There are 'BAD' foods
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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? LOL
My thoughts...If someone wants to pay for my food...prepare it...then clean up afterwards...then I will call my food whatever they want me to. Until that occurs...I will refer to my food however I choose...good...bad...ugly...whatever.
Those terms...good/bad/ugly... I use to refer to taste. I try a lot of new recipes...sometimes they are good...sometimes bad...and then there were those that only ugly would define. I am afraid tonight's dinner might fall in the ugly category.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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???
Seems like a comment on the correctness of the definition of bad, to me (taken together with his previous post). Bunch of people believe carbs are bad and should be avoided. A research meta-analysis study appears to show otherwise. So, are they bad? <- rhetorical0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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???
Seems like a comment on the correctness of the definition of bad, to me (taken together with his previous post). Bunch of people believe carbs are bad and should be avoided. A research meta-analysis study appears to show otherwise. So, are they bad? <- rhetorical
You got it.
0 -
(additional sensible thinking snipped)Carlos_421 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
This 100%. I too don't think I know anyone IRL who would argue against the idea that bad foods exist.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are bad foods.
LOL And I feel the exact opposite.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are not bad foods.
So which foods are bad? Name them and there's a thousand people who don't feel that way and another thousand who will tell you some of the foods you think are "good" are bad.
The fact we can argue about this for so many pages, with a good dose of woo in here too to argue for "bad" foods, shows there is no such thing. It's just as arbitrary as clean and all that other stuff where ten people will have ten different ideas of what it means.
Did you see my post about people using two different meanings of "bad" and talking past each other.
I'm curious if you think everyone would agree that foods fall in the second meaning, which is what is being rejected. (I'd personally give you transfats, which I avoid.)
Obviously everyone agrees that some foods aren't that nutritious. To me, that doesn't make them bad. They might be very good in the right circumstances, in fact (if they are tasty).
Or my argument that most people just don't care enough to start an argument on the street about this kind of stuff.
This is me. When I hear people say things like"this is so good but it's probably not healthy at all" I cringe on the inside but I don't say anything.
IRL, I often do respond: "Meh; everything in moderation." or "Yeahbut you already ate that nice salad." or "One donut won't kill you, it's a daily diet of them . . . ." or (to certain people as appropriate) "it's an exception, given how you eat" or "you look healthy enough to handle it". There are lots of one-liner options.
But heck, I'm a li'l ol' lady, and we're allowed to be all crotchety and moralistic, eh?0 -
(additional sensible thinking snipped)Carlos_421 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
This 100%. I too don't think I know anyone IRL who would argue against the idea that bad foods exist.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are bad foods.
LOL And I feel the exact opposite.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are not bad foods.
So which foods are bad? Name them and there's a thousand people who don't feel that way and another thousand who will tell you some of the foods you think are "good" are bad.
The fact we can argue about this for so many pages, with a good dose of woo in here too to argue for "bad" foods, shows there is no such thing. It's just as arbitrary as clean and all that other stuff where ten people will have ten different ideas of what it means.
Did you see my post about people using two different meanings of "bad" and talking past each other.
I'm curious if you think everyone would agree that foods fall in the second meaning, which is what is being rejected. (I'd personally give you transfats, which I avoid.)
Obviously everyone agrees that some foods aren't that nutritious. To me, that doesn't make them bad. They might be very good in the right circumstances, in fact (if they are tasty).
Or my argument that most people just don't care enough to start an argument on the street about this kind of stuff.
This is me. When I hear people say things like"this is so good but it's probably not healthy at all" I cringe on the inside but I don't say anything.
IRL, I often do respond: "Meh; everything in moderation." or "Yeahbut you already ate that nice salad." or "One donut won't kill you, it's a daily diet of them . . . ." or (to certain people as appropriate) "it's an exception, given how you eat" or "you look healthy enough to handle it". There are lots of one-liner options.
But heck, I'm a li'l ol' lady, and we're allowed to be all crotchety and moralistic, eh?
Takes one to know one lol
0 -
(additional sensible thinking snipped)Carlos_421 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
This 100%. I too don't think I know anyone IRL who would argue against the idea that bad foods exist.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are bad foods.
LOL And I feel the exact opposite.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are not bad foods.
So which foods are bad? Name them and there's a thousand people who don't feel that way and another thousand who will tell you some of the foods you think are "good" are bad.
The fact we can argue about this for so many pages, with a good dose of woo in here too to argue for "bad" foods, shows there is no such thing. It's just as arbitrary as clean and all that other stuff where ten people will have ten different ideas of what it means.
Did you see my post about people using two different meanings of "bad" and talking past each other.
I'm curious if you think everyone would agree that foods fall in the second meaning, which is what is being rejected. (I'd personally give you transfats, which I avoid.)
Obviously everyone agrees that some foods aren't that nutritious. To me, that doesn't make them bad. They might be very good in the right circumstances, in fact (if they are tasty).
Or my argument that most people just don't care enough to start an argument on the street about this kind of stuff.
This is me. When I hear people say things like"this is so good but it's probably not healthy at all" I cringe on the inside but I don't say anything.
IRL, I often do respond: "Meh; everything in moderation." or "Yeahbut you already ate that nice salad." or "One donut won't kill you, it's a daily diet of them . . . ." or (to certain people as appropriate) "it's an exception, given how you eat" or "you look healthy enough to handle it". There are lots of one-liner options.
But heck, I'm a li'l ol' lady, and we're allowed to be all crotchety and moralistic, eh?
Haha! A luxury I don't have.
And yeah, there are a few people to whom I'll say just enough to plant the seed of the idea without fully breaking into debate.
A few others (certain family members...) it ain't worth it to even go there because inferring that I know something they don't would just light a fuse. Lol0 -
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.
I'm not using good v. bad to blame anything other than myself. I personally don't use the good v. bad terminology as I view it as unproductive for myself for the same reason that @lemurcat12 mentioned - I feel random guilt about enough things already to add food to the list. I also do too much long distance running to worry about whether or not Gu or Clif Shots are "good" or not. So, I'm not sure who "you all" is referring to. I was trying to get at my confusion concerning how the OP doesn't understand that many people do feel guilt over food by labeling them as "bad," even if she is saying she does not.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
This is true, and personally it's exemplified for me in the example I gave of eating donuts. I think of it as being bad food, but that doesn't mean I experience guilt after eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ekahnicole wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Fair point. But it at least suggests the general understanding of what is meant by 'bad foods'.
Understanding what someone means when they use that terminology is not the same as agreeing with that mindset.
There are foods that are generally considered bad, but if you have a healthy relationship with food there's no reason to categorize them as such. Of course I understand some people need to or find it beneficial, but guilt and added stress because you feel bad every time you've eaten something "bad" sounds very counter productive. Life's too short to have such a negative view of tasty things that can still be a part of a healthy diet.
Not everyone feels bad when they eat 'bad food'.
donuts can be part of a healthy diet….overall diet is what matters, not individual food choice0 -
suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...0 -
suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...
But some pizza is bad? I think Dominoes is really bad! Just sayin'
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...
But some pizza is bad? I think Dominoes is really bad! Just sayin'
i actually don't mind Dominos…in a bind it is OK …the new sauce is pretty good...0 -
suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...
I never get the 'pizza is bad' thing. If you take the ingredients individually, it's a balanced, rounded meal. Bread, meat, veg, some cheese...
But make the bread round and the rest of the food on top of it and all of a sudden it's satan. I don't get it.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...
I never get the 'pizza is bad' thing. If you take the ingredients individually, it's a balanced, rounded meal. Bread, meat, veg, some cheese...
But make the bread round and the rest of the food on top of it and all of a sudden it's satan. I don't get it.
because calorie dense = bad, I guess?0 -
suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...
This is someone who thinks it's okay to call pineapple "naughty." I think we should acknowledge that this is totally arbitrary.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...
I never get the 'pizza is bad' thing. If you take the ingredients individually, it's a balanced, rounded meal. Bread, meat, veg, some cheese...
But make the bread round and the rest of the food on top of it and all of a sudden it's satan. I don't get it.
I am so with you on this. Pizza is so good. It has protein, carbs, fat and vitamins. It's complete.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...
But some pizza is bad? I think Dominoes is really bad! Just sayin'
Bad pizza should be nailed to your door like a Christmas wreath as a warning to the other pizza delivery drivers out there.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...
I never get the 'pizza is bad' thing. If you take the ingredients individually, it's a balanced, rounded meal. Bread, meat, veg, some cheese...
But make the bread round and the rest of the food on top of it and all of a sudden it's satan. I don't get it.
I am so with you on this. Pizza is so good. It has protein, carbs, fat and vitamins. It's complete.
Right? If I had a big sandwich for dinner, with some nice bread, some cold cuts, a few different types of veg, a bit of cheese... dinner win!
But the same things in pizza format, and people lose their fricken minds.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...
But some pizza is bad? I think Dominoes is really bad! Just sayin'
Bad pizza should be nailed to your door like a Christmas wreath as a warning to the other pizza delivery drivers out there.
Yes!!0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...
I never get the 'pizza is bad' thing. If you take the ingredients individually, it's a balanced, rounded meal. Bread, meat, veg, some cheese...
But make the bread round and the rest of the food on top of it and all of a sudden it's satan. I don't get it.
If you'd eaten what passes for pizza around my home, you'd think it was bad too.
There are some amazing places in Madison, but it's like a 45 minute drive each way
0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »suziecue20 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!
No I didn't. They label things as "bad" so you feel guilty for eating it, and instead buy their product. You only feel bad because you're told to. I eat pizza and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat a candybar and I love it, I don't feel bad about it. I eat fried chicken and I love it, I don't feel bad about it.
I felt bad when I OVERINDULGED on those (and any other) things. Not the food, the act.
Well for me its the other way around. I eat pizza and chocolate - they are bad foods to me but I don't feel bad about eating them - my choice.
what is bad about pizza? It has protein, fat, and carbs….three essential macronutrients...
I never get the 'pizza is bad' thing. If you take the ingredients individually, it's a balanced, rounded meal. Bread, meat, veg, some cheese...
But make the bread round and the rest of the food on top of it and all of a sudden it's satan. I don't get it.
If you'd eaten what passes for pizza around my home, you'd think it was bad too.
There are some amazing places in Madison, but it's like a 45 minute drive each way
Learn to make your own, it is very easy.
This is what i have at home.
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