There are 'BAD' foods
Options
Replies
-
alstin2015 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »banana ingredient list. lol. its a banana. hundreds of years of consumption prove its safe
How? Everyone who has eaten bananas have died or will die. Some from cancer. Some from other stuff.
despite popular belief, common sense does exist, as does anecdotal evidence, which, frankly, i trust more than empirical data. bananas don't cause cancer. i can say that with certainty with no science to back it up
I will say this very carefully so I don't get another warning in this thread: You are probably not an ignorant person, but frankly that view that anecdotal evidence is superior to empirical date, even if it's just a personal preference, is ignorant. Either you don't truly understand what empirical data is, or your judgement in this particular matter is just flawed.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.
Food itself is not bad. I it the consumption volume that is bad. If I over eat apples, or over eat cake, in both cases it is the over eating that is bad. If I eat an apple or a reasonable slice of cake within my calories for the day, that is good.
So again, there are no bad foods.
0 -
alstin2015 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »banana ingredient list. lol. its a banana. hundreds of years of consumption prove its safe
How? Everyone who has eaten bananas have died or will die. Some from cancer. Some from other stuff.
despite popular belief, common sense does exist, as does anecdotal evidence, which, frankly, i trust more than empirical data. bananas don't cause cancer. i can say that with certainty with no science to back it up
I dunno, a banana has a lot of fructose in it and there are many in the nutrition world (Drs with PhDs, yada yada) and many on this board believe fructose to be cancer causing and/or the reason for the obesity epidemic... There is even some science that can be cherry picked to "prove" the point.0 -
alstin2015 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »banana ingredient list. lol. its a banana. hundreds of years of consumption prove its safe
How? Everyone who has eaten bananas have died or will die. Some from cancer. Some from other stuff.
despite popular belief, common sense does exist, as does anecdotal evidence, which, frankly, i trust more than empirical data. bananas don't cause cancer. i can say that with certainty with no science to back it up
I dunno, a banana has a lot of fructose in it and there are many in the nutrition world (Drs with PhDs, yada yada) and many on this board believe fructose to be cancer causing... There is even some science that can be cherry picked to "prove" the point.
I just ate 2 tangerines. >20 grams of pure sugar in them. How *kitten* am I?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »banana ingredient list. lol. its a banana. hundreds of years of consumption prove its safe
How? Everyone who has eaten bananas have died or will die. Some from cancer. Some from other stuff.
despite popular belief, common sense does exist, as does anecdotal evidence, which, frankly, i trust more than empirical data. bananas don't cause cancer. i can say that with certainty with no science to back it up
I dunno, a banana has a lot of fructose in it and there are many in the nutrition world (Drs with PhDs, yada yada) and many on this board believe fructose to be cancer causing... There is even some science that can be cherry picked to "prove" the point.
I just ate 2 tangerines. >20 grams of pure sugar in them. How *kitten* am I?
RIP...0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »janejellyroll 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".
But think of the calorie burn from mouth-churning your own fresh butter. It would probably turn butter into a negative calorie food.
Yeah, and the buttermilk byproduct right there in your mouth...
Right...but the the buttermilk needs to be expelled by some folks 'cause dem carbs....
0 -
alstin2015 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »banana ingredient list. lol. its a banana. hundreds of years of consumption prove its safe
How? Everyone who has eaten bananas have died or will die. Some from cancer. Some from other stuff.
despite popular belief, common sense does exist, as does anecdotal evidence, which, frankly, i trust more than empirical data. bananas don't cause cancer. i can say that with certainty with no science to back it up
Claiming that a long ingredient list consisting of items you don't immediately recognize is evidence that a food is full of dangerous chemicals and should be avoided, despite the fact that millions of people have eaten said food without any ill effect, is not common sense.
It's paranoia.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »banana ingredient list. lol. its a banana. hundreds of years of consumption prove its safe
How? Everyone who has eaten bananas have died or will die. Some from cancer. Some from other stuff.
despite popular belief, common sense does exist, as does anecdotal evidence, which, frankly, i trust more than empirical data. bananas don't cause cancer. i can say that with certainty with no science to back it up
I dunno, a banana has a lot of fructose in it and there are many in the nutrition world (Drs with PhDs, yada yada) and many on this board believe fructose to be cancer causing... There is even some science that can be cherry picked to "prove" the point.
I just ate 2 tangerines. >20 grams of pure sugar in them. How *kitten* am I?
Trick question: you're already dead. Stop communicating from beyond!0 -
Sometimes you really just never know what your eating. It may be tasty until you find out whats really in it. Is this an example of bad food? Some may say yes but some say no. Enjoy life.
https://youtu.be/DejWlekKQfI 0 -
alstin2015 wrote: »Ok. So nobody has any objections at all whatsoever to chemical additives in food?
Did you know baking soda is a chemical additive? It's "real" name is sodium bicarbonate. Chemists reference it as as NaHCO3. Table salt is really sodium chloride, and its a food additive. Baking powder is 30% sodium bicarbonate, 5-12% monocalcium phosphate, and 21-26% sodium aluminium sulfate.
When I add eggs to a recipe, I'm really after an emulsifier and utilizing a lecithin in the eggs for this purpose. I could use lecithin from soy or sunflowers or another source, but eggs are cheap and readily available. If I was running a large baking operation, though, I might want to use another source because they are more stable over time, and often have fewer allergy problems for some people.
If I make a yeast-raised bread (leavened), then I need to add sugar. Not for "sweetness" but because the yeast are living microorganisms. They eat the sugar, then fart out carbon dioxide, giving me little bubbles of "air" in my bread that makes it fluffy. (That'd be Saccharomyces cerevisiae in my bread, by the way, the yeast; although some breads are made with Clostridium perfringens. Sourdough utilizes latobacillicus. )
People with gluten intolerance wind up adding a lot of other things like xantham gum to their food to get thickening. You might use corn starch or flour for the same purpose. Agar, Carageenan, Pectin, Locus Bean Gum, Gelatin, Alginic Acid (and all its derivatives, like sodium alginate) are all thickening "additives" that are from plants. Why are these things "bad"?
I like this post so much.
We had a thread here once where someone claimed that Sodium Bicarbonate was a deadly toxin in KFC because it's used to strip paint (soda blasting). She and her family avoided all products that included it. Those were good times around here.0 -
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.
Except people aren't treating foods as equal, they're just saying they aren't good or bad. To put it in terms of physics, the nutrients in food are not a scalar, but a vector.
When people say food is good or bad, they treat it like a scalar like temperature - it goes up or down, so supposedly you can just negate the bad with enough good, or that if you're only eating good food, you'll have good nutrition.
But nutrition is much more like a vector, like movement on a map - it involves both a direction and a magnitude. That's why it is impossible to say a food is good or bad without the dietary context. Saying broccoli is good is nonsense when the person already has so much calcium in their system that they're developing kidney stones. In that case, the broccoli would be taking their current calcium coordinate which is already in a danger zone, and putting it further in the danger zone.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Ok. So nobody has any objections at all whatsoever to chemical additives in food?
Did you know baking soda is a chemical additive? It's "real" name is sodium bicarbonate. Chemists reference it as as NaHCO3. Table salt is really sodium chloride, and its a food additive. Baking powder is 30% sodium bicarbonate, 5-12% monocalcium phosphate, and 21-26% sodium aluminium sulfate.
When I add eggs to a recipe, I'm really after an emulsifier and utilizing a lecithin in the eggs for this purpose. I could use lecithin from soy or sunflowers or another source, but eggs are cheap and readily available. If I was running a large baking operation, though, I might want to use another source because they are more stable over time, and often have fewer allergy problems for some people.
If I make a yeast-raised bread (leavened), then I need to add sugar. Not for "sweetness" but because the yeast are living microorganisms. They eat the sugar, then fart out carbon dioxide, giving me little bubbles of "air" in my bread that makes it fluffy. (That'd be Saccharomyces cerevisiae in my bread, by the way, the yeast; although some breads are made with Clostridium perfringens. Sourdough utilizes latobacillicus. )
People with gluten intolerance wind up adding a lot of other things like xantham gum to their food to get thickening. You might use corn starch or flour for the same purpose. Agar, Carageenan, Pectin, Locus Bean Gum, Gelatin, Alginic Acid (and all its derivatives, like sodium alginate) are all thickening "additives" that are from plants. Why are these things "bad"?
I like this post so much.
We had a thread here once where someone claimed that Sodium Bicarbonate was a deadly toxin in KFC because it's used to strip paint (soda blasting). She and her family avoided all products that included it. Those were good times around here.
That's in my Top Five all time threads.0 -
29 pages
Really?
29?0 -
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 ?0 -
-
alstin2015 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »banana ingredient list. lol. its a banana. hundreds of years of consumption prove its safe
How? Everyone who has eaten bananas have died or will die. Some from cancer. Some from other stuff.
despite popular belief, common sense does exist, as does anecdotal evidence, which, frankly, i trust more than empirical data. bananas don't cause cancer. i can say that with certainty with no science to back it up
Claiming that a long ingredient list consisting of items you don't immediately recognize is evidence that a food is full of dangerous chemicals and should be avoided, despite the fact that millions of people have eaten said food without any ill effect, is not common sense.
It's paranoia.
its not evidence that the food is full of dangerous chemicals. its evidence that i dont know what is in it, and id rather not eat unknown chemicals, as much as i can possibly avoid them
Again, how many of the chemicals in a pieceof fruit are unknown to you? Just because the package doesn't list them doesn't mean they're not there. This is not a "if I can't see them they can't see me" scenario.0 -
alstin2015 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »banana ingredient list. lol. its a banana. hundreds of years of consumption prove its safe
How? Everyone who has eaten bananas have died or will die. Some from cancer. Some from other stuff.
despite popular belief, common sense does exist, as does anecdotal evidence, which, frankly, i trust more than empirical data. bananas don't cause cancer. i can say that with certainty with no science to back it up
Claiming that a long ingredient list consisting of items you don't immediately recognize is evidence that a food is full of dangerous chemicals and should be avoided, despite the fact that millions of people have eaten said food without any ill effect, is not common sense.
It's paranoia.
its not evidence that the food is full of dangerous chemicals. its evidence that i dont know what is in it, and id rather not eat unknown chemicals, as much as i can possibly avoid them
Pure subjectivity can be a way to make food decisions, but it isn't a reasonable basis to declare that a food is "good" or "bad." I mean, I'm freaked out by those little dyed green fruit bits you find in holiday baked goods, but that doesn't mean they're bad. It's just a personal preference.
When you say there are bad foods, it should mean something more than a personal and subjective category, shouldn't it?
0 -
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 ?
Subjectivity regarding whether a food is "good or bad"
Long discussion about pizza
Obligatory post with ingredient list containing scary chemicals
Follow up obligatory post with banana infographic and all the chemicals in it
I think that should catch you up.
0 -
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.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
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions