There are 'BAD' foods
Replies
-
MommyL2015 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
My wife struggles with Worcestershire sauce.
Instead of "worce-ster-shire," it'll come out "wor-Chester-shire" if she doesn't stop to think about it.
I went to college in MA. They have even more whacked out ways of pronouncing it. Wiister.
It's basically wouster or maybe worster.
I grew up in western MA. (Thankfully. I cannot stand Boston speak.) It's Wistah. No "R" in the Boston language, apparently. And Gloucester is Glostah.
Oh, right. I forgot to indicate the dropping of the second r!
Of course, probably best not to get into the pronunciation of Versailles, IL (or KY or OH) or, cringe, Cairo, IL, among many others.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MommyL2015 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
My wife struggles with Worcestershire sauce.
Instead of "worce-ster-shire," it'll come out "wor-Chester-shire" if she doesn't stop to think about it.
I went to college in MA. They have even more whacked out ways of pronouncing it. Wiister.
It's basically wouster or maybe worster.
I grew up in western MA. (Thankfully. I cannot stand Boston speak.) It's Wistah. No "R" in the Boston language, apparently. And Gloucester is Glostah.
Oh, right. I forgot to indicate the dropping of the second r!
Of course, probably best not to get into the pronunciation of Versailles, IL (or KY or OH) or, cringe, Cairo, IL, among many others.
Everyone I know pronounces it Woostah Sauce, similar to the third audio down here http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pronunciation/english/worcestershire-sauce
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Do I need to go back to page 7 and read from where I left off or can I assume I know how this went
Highlights reel anyone ?
There was some interesting talk, imo, about the nature of words and how we talk about things somewhere around page 17. But no one wanted to talk about that. Mostly it's the same old arguments again and again just like every other thread like this.
And Carlos posted a cool story about his parents and M&Ms. I think it was M&Ms, anyway.
eta: I should have read the rest of the thread, as that had already been pointed out.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
My wife struggles with Worcestershire sauce.
Instead of "worce-ster-shire," it'll come out "wor-Chester-shire" if she doesn't stop to think about it.
I went to college in MA. They have even more whacked out ways of pronouncing it. Wiister.
It's basically wouster or maybe worster.
I found this on the webz, LOL
http://www.worcestermass.com/pronounce/0 -
fyoung1111 wrote: »Unplanned food is almost always bad almost no matter what it is. Face it. Unplanned food is very rarely steamed broccoli.
I added grapefruit and an apple to my pre-logged foods for the day. I have the calories available. I don't think unplanned food is almost always bad, although it certainly can be. Some of us just like to have flexibility in our day sometimes.0 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MommyL2015 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
My wife struggles with Worcestershire sauce.
Instead of "worce-ster-shire," it'll come out "wor-Chester-shire" if she doesn't stop to think about it.
I went to college in MA. They have even more whacked out ways of pronouncing it. Wiister.
It's basically wouster or maybe worster.
I grew up in western MA. (Thankfully. I cannot stand Boston speak.) It's Wistah. No "R" in the Boston language, apparently. And Gloucester is Glostah.
Oh, right. I forgot to indicate the dropping of the second r!
Of course, probably best not to get into the pronunciation of Versailles, IL (or KY or OH) or, cringe, Cairo, IL, among many others.
Everyone I know pronounces it Woostah Sauce, similar to the third audio down here http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pronunciation/english/worcestershire-sauce
Around here we pronounce it "worse-TER-sure". When I am on the phone to a call canter and I need to confirm my address, I always wait for them to try to pronounce my city. I've heard some funny ones (Waukesha).
Regarding high glucose spikes after eating. I am T2Dm, controlled fully by diet and exercise. I only need to test once a day upon waking, but I have a second meter and I test other times for more information. 2 things I have noticed: my highest readings of the day come after a long workout with no food or drink except water (not after eating a meal with carbs) and my readings climb in the morning if I haven't eaten anything so fasting can raise my BG levels. My doctor, who is a diabetes specialist, told me that the important thing is how quickly your numbers drop, not necessarily how high they go (as long as they don't spike above 150 or so). If I am back to 100 within 2 hours, I am good.0 -
That's partially correct. Prediabetes does mean someone is at risk for developing diabetes, but there are specific blood tests used for glucose levels that determine whether someone has (1) normal blood sugar, (2) prediabetes, and (3) diabetes. In a way, someone who is obese could be considered at risk for diabetes since that is a risk factor, but if their blood sugar is normal then they aren't medically considered to be prediabetic.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't pre-diabetes a catch all term to define those at risk of developing diabetes due to all possible factors eg those without a genetic marker but with obesity? And haven't many with pre diabetes effectively become non pre diabetic by dropping weight?
For some people, the link between obesity and blood sugar regulation is very strong. For these people, yes they can and have reversed their condition by losing weight. However, for others, it's possible to have above normal blood sugar (prediabetes) without excess weight if genetic factors are strong enough.0 -
There are nutritious foods and less nutritious foods.
If you have to put quotes around the word, that generally means you're not using the word in its true sense.
Morality should not be attached to food. No food is inherently good or evil.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't pre-diabetes a catch all term to define those at risk of developing diabetes due to all possible factors eg those without a genetic marker but with obesity? And haven't many with pre diabetes effectively become non pre diabetic by dropping weight?
Worse yet is risk of pre-diabetes. Being 65 or over is automatically at risk of pre-diabetes.
John Yudkins lectured about that issue in a decent lecture.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=l3pVadh4yzM0 -
Don't use government pronouncements as a basis for foods that are "good", "bad", or otherwise.
Those statements are not based on science, they are based in Politics. Everything they say and do is the result of a lobbyist writing a check.
THIS! Read Health at Every Size and you'll quickly realise how much of the 'healthy guidelines' we're given is complete crap.
You can be healthier than you were, at any size. You cannot be Healthy at Every Size.
http://examine.com/faq/can-you-be-healthy-and-obese/Using sumo wrestlers and National League American Football players as models for 'High adiposity paired with High activity', there still appear to be risks associated with the state of obesity or the high calorie diet that activity cannot compensate for completely (some compensation does seem apparent, however)
Exercise does not appear to be potent enough to normalize all health biomarkers of an obese (BMI greater than 30) person if weight loss does not also occur; this may not hold for overweight persons where the state of health is inherently more favorable (than obese age-matched persons)0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
That's partially correct. Prediabetes does mean someone is at risk for developing diabetes, but there are specific blood tests used for glucose levels that determine whether someone has (1) normal blood sugar, (2) prediabetes, and (3) diabetes. In a way, someone who is obese could be considered at risk for diabetes since that is a risk factor, but if their blood sugar is normal then they aren't medically considered to be prediabetic.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't pre-diabetes a catch all term to define those at risk of developing diabetes due to all possible factors eg those without a genetic marker but with obesity? And haven't many with pre diabetes effectively become non pre diabetic by dropping weight?
For some people, the link between obesity and blood sugar regulation is very strong. For these people, yes they can and have reversed their condition by losing weight. However, for others, it's possible to have above normal blood sugar (prediabetes) without excess weight if genetic factors are strong enough.
Correct. You don't have to be obese or even overweight to be diagnosed with pre-diabetes or T2 diabetes. It's about your blood glucose levels.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
That's partially correct. Prediabetes does mean someone is at risk for developing diabetes, but there are specific blood tests used for glucose levels that determine whether someone has (1) normal blood sugar, (2) prediabetes, and (3) diabetes. In a way, someone who is obese could be considered at risk for diabetes since that is a risk factor, but if their blood sugar is normal then they aren't medically considered to be prediabetic.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't pre-diabetes a catch all term to define those at risk of developing diabetes due to all possible factors eg those without a genetic marker but with obesity? And haven't many with pre diabetes effectively become non pre diabetic by dropping weight?
For some people, the link between obesity and blood sugar regulation is very strong. For these people, yes they can and have reversed their condition by losing weight. However, for others, it's possible to have above normal blood sugar (prediabetes) without excess weight if genetic factors are strong enough.
Exactly. While excess weight is a major risk factor, the main risk factor is in your genes. The rate of obesity has grown alarmingly over the past decades. The NIH reports that "From 1960-2 to 2005-6, the prevalence of obesity increased from 13.4 to 35.1 percent in U.S. adults age 20 to 74.7." If obesity was causing diabetes, you'd exect to see a similar rise in the diabetes rate. But this has not happened. The CDC reports that "From 1980 through 2010, the crude prevalence of diagnosed diabetes increased ...from 2.5% to 6.9%." Roughly 65 million more Americans became fat over this period, but only 13 million more Americans became diabetic. If excess weight was the only factor, the number of people developing diabetes would have increased at the same rate.
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/Documents/stat904z.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/national/figage.htm0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
That's partially correct. Prediabetes does mean someone is at risk for developing diabetes, but there are specific blood tests used for glucose levels that determine whether someone has (1) normal blood sugar, (2) prediabetes, and (3) diabetes. In a way, someone who is obese could be considered at risk for diabetes since that is a risk factor, but if their blood sugar is normal then they aren't medically considered to be prediabetic.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't pre-diabetes a catch all term to define those at risk of developing diabetes due to all possible factors eg those without a genetic marker but with obesity? And haven't many with pre diabetes effectively become non pre diabetic by dropping weight?
For some people, the link between obesity and blood sugar regulation is very strong. For these people, yes they can and have reversed their condition by losing weight. However, for others, it's possible to have above normal blood sugar (prediabetes) without excess weight if genetic factors are strong enough.
which again, has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.0 -
Just replying to the original topic. It doesn't make sense to call foods bad. I understand referring to something as a good food. But, we all have different preferences, medical situations (or not), goals, desires, biases, thoughts, etc. There are foods that are good for me. Another person might consider them bad foods. For almost every food you can find a person saying why they think it's a bad food. One person's healthy diet is another person's unhealthy diet. I eat chickpeas. Some people think all beans are bad. Some people think meat is bad and you should eat a plant based diet. I once encountered a person on the internet that thinks it's healthy to only eat meat, zero carbs or plant food. He actually said plant food is poisen. Some people can't eat wheat, some people think no one should, other people think everyone should eat whole wheat. There are a million different nutrition guides and food pyramids. I have my own health situation and preferences. And so does everyone else. It's a personal choice what we eat.0
-
Well this died down quick. I'm sure since it's near 1000 replies that everyone is in agreement on everything correct?
I decided long ago that I can label my foods any way I like. As long as I know the context it doesn't matter if I call them good, bad, ugly, stupid, or delicious. It's simply a label beyond just calling it food. And I really don't care what the majority of the internet or anyone else thinks of it.
As for assuming everything science currently accepts is safe really is.... I'm old enough to know better. For all we know, the things being promoted as the most healthy right now will end up killing us all early. On the bright side, since I think to some extent it's just the luck that will determine what ended up being not so healthy, we can eat crazy things and know we were going to die regardless.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I decided long ago that I can label my foods any way I like. As long as I know the context it doesn't matter if I call them good, bad, ugly, stupid, or delicious. It's simply a label beyond just calling it food. And I really don't care what the majority of the internet or anyone else thinks of it.
That's what most of us said: don't care what others call their food, but don't happen to think of it that way ourselves.
OP (and a couple of others) seemed to think it was important that we concede that acknowledge that foods ARE bad, that the label was accurate. Some explained why it was important to them not to think of it that way (for themselves and around people who seemed to be struggling due to the label) and got basically dismissed. I don't see that as about caring how others label food for themselves, but you are feel to have your own, um, interesting way of interpreting it, of course.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Well this died down quick. I'm sure since it's near 1000 replies that everyone is in agreement on everything correct?
I decided long ago that I can label my foods any way I like. As long as I know the context it doesn't matter if I call them good, bad, ugly, stupid, or delicious. It's simply a label beyond just calling it food. And I really don't care what the majority of the internet or anyone else thinks of it.
As for assuming everything science currently accepts is safe really is.... I'm old enough to know better. For all we know, the things being promoted as the most healthy right now will end up killing us all early. On the bright side, since I think to some extent it's just the luck that will determine what ended up being not so healthy, we can eat crazy things and know we were going to die regardless.
I also really don't care if anyone else has good or bad foods, I do. We can each do what works for us. It is a personal judgement of value and by its very nature is only the business of the person making the judgement. Requiring others to avoid judging foods is crossing a meaningful boundry.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Well this died down quick. I'm sure since it's near 1000 replies that everyone is in agreement on everything correct?
I decided long ago that I can label my foods any way I like. As long as I know the context it doesn't matter if I call them good, bad, ugly, stupid, or delicious. It's simply a label beyond just calling it food. And I really don't care what the majority of the internet or anyone else thinks of it.
As for assuming everything science currently accepts is safe really is.... I'm old enough to know better. For all we know, the things being promoted as the most healthy right now will end up killing us all early. On the bright side, since I think to some extent it's just the luck that will determine what ended up being not so healthy, we can eat crazy things and know we were going to die regardless.
Then why are you posting on the internet0 -
I'm not sure what I believe at this point as it is difficult to say for certain what foods are good or bad as it differs from person to person. I have practiced diets that were based more or less on purely whole foods and I did feel as if I was in peak physical AND mental health, I.e lots of fresh produce, hardly any dairy, moderate Amounts of poultry and fish. It really did work. Now I do not follow a strict diet plan but hope to get back to where I was once. Now I definitely eat more processed and what I consider to be "junky" foods (candies, refined carbohydrates, high sodium meats, a lot of low fat and high fat dairy, etc). My weight now is actually no different than before but I'm definitely not the healthiest I have ever been. However correlation does not always equal causation...so like I said, I'm undecided on the topic because my own experience wants to say yes, there are "bad" foods, but at the same time I can't say that I 100% believe that either. Very interesting topic though.0
-
robertw486 wrote: »Well this died down quick. I'm sure since it's near 1000 replies that everyone is in agreement on everything correct?
I decided long ago that I can label my foods any way I like. As long as I know the context it doesn't matter if I call them good, bad, ugly, stupid, or delicious. It's simply a label beyond just calling it food. And I really don't care what the majority of the internet or anyone else thinks of it.
As for assuming everything science currently accepts is safe really is.... I'm old enough to know better. For all we know, the things being promoted as the most healthy right now will end up killing us all early. On the bright side, since I think to some extent it's just the luck that will determine what ended up being not so healthy, we can eat crazy things and know we were going to die regardless.
I also really don't care if anyone else has good or bad foods, I do. We can each do what works for us. It is a personal judgement of value and by its very nature is only the business of the person making the judgement. Requiring others to avoid judging foods is crossing a meaningful boundry.
You mean like starting a thread telling people that they ought to judge foods and are wrong and probably in denial for not doing so?0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Well this died down quick. I'm sure since it's near 1000 replies that everyone is in agreement on everything correct?
I decided long ago that I can label my foods any way I like. As long as I know the context it doesn't matter if I call them good, bad, ugly, stupid, or delicious. It's simply a label beyond just calling it food. And I really don't care what the majority of the internet or anyone else thinks of it.
As for assuming everything science currently accepts is safe really is.... I'm old enough to know better. For all we know, the things being promoted as the most healthy right now will end up killing us all early. On the bright side, since I think to some extent it's just the luck that will determine what ended up being not so healthy, we can eat crazy things and know we were going to die regardless.
I also really don't care if anyone else has good or bad foods, I do. We can each do what works for us. It is a personal judgement of value and by its very nature is only the business of the person making the judgement. Requiring others to avoid judging foods is crossing a meaningful boundry.
You mean like starting a thread telling people that they ought to judge foods and are wrong and probably in denial for not doing so?
Do you mean this thread? The thread that was caused by a reaction against all the "there are no bad foods" instruction that bombards anyone who dares judge a poor little defenseless food item here on MFP?0 -
Actually, in another thread, someone wanting to eat their face made me realize there is exactly one bad food.
Human is a bad food. Don't eat human, no matter how succulent and porcine the flavor.
One should not eat grilled human. Nor suckling braised human.
Well, unless its consensual, but then you need to take it to the Chit-Chat forum.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Well this died down quick. I'm sure since it's near 1000 replies that everyone is in agreement on everything correct?
I decided long ago that I can label my foods any way I like. As long as I know the context it doesn't matter if I call them good, bad, ugly, stupid, or delicious. It's simply a label beyond just calling it food. And I really don't care what the majority of the internet or anyone else thinks of it.
As for assuming everything science currently accepts is safe really is.... I'm old enough to know better. For all we know, the things being promoted as the most healthy right now will end up killing us all early. On the bright side, since I think to some extent it's just the luck that will determine what ended up being not so healthy, we can eat crazy things and know we were going to die regardless.
I also really don't care if anyone else has good or bad foods, I do. We can each do what works for us. It is a personal judgement of value and by its very nature is only the business of the person making the judgement. Requiring others to avoid judging foods is crossing a meaningful boundry.
You mean like starting a thread telling people that they ought to judge foods and are wrong and probably in denial for not doing so?
Do you mean this thread? The thread that was caused by a reaction against all the "there are no bad foods" instruction that bombards anyone who dares judge a poor little defenseless food item here on MFP?
You mean judging as in telling people that dietary context is what matters and there are no bad foods just bad diets...? Aka spreading knowledge instead of woo woo about bad foods that are stalking peoples nightmares...0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Well this died down quick. I'm sure since it's near 1000 replies that everyone is in agreement on everything correct?
I decided long ago that I can label my foods any way I like. As long as I know the context it doesn't matter if I call them good, bad, ugly, stupid, or delicious. It's simply a label beyond just calling it food. And I really don't care what the majority of the internet or anyone else thinks of it.
As for assuming everything science currently accepts is safe really is.... I'm old enough to know better. For all we know, the things being promoted as the most healthy right now will end up killing us all early. On the bright side, since I think to some extent it's just the luck that will determine what ended up being not so healthy, we can eat crazy things and know we were going to die regardless.
I also really don't care if anyone else has good or bad foods, I do. We can each do what works for us. It is a personal judgement of value and by its very nature is only the business of the person making the judgement. Requiring others to avoid judging foods is crossing a meaningful boundry.
I most certainly don't require others to avoid judging foods.
I also judge those who claim eating vegetables is unhealthy (because sugar) or unimportant.
But I only mention that when people are being judgy of others or claiming foods they eat are unhealthy.
I also think eating insane amounts of sat fat is likely not healthful. Or basing one's diet on coconut oil and pepperoni, as some here recommend (while claiming to avoid "bad foods"). You soon realize how silly these labels are, absent a broader perspective as to overall nutrients.
FOR ME, saying "pasta is bad" would be pointless and likely counterproductive, as it would result in me not eating pasta, which is part of many tasty and healthful meals I enjoy. Also, given how I operate, I'd ask why and not have an answer. If it works for you, great. I have no argument with you thinking pasta is BAD for you. I'll only argue when you assert (as I've seen you do) that pasta is BAD in general, for everyone or some huge percentage of people. That, I think, is false.
Especially since it's common enough for pasta to be accompanied by lots of veg and lean meat/seafood.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Well this died down quick. I'm sure since it's near 1000 replies that everyone is in agreement on everything correct?
I decided long ago that I can label my foods any way I like. As long as I know the context it doesn't matter if I call them good, bad, ugly, stupid, or delicious. It's simply a label beyond just calling it food. And I really don't care what the majority of the internet or anyone else thinks of it.
As for assuming everything science currently accepts is safe really is.... I'm old enough to know better. For all we know, the things being promoted as the most healthy right now will end up killing us all early. On the bright side, since I think to some extent it's just the luck that will determine what ended up being not so healthy, we can eat crazy things and know we were going to die regardless.
I also really don't care if anyone else has good or bad foods, I do. We can each do what works for us. It is a personal judgement of value and by its very nature is only the business of the person making the judgement. Requiring others to avoid judging foods is crossing a meaningful boundry.
You mean like starting a thread telling people that they ought to judge foods and are wrong and probably in denial for not doing so?
Do you mean this thread? The thread that was caused by a reaction against all the "there are no bad foods" instruction that bombards anyone who dares judge a poor little defenseless food item here on MFP?
Nope. This thread was started to insist that those who say there are no "bad foods" are lying or in denial. Many people, including myself, have said that if it works for you to say foods are bad for you, go for it, but don't insist we all really think that way, or should. OP and a few other people insist that no, we all secretly know that there are foods that are bad and we should not eat them.0 -
Actually, in another thread, someone wanting to eat their face made me realize there is exactly one bad food.
Human is a bad food. Don't eat human, no matter how succulent and porcine the flavor.
One should not eat grilled human. Nor suckling braised human.
Well, unless its consensual, but then you need to take it to the Chit-Chat forum.
I thought everything tasted like chicken? @senecarr0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Did all the 65+ suddenly decide to watch their diet and start exercising or are the obese dying off faster? Early death is usually not a sign of good health.
http://stateofobesity.org/obesity-by-age/
Sometimes they start watching their weight - in response to a medical diagnosis that carries more weight since mortality becomes more real as we age.
But other factors play a role, as well - our senses decrease, including our sense of taste (and the closely linked sense of smell). Food just doesn't taste as good, so many older people decrease food consumption just because eating is more for necessity and less for enjoyment.
IN short, a correlation of obesity to age says nothing about whether obese people died because of poor health - or merely lost weight.
0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Well this died down quick. I'm sure since it's near 1000 replies that everyone is in agreement on everything correct?
I decided long ago that I can label my foods any way I like. As long as I know the context it doesn't matter if I call them good, bad, ugly, stupid, or delicious. It's simply a label beyond just calling it food. And I really don't care what the majority of the internet or anyone else thinks of it.
As for assuming everything science currently accepts is safe really is.... I'm old enough to know better. For all we know, the things being promoted as the most healthy right now will end up killing us all early. On the bright side, since I think to some extent it's just the luck that will determine what ended up being not so healthy, we can eat crazy things and know we were going to die regardless.
I also really don't care if anyone else has good or bad foods, I do. We can each do what works for us. It is a personal judgement of value and by its very nature is only the business of the person making the judgement. Requiring others to avoid judging foods is crossing a meaningful boundry.
You mean like starting a thread telling people that they ought to judge foods and are wrong and probably in denial for not doing so?
Do you mean this thread? The thread that was caused by a reaction against all the "there are no bad foods" instruction that bombards anyone who dares judge a poor little defenseless food item here on MFP?
You mean judging as in telling people that dietary context is what matters and there are no bad foods just bad diets...? Aka spreading knowledge instead of woo woo about bad foods that are stalking peoples nightmares...
That's how I read it too0 -
Actually, in another thread, someone wanting to eat their face made me realize there is exactly one bad food.
Human is a bad food. Don't eat human, no matter how succulent and porcine the flavor.
One should not eat grilled human. Nor suckling braised human.
Well, unless its consensual, but then you need to take it to the Chit-Chat forum.
If my plane were to crash into the high Andes, in the snow, I would absolutely eat human to survive for some 72-odd days.
YMMV, of course. That's the beauty of free will and autonomy.
0 -
grinning_chick wrote: »Actually, in another thread, someone wanting to eat their face made me realize there is exactly one bad food.
Human is a bad food. Don't eat human, no matter how succulent and porcine the flavor.
One should not eat grilled human. Nor suckling braised human.
Well, unless its consensual, but then you need to take it to the Chit-Chat forum.
If my plane were to crash into the high Andes, in the snow, I would absolutely eat human to survive for some 72-odd days.
YMMV, of course. That's the beauty of free will and autonomy.
Oh my... what a frightening thought to ruin a buzz. Good thing there are no lurkers reading this thread.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions