There are 'BAD' foods
Options
Replies
-
I_Will_End_You wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
A lot of places have secret ingredients in their food that aren't disclosed to the public. I have my doubts that beef, salt, and pepper are the only ingredients in McDonald's beef patties.I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Because i prefer my food to be made of food
What part of the 100% beef McDonald's patty is not food? The beef or the beef?
lol. i used to sell natures harvest bread. 100% whole wheat. here are the ingredients
Whole wheat flour, water, cracked wheat, yeast, wheat gluten, sugar, wheat bran, soybean oil, honey, molasses, raisin juice concentrate, salt, mono- and diglycerides, datum, calcium propionate (preservative), grain vinegar, calcium sulfate, monocalcium phosphate, cornstarch, soy lecithin, citric acid, whey, soy flour, nonfat milk.
how is that 100% whole wheat? well, the whole wheat that is in it is 100% whole wheat. lol im sure that the beef in the mcdonalds patty is 100% beef. that doesnt mean its not full of other things
Actually it's just beef, salt and pepper.
Secret ingredients? Care to elaborate? What are they, who uses them, how do you know? Just a hunch? I don't think a company like McDonald's would risk the lawsuit by lying to their billions of customers world wide.
I don't know if you'd call ammonia an ingredient, but I'd call it a factor if you put it in your mouth.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/mcdonalds-use-ammonium-hydroxide-wash-meat-angers-chef-jamie-oliver-theyre-not-only-2493870 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »the lesser the processing, the better.
I've always found cooking meat to be an improvement over gnawing it right off the bone in the middle of the forest.
I also enjoy butter more than sucking milk straight from a cow's teat and swishing it around in my mouth until it's churned into a consistency that I can then spit onto my food.
...but then again, butter's probably one o' them there "Bad Foods".
Used to be, but it's back out of bad food jail on parole. Now margarine (the healthy alternative) is the bad guy.
What's wrong with margarine?
Because something something transfats according to people apparently.
I would agree that trans fats are bad, but there numerous trans fat free margarines available.
Fun fact about margarine (according to multiple grandparents): when it was first invented, it was pink and called oleo or oleo-margarine. The FDA (or whatever powers that were) demanded that it be dyed pink, so people knew it wasn't a real food. Over time, the margarine lobbyists won the fight to have it colored like butter, so people would consider it comparable to butter. The old-timers in my life swear up and down that butter and rendered fats (beef fat, duck fat, pork fat, etc.) are totally great for you and that things like margarine are terrifying. They were, however, also a little slow to believe in olive oil.
Anyway, enjoy this debate that never, ever seems to go away from MFP. I'm glad it isn't getting old for anyone but me.
That's awesome. I did not know that so read up on it after you mentioned it. I guess only a few states did it and last one to end the "pink" was Wisconsin in 1967. Honestly, I had no idea that margarine was such a controversy at all and did not know it was dyed to make it yellow.
I assume, for no reason whatsoever, that the debate was over the purity of the product. After some thought, I'm betting the butter council people were just pissed they had competition in margarine and started the pink dye thing to hurt their sales. Just a thought.0 -
Good piece on the margarine thing: http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2014/08/13/the-butter-wars-when-margarine-was-pink/
I knew about selling it with the yellow dye and mixing them, but for some reason had misremembered that as being only a WI thing.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
Nor can you demonstrate that there is any possibility that there is any harm being done.
I don't know of anyone who's been eaten by bigfoot. People go in the woods without encountering a sasquatch every day. But I can't guarantee with 100% certainty that he's not out there. So should I stay of the woods since I can't guarantee that no harm will come to me?0 -
I could be wrong on that, but it's not like they haven't been previously sued for providing misinformation regarding their ingredients for other products. In summary, I would say you just never know sometimes.I_Will_End_You wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
A lot of places have secret ingredients in their food that aren't disclosed to the public. I have my doubts that beef, salt, and pepper are the only ingredients in McDonald's beef patties.I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Because i prefer my food to be made of food
What part of the 100% beef McDonald's patty is not food? The beef or the beef?
lol. i used to sell natures harvest bread. 100% whole wheat. here are the ingredients
Whole wheat flour, water, cracked wheat, yeast, wheat gluten, sugar, wheat bran, soybean oil, honey, molasses, raisin juice concentrate, salt, mono- and diglycerides, datum, calcium propionate (preservative), grain vinegar, calcium sulfate, monocalcium phosphate, cornstarch, soy lecithin, citric acid, whey, soy flour, nonfat milk.
how is that 100% whole wheat? well, the whole wheat that is in it is 100% whole wheat. lol im sure that the beef in the mcdonalds patty is 100% beef. that doesnt mean its not full of other things
Actually it's just beef, salt and pepper.
Secret ingredients? Care to elaborate? What are they, who uses them, how do you know? Just a hunch? I don't think a company like McDonald's would risk the lawsuit by lying to their billions of customers world wide.
0 -
alstin2015 wrote: »i ojanejellyroll wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »ok then. everything that has not been proven to be harmful is good to eat. you guys have convinced me. thanks. ( on my way to buy hot cheetos, coke, mcdonalds, kfc, and everything in the frozen isle) lol
Ah, yes. Demonic frozen vegetables. My favorite when I feel like ditching nature and embracing the artificial. Try the broccoli, it's a hedonistic experience that will require weeks of detoxing before your chi rebalances.
you guys are too funny. yes i obviously meant frozen vegetables lol. TV dinners, hot pockets, etc.
When you write "everything in the frozen aisle," it is far from obvious that you meant to exclude items commonly known to be contained in the frozen aisle, like frozen vegetables.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
Stay home, don't use knives and stay away from fire and electricity.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
Stay home, don't use knives and stay away from fire and electricity.
Probably best to just lie in bed all day.
Then again...the ceiling could cave in too...0 -
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »i know that anything can be considered processing,(chopping, cooking, baking). i mean the heavy processing with tons of chemicals and additives that you wouldnt normally put on the food that you would cook at home, (McDonalds, cheetos, coke, candy, hot dogs)
Most (probably all) knew what you meant.
of course they do. they're just trying to out witty each other. some questions are probably genuine, but mostly people out for a laugh, which is ok with me
I just get frustrated when people use "processed" or "not natural" as if they meant bad or were on their face bad things. Technological advancements and doing what's not natural (like carting veg in from elsewhere or freezing them) seems to me a huge advantage for those of us in climates that wouldn't have fresh veg available much of the year. It's a sincere point. Same with making lots more fish available to people who live where I do, so on.
Not sure how freezing food is not natural. But I think it's just frustrating when people act as if all foods are equal.
I haven't seen anyone suggesting that foods are all the same (or equal). Saying no foods are inherently "bad" as I think of them doesn't mean that I think they are equal. They are quite different.
Whether they are "processed" or not doesn't seem to me an important difference given how diverse the group of foods that are "processed" is.
And having asparagus easily available in January, at least where I live, whether frozen or carted in from elsewhere, is not "natural" to the extent that "natural" as any real meaning at all (human nature is to figure out how to do stuff like that, after all). It is a positive thing, IMO.
If they aren't equal, then what? Why is it okay to say I eat 80/20 (which is posted on MFP all the time without all the ridicule)? What is the 20 if not foods that aren't as good as those in the 80%. It's just so silly. They are bad foods or worse foods or junk foods. They are foods that shouldn't be the mainstay of your diet.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
There's no guarantee that your cells won't be damaged by non-preservatives or additives either.
If you need a guarantee before eating a food, you won't eat anything.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
Stay home, don't use knives and stay away from fire and electricity.
Probably best to just lie in bed all day.
Then again...the ceiling could cave in too...
And you could get blood clots, bed sores...0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
I agree that you should make choices based on a risk assessment.
I just disagree that the risk is anywhere near the degree where most people, given all known relevant information, would come to the same conclusion.
And ETA: Isn't minimizing (ie - moderating) what many of us have been advocating for all through the thread? It's those that are arguing elimination that are getting the push back.0 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
A lot of places have secret ingredients in their food that aren't disclosed to the public. I have my doubts that beef, salt, and pepper are the only ingredients in McDonald's beef patties.I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Because i prefer my food to be made of food
What part of the 100% beef McDonald's patty is not food? The beef or the beef?
lol. i used to sell natures harvest bread. 100% whole wheat. here are the ingredients
Whole wheat flour, water, cracked wheat, yeast, wheat gluten, sugar, wheat bran, soybean oil, honey, molasses, raisin juice concentrate, salt, mono- and diglycerides, datum, calcium propionate (preservative), grain vinegar, calcium sulfate, monocalcium phosphate, cornstarch, soy lecithin, citric acid, whey, soy flour, nonfat milk.
how is that 100% whole wheat? well, the whole wheat that is in it is 100% whole wheat. lol im sure that the beef in the mcdonalds patty is 100% beef. that doesnt mean its not full of other things
Actually it's just beef, salt and pepper.
Secret ingredients? Care to elaborate? What are they, who uses them, how do you know? Just a hunch? I don't think a company like McDonald's would risk the lawsuit by lying to their billions of customers world wide.
I don't know if you'd call ammonia an ingredient, but I'd call it a factor if you put it in your mouth.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/mcdonalds-use-ammonium-hydroxide-wash-meat-angers-chef-jamie-oliver-theyre-not-only-249387
If I wash an apple with a bit of soap, I still don't include soap in my recipe for apple butter - even though it includes the peel.
The ammonia is a processing agent, and doesn't stick around at levels high enough to be an issue. It's used by most meat processing plants, not just the ones supplying McDonalds.0 -
Please...demonstrate that the risk even exists.ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
If we're going to live by every possible "just in case" that we can conceive, then where's my portable bubble?
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
Let me lay this out a second time. When I was at my strictest with weight loss and foods, I was regularly breaking into tears in restaurants while I was out with my family. I was regularly having breakdowns in my friends' driveways because I didn't know what kind of snacks they had laid out or did and knew that I couldn't moderate myself well with them. I was not in a good place and dieting, good/bad foods, were seriously affecting my mental health.
Fortunately, my therapist saw it and insisted that I stop the diet for a while until we could work through what was going on. We also worked out some things so that I could continue losing weight without it becoming a full blown eating disorder (closing my diary at the time and accepting the foods that I eat as being neutral rather than good or bad).
I was completely convinced by the dieting industry and posts like this one that what I was going through was normal and I would just have to suffer through it until the end. If not for my therapist, I would have continued down that path. Knowing my history, I likely would have killed myself along the way.
Every time you put down or belittle people for not believing that foods are good or bad (and many people in this thread have made it a point to do so) this is what you believe is a healthy thing for me.
Stop it.
This, to me, is why *on MFP* some of us push back on the "bad foods" rhetoric. There are people here who have a disordered relationship with food, who feel their food inherently has some moral value, and is somehow a measure of their human worth. Even when they're not the ones posting, they can be the ones reading. This is a small segment of the MFP population, but a larger segment than we encounter in real life, and they deserve our attention.
. . . because this:lemurcat12 wrote: »
I really think that logical, unemotional thinking about food is something to be encouraged. From that perspective, I just don't understand what's wrong with eating some ice cream in appropriate portions, so the "bad" language for it makes no sense to me.
Yes. Language has power. Because I'm one of those icky relativists, I think it only has meaning when we *share* a meaning . . . which we rarely do, beyond the approximate. Therefore, it pays to be careful and thoughtful about audience and impact, not just what we mean when we think a word. I *do* think that trying to be helpful to as wide a range of people as possible *does* have a moral value, especially in a place like this.
For some people, the concept of "bad foods" is helpful. Popular culture gives them endless reinforcement for various loosely-common definitions of "bad foods". I'm happy for them to use those definitions in their heads as a help. For some other people, the concept of "bad foods" is *severely* destructive, and the pop-culture views are bashing their bruises. Here, I think it's helpful to provide some counterweight in the MFP forums.
Throughout this thread, Dianne's and many others' more-nuanced contributions are ignored, in favor of a cutsie-snarky back & forth, cartoon characterizations of others' views by people who probably know better, arguments about specific foods, etc. 'Cause, y'know, y'all are having fun. Swell.
I just want to bump these comments back up again. Because 10 pages later we're circling down a very familiar drain, again.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Please...demonstrate that the risk even exists.ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, but why take the risk? I'm not saying that people should never eat anything that has other additives, but rather why not try to minimize consumption of those foods, just in case?juggernaut1974 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »As for preservatives and other additives that commercial companies add to foods, there is no guarantee that over the course of one's lifetime, absolutely no DNA damage will occur. Meaning, there is no 100% certainty that with the processing the body has to do with that stuff, eventually some cells may become a bit damaged. That's not to say that one's lifespan would be drastically affected, but you can't guarantee that there's no harm at all being done.
If you're advocating that we should avoid all things that don't come with a 100% guarantee of safety, then I can only say I strongly disagree with that.
If we're going to live by every possible "just in case" that we can conceive, then where's my portable bubble?
I'm sorry...the card said "Moops"
0 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
A lot of places have secret ingredients in their food that aren't disclosed to the public. I have my doubts that beef, salt, and pepper are the only ingredients in McDonald's beef patties.I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Because i prefer my food to be made of food
What part of the 100% beef McDonald's patty is not food? The beef or the beef?
lol. i used to sell natures harvest bread. 100% whole wheat. here are the ingredients
Whole wheat flour, water, cracked wheat, yeast, wheat gluten, sugar, wheat bran, soybean oil, honey, molasses, raisin juice concentrate, salt, mono- and diglycerides, datum, calcium propionate (preservative), grain vinegar, calcium sulfate, monocalcium phosphate, cornstarch, soy lecithin, citric acid, whey, soy flour, nonfat milk.
how is that 100% whole wheat? well, the whole wheat that is in it is 100% whole wheat. lol im sure that the beef in the mcdonalds patty is 100% beef. that doesnt mean its not full of other things
Actually it's just beef, salt and pepper.
Secret ingredients? Care to elaborate? What are they, who uses them, how do you know? Just a hunch? I don't think a company like McDonald's would risk the lawsuit by lying to their billions of customers world wide.
I don't know if you'd call ammonia an ingredient, but I'd call it a factor if you put it in your mouth.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/mcdonalds-use-ammonium-hydroxide-wash-meat-angers-chef-jamie-oliver-theyre-not-only-249387
If I wash an apple with a bit of soap, I still don't include soap in my recipe for apple butter - even though it includes the peel.
The ammonia is a processing agent, and doesn't stick around at levels high enough to be an issue. It's used by most meat processing plants, not just the ones supplying McDonalds.
Even the ones providing grass-fed beef for my homemade burgers on bakery baked bread cooked over non-carcinogenic flames???0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K 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
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions