating bacon every day causes cancer.
You seem to want to form all your opinions based on (compelling) statements from large organizations (which certainly have bias and ulterior motives to convince people to follow their direction) and hold those as absolute truths. Many people in this thread have pointed out to you that the subjectivity and variability in those opinions makes them largely unhelpful as clear, defining terms which can be objectively applied across a population.
It's fine if you want to call things "naughty" and use that as a means to help control your food intake. What is not fine is insisting that the rest of us are somehow deluded or dishonest if we don't also use that terminology to describe our own food choices.
Other people feel as I do, so it's not 'the rest of us' but OK you don't use my terminology and I wont use yours.
You are largely ignoring the majority of my post and fixating on one phrase in one sentence so that you can leave a sound bite response and move on. That seems to be a recurring theme throughout this thread, as @AnnPT77 points out...
Yup, my earlier comments regarding emotional connections to foods through labels have gone unaddressed as well. While not everyone makes these connections, I feel that many people who are trying to sift through all the hype and fallacies being put out there through sensationalization and misappropriation of studies are only harmed by continuing this use of labeling foods. Once I stopped labelling foods, I was able to better recognize that my choices were not a failure but simply choices. Dissociating the emotional connection with food was incredibly helpful in making successful changes. Of course, N=1, so take that for what it's worth.
All of this. And it seems to derail a lot of newbies, in my experience. How many times do we see the "I screwed up and I'm a failure at dieting" posts around here? For some of those newbies, getting them to think in more neutral terms and log the "bad" food to see that it's not all that damaging is a game changer. I recognize that it doesn't work the same for everyone, but the OP that sparked this conversation is all about applying the bad foods label to everyone or insisting that everyone must have a list of them. It's just not productive.
I have no idea if this is true of the OP or not, but I agree it would not be productive. Just as insisting that everyone should not use the terms is not productive.
I think that if it works for someone and isn't making them feel guilt and shame around their food choices, that is one thing. The OP was suggesting that these labels are used by everyone. I say that they aren't, and that for many people it is more harmful than good.0 -
Low-Carb Diets: Quit Drinking the (Sugar-Free) Kool-Aid
http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/07/14/low-carb_diets_arent_anything_special_108746.html
There are few areas of scientific research murkier than nutrition. Thousands of studies have tackled the seemingly simple question of what we should eat in order to lose weight. But one study that points in one direction is inevitably countered by another pointing in the opposite. Every tiny change in study design could sway findings one way or the other. The result is maddening. Sifting through the literature reveals no overarching consensus beyond "eat less," "move more," and "go easy on the sugar."
But what about this never-ending "low carbohydrate" fad? Advocates of "Paleo," "Zone," or "Atkins," -- all forms of low-carb diets -- say that eating fewer grains produces more weight loss and better health outcomes than basic reduced-calorie diets.
Here again, scientists are conflicted. Some studies show that low-carb diets vastly outperform balanced, calorie-restricted diets, but other studies show no difference at all.
The best tool we have for detecting a pattern in the literature is the systematic review, where similar studies are grouped together and analyzed. If you're wondering whether low-carb diets are better than traditional weight loss diets, you're in luck. Researchers just completed a systematic review to answer that very question.
Scientists based out of Stellenbosch University poured through published records to find studies in which low-carb and balanced diets were directly compared. The team was very selective, including only randomized, controlled trials where the two comparison diets had the same number of calories, featured at least 10 subjects per group, were longer than 12 weeks (with long-term follow up), and were solely focused on diet. Only 19 studies survived the purge.
In these studies, subjects consuming low-carb diets received roughly 35% of their calories from carbohydrates, 35% from fat, and 30% from protein. Those consuming balanced diets received 55% from carbohydrates, 30% from fat, and 15% from protein, in line with government recommendations.
The review showed that both low-carb and balanced diets yielded similar weight loss in the long-term, with low-carb diets edging out the competition by a single pound after 1-2 years (a statistically insignificant amount). Differences in improvements to other health variables like cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure were almost imperceptible.
In short, the review revealed that the purported revolutionary benefits of low-carb diets are likely overstated, and any associated weight loss results almost entirely from accompanying calorie restriction, not from specifically cutting out carbohydrates.
"It follows that when considering dietary strategies for weight loss, less emphasis should be placed on an ‘ideal’ macronutrient composition and more emphasis on reduction in total energy intake," the researchers state.
Advocates of low-carb diets are technically correct about one thing: a calorie is not just a calorie. Protein, fat, and carbohydrates -- the three primary macronutrients -- are used by the body and transformed into energy in different ways. But those distinctions are -- when it comes to weight balance -- miniscule, and do not translate to anything game-changing for the health of modern humans.
Source: Naude CE, Schoonees A, Senekal M, Young T, Garner P, et al. (2014) Low Carbohydrate versus Isoenergetic Balanced Diets for Reducing Weight and Cardiovascular Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 9(7): e100652. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100652
0 -
Why cutting sugar out of your diet won’t work miracles
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/2/9658116/cutting-sugar-myth0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
And want you to purchase their products.
Totally missed the point!
This is ironic. I think YOU are the one missing the point. You are taking your direction from both for profit businesses, like WW and Slimming World, as well as not for profit but certainly not totally unbiased organizations like the article you listed earlier stating that eating bacon every day causes cancer.
You seem to want to form all your opinions based on (compelling) statements from large organizations (which certainly have bias and ulterior motives to convince people to follow their direction) and hold those as absolute truths. Many people in this thread have pointed out to you that the subjectivity and variability in those opinions makes them largely unhelpful as clear, defining terms which can be objectively applied across a population.
It's fine if you want to call things "naughty" and use that as a means to help control your food intake. What is not fine is insisting that the rest of us are somehow deluded or dishonest if we don't also use that terminology to describe our own food choices.
Other people feel as I do, so it's not 'the rest of us' but OK you don't use my terminology and I wont use yours.
You are largely ignoring the majority of my post and fixating on one phrase in one sentence so that you can leave a sound bite response and move on. That seems to be a recurring theme throughout this thread, as @AnnPT77 points out...
Yup, my earlier comments regarding emotional connections to foods through labels have gone unaddressed as well. While not everyone makes these connections, I feel that many people who are trying to sift through all the hype and fallacies being put out there through sensationalization and misappropriation of studies are only harmed by continuing this use of labeling foods. Once I stopped labelling foods, I was able to better recognize that my choices were not a failure but simply choices. Dissociating the emotional connection with food was incredibly helpful in making successful changes. Of course, N=1, so take that for what it's worth.
All of this. And it seems to derail a lot of newbies, in my experience. How many times do we see the "I screwed up and I'm a failure at dieting" posts around here? For some of those newbies, getting them to think in more neutral terms and log the "bad" food to see that it's not all that damaging is a game changer. I recognize that it doesn't work the same for everyone, but the OP that sparked this conversation is all about applying the bad foods label to everyone or insisting that everyone must have a list of them. It's just not productive.
I do feel like this is a part that is getting missed. OP seems to be implying that most people can assign value judgments to food without feeling said value judgment about food. I'm going to suggest that that is not the case, and I think, if I'm reading it correctly, many other posters here are getting at this as well.
A lot of people do feel guilt and negative emotions when doing something they have labelled as "bad." To be so dismissive of this is confusing at best.
Once you free your mind of the labels, you realize how silly it is. Sugar is not bad. You need sugar. Sugar is in everything, including the "good" things. Stop saying a thing is bad, and just start to enjoy the food and nutritional aspect of eating. The more you eat for nutrition, the less important are the labels. But, it's difficult for newbies because they are trying to make sense of their "diet" among all the information they keep reading from sources that should be legitimate, but aren't.
The biggest problem we have, IMO, is you all want something else to blame other than yourself. You want something to be the culprit. The culprit is basically, eating too much food. It could be eating too much of a particular thing. But, it isn't that thing, it's the amount of that thing. If you eat a cheesecake everyday, that's excessive. If you have a small piece once a week, that's a whole different ball game.
Not sure who mean by "you all" but as one who commonly uses the terms good and bad when referring to food I would say you are wrong. My use of the word has nothing to do with blame and only a little to do with weight. I used the term for decades before I had a weight problem.
I use it in terms of nutrition and health, of which weight is just one factor.
I am the same. My situation is my own doing. Maybe there are MFP members who try to shift the blame from themselves but I haven't run into them. They sure are talked abut a lot though.0 -
The Healthiest Diet 'Proven' by Science
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/10/the_healthiest_diet_proven_by_science.html
"Science has not identified the healthiest way to eat. In fact, it has come as close as possible (because you can't prove a negative) to confirming that there is no such thing as the healthiest diet. To the contrary, science has established quite definitively that humans are able to thrive equally well on a variety of diets. Adaptability is the hallmark of man as eater. For us, many diets are good while none is perfect."0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
And want you to purchase their products.
Totally missed the point!
This is ironic. I think YOU are the one missing the point. You are taking your direction from both for profit businesses, like WW and Slimming World, as well as not for profit but certainly not totally unbiased organizations like the article you listed earlier stating that eating bacon every day causes cancer.
You seem to want to form all your opinions based on (compelling) statements from large organizations (which certainly have bias and ulterior motives to convince people to follow their direction) and hold those as absolute truths. Many people in this thread have pointed out to you that the subjectivity and variability in those opinions makes them largely unhelpful as clear, defining terms which can be objectively applied across a population.
It's fine if you want to call things "naughty" and use that as a means to help control your food intake. What is not fine is insisting that the rest of us are somehow deluded or dishonest if we don't also use that terminology to describe our own food choices.
Other people feel as I do, so it's not 'the rest of us' but OK you don't use my terminology and I wont use yours.
You are largely ignoring the majority of my post and fixating on one phrase in one sentence so that you can leave a sound bite response and move on. That seems to be a recurring theme throughout this thread, as @AnnPT77 points out...
Yup, my earlier comments regarding emotional connections to foods through labels have gone unaddressed as well. While not everyone makes these connections, I feel that many people who are trying to sift through all the hype and fallacies being put out there through sensationalization and misappropriation of studies are only harmed by continuing this use of labeling foods. Once I stopped labelling foods, I was able to better recognize that my choices were not a failure but simply choices. Dissociating the emotional connection with food was incredibly helpful in making successful changes. Of course, N=1, so take that for what it's worth.
All of this. And it seems to derail a lot of newbies, in my experience. How many times do we see the "I screwed up and I'm a failure at dieting" posts around here? For some of those newbies, getting them to think in more neutral terms and log the "bad" food to see that it's not all that damaging is a game changer. I recognize that it doesn't work the same for everyone, but the OP that sparked this conversation is all about applying the bad foods label to everyone or insisting that everyone must have a list of them. It's just not productive.
I have no idea if this is true of the OP or not, but I agree it would not be productive. Just as insisting that everyone should not use the terms is not productive.
I think that if it works for someone and isn't making them feel guilt and shame around their food choices, that is one thing. The OP was suggesting that these labels are used by everyone. I say that they aren't, and that for many people it is more harmful than good.
Had you said "most" I'd disagree, but since I think "for many people it is more harmful than good" could be said of almost anything, I do not disagree.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »Why cutting sugar out of your diet won’t work miracles
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/2/9658116/cutting-sugar-myth
Did you post in the correct thread? Has anyone in this thread suggested cutting sugar out your diet???0 -
I've seen a lot of articles from people on the Internet who say vegetable oils aren't that healthy. If someone were to dump a good dose of corn oil on top of their salad, then by that reasoning the salad isn't so healthy anymore.amusedmonkey wrote: »A random thought. I decided to try a protein smoothie recipe. It was nice, but it wasn't worth the 400 calories it had, predominantly from nutrient rich sources. At the end of the day when wished I had saved more calories for sunflower seeds I instantly regretted the smoothie, not the twix bar I had earlier, because I spent calories on something that wasn't filling and wasn't amazing enough to justify the calories. I ended up going over my allowance. I wished I had half the portion. That was my bad food for the day because it had a bad effect on my diet.
I understand what most people mean by bad food, but that doesn't mean I agree with the label because I feel it's arbitrary and polarizing. Potatoes are good, make them into potato chips, they suddenly turn into junk. Is it because of the oil? Then how come when oil is added to salad it doesn't instantly turn it into junk? It's not an on and off switch, it's a spectrum that depends on several factors which make a certain food better for a certain individual in a certain situation. Those jelly beans you consider junk may be the best fuel of choice for a long distance runner and that pop tart may be what helps a certain person adhere to their healthy diet.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I've seen a lot of articles from people on the Internet who say vegetable oils aren't that healthy. If someone were to dump a good dose of corn oil on top of their salad, then by that reasoning the salad isn't so healthy anymore.amusedmonkey wrote: »A random thought. I decided to try a protein smoothie recipe. It was nice, but it wasn't worth the 400 calories it had, predominantly from nutrient rich sources. At the end of the day when wished I had saved more calories for sunflower seeds I instantly regretted the smoothie, not the twix bar I had earlier, because I spent calories on something that wasn't filling and wasn't amazing enough to justify the calories. I ended up going over my allowance. I wished I had half the portion. That was my bad food for the day because it had a bad effect on my diet.
I understand what most people mean by bad food, but that doesn't mean I agree with the label because I feel it's arbitrary and polarizing. Potatoes are good, make them into potato chips, they suddenly turn into junk. Is it because of the oil? Then how come when oil is added to salad it doesn't instantly turn it into junk? It's not an on and off switch, it's a spectrum that depends on several factors which make a certain food better for a certain individual in a certain situation. Those jelly beans you consider junk may be the best fuel of choice for a long distance runner and that pop tart may be what helps a certain person adhere to their healthy diet.
Well, ya know what Abe Lincoln said...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions