There are 'BAD' foods
Replies
-
OP I'm with you. I'm not going to pretend that a Keebler cookie is not 'bad' food. Doesn't mean I won't eat it, doesn't mean I feel guilty about it either (as long as I only eat one or two), but I'd be in denial if I didn't realize that there could be better choices.
Why would a Keebler cookie be a "bad" food if you've eaten a balanced diet all day, are within your calorie goals, have hit/come reasonably close to your macro goals, and are having that cookie as a snack because you have room under your calorie limit for it and it sounds good at the moment?
Context and dosage. No such thing as bad foods, but there is such a thing as a bad diet/eating habits overall. A Keebler cookie, or a bowl of ice cream, or a Big Mac or french fries or whatever aren't "bad" within the context of an overall balanced diet. Subsisting mostly or entirely upon those items would be a bad idea, just as subsisting entirely upon a diet of broccoli or kale or fresh fruits or chicken would be.
Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 7:30 am on a weekday would be bad. Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 1:00 am on a Saturday wouldn't carry the same risks. Context.
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
Yay!!0 -
OP I'm with you. I'm not going to pretend that a Keebler cookie is not 'bad' food. Doesn't mean I won't eat it, doesn't mean I feel guilty about it either (as long as I only eat one or two), but I'd be in denial if I didn't realize that there could be better choices.
Why would a Keebler cookie be a "bad" food if you've eaten a balanced diet all day, are within your calorie goals, have hit/come reasonably close to your macro goals, and are having that cookie as a snack because you have room under your calorie limit for it and it sounds good at the moment?
Context and dosage. No such thing as bad foods, but there is such a thing as a bad diet/eating habits overall. A Keebler cookie, or a bowl of ice cream, or a Big Mac or french fries or whatever aren't "bad" within the context of an overall balanced diet. Subsisting mostly or entirely upon those items would be a bad idea, just as subsisting entirely upon a diet of broccoli or kale or fresh fruits or chicken would be.
Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 7:30 am on a weekday would be bad. Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 1:00 am on a Saturday wouldn't carry the same risks. Context.
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
It puzzles me too why some people need to insist there are not bad foods. While I agree what might be bad for me, is fine for others, I think it's lying to myself to say no food is bad.
While eating at a deficit, you need the most nutrients you can getget with the calories you have available.0 -
In agreement with others saying that "bad" is subjective and not very helpful. We can certainly structure our overall diet poorly but I'm not going to die from the (very) occasional soda or strip of bacon. If I'm getting my overall nutritional needs met and I still have the calories left over, I'm going to have the pie if I want it.0
-
OP I'm with you. I'm not going to pretend that a Keebler cookie is not 'bad' food. Doesn't mean I won't eat it, doesn't mean I feel guilty about it either (as long as I only eat one or two), but I'd be in denial if I didn't realize that there could be better choices.
Why would a Keebler cookie be a "bad" food if you've eaten a balanced diet all day, are within your calorie goals, have hit/come reasonably close to your macro goals, and are having that cookie as a snack because you have room under your calorie limit for it and it sounds good at the moment?
Context and dosage. No such thing as bad foods, but there is such a thing as a bad diet/eating habits overall. A Keebler cookie, or a bowl of ice cream, or a Big Mac or french fries or whatever aren't "bad" within the context of an overall balanced diet. Subsisting mostly or entirely upon those items would be a bad idea, just as subsisting entirely upon a diet of broccoli or kale or fresh fruits or chicken would be.
Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 7:30 am on a weekday would be bad. Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 1:00 am on a Saturday wouldn't carry the same risks. Context.
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
Foods have different nutrients, not just more or less. A piece of chicken is objectively better for getting in your protein than broccoli. That doesn't make chicken good and broccoli bad.
Context.
And.
Dosage.
0 -
OP I'm with you. I'm not going to pretend that a Keebler cookie is not 'bad' food. Doesn't mean I won't eat it, doesn't mean I feel guilty about it either (as long as I only eat one or two), but I'd be in denial if I didn't realize that there could be better choices.
Why would a Keebler cookie be a "bad" food if you've eaten a balanced diet all day, are within your calorie goals, have hit/come reasonably close to your macro goals, and are having that cookie as a snack because you have room under your calorie limit for it and it sounds good at the moment?
Context and dosage. No such thing as bad foods, but there is such a thing as a bad diet/eating habits overall. A Keebler cookie, or a bowl of ice cream, or a Big Mac or french fries or whatever aren't "bad" within the context of an overall balanced diet. Subsisting mostly or entirely upon those items would be a bad idea, just as subsisting entirely upon a diet of broccoli or kale or fresh fruits or chicken would be.
Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 7:30 am on a weekday would be bad. Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 1:00 am on a Saturday wouldn't carry the same risks. Context.
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
I don't think anybody wouldn't admit this. Most people here who aren't into demonizing certain foods know and state that while there are no inherently bad foods there are definitely foods that are more nutritious than others. That's just common sense.0 -
Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you0
-
So cake is bad, but good in that case, but still bad overall. Now I get it. I guess if one must assign a label there isn't much point in it making sense.ForecasterJason wrote: »
That would be an option, though right now we have specific food types and items to provide for them._Terrapin_ wrote: »
So foods like potatoes in a can aren't a good source of micronutrients? Canned beets? You can always request more micro dense items from your sources. Maybe come up with a list of more micro dense foods for these kiddos and your halfway to your issue.ForecasterJason wrote: »I support the notion that some foods are unhealthy.
To be honest, my answer is yes. At my church, we pack food for kids at the local elementary school who have little to no food to eat on the weekends. Because of the nature of this undertaking (most of the food is processed and packaged), most of the food they're getting from us is low in nutrients. They're getting fed from a macronutrient standpoint, which is the most important thing, but that food is not doing much good from a micronutrient standpoint.Since these discussions always go to the extremes, let me ask this.
If there is a starving child that hasn't eaten in 3 days, are there any foods that are bad for them?
No. The way I see it, they're healthier with the food that they're being given (as opposed to no food), but the specific foods themselves are not all that healthy. In other words, it's like a continuum. No food is the worst, some food is better, but a solid foundation of mostly nutrient dense foods is what I call truly "healthy" for them.Hornsby wrote:So "nothing" is healthier than energy without micros? That makes zero sense.
0 -
Since when did healthy and good/bad become interchangeable?OP I'm with you. I'm not going to pretend that a Keebler cookie is not 'bad' food. Doesn't mean I won't eat it, doesn't mean I feel guilty about it either (as long as I only eat one or two), but I'd be in denial if I didn't realize that there could be better choices.
Why would a Keebler cookie be a "bad" food if you've eaten a balanced diet all day, are within your calorie goals, have hit/come reasonably close to your macro goals, and are having that cookie as a snack because you have room under your calorie limit for it and it sounds good at the moment?
Context and dosage. No such thing as bad foods, but there is such a thing as a bad diet/eating habits overall. A Keebler cookie, or a bowl of ice cream, or a Big Mac or french fries or whatever aren't "bad" within the context of an overall balanced diet. Subsisting mostly or entirely upon those items would be a bad idea, just as subsisting entirely upon a diet of broccoli or kale or fresh fruits or chicken would be.
Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 7:30 am on a weekday would be bad. Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 1:00 am on a Saturday wouldn't carry the same risks. Context.
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
0 -
bethclabburn wrote: »Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you
http://www.snopes.com/clear-foods-hot-dog-dna-study/0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I support the notion that some foods are unhealthy.
To be honest, my answer is yes. At my church, we pack food for kids at the local elementary school who have little to no food to eat on the weekends. Because of the nature of this undertaking (most of the food is processed and packaged), most of the food they're getting from us is low in nutrients. They're getting fed from a macronutrient standpoint, which is the most important thing, but that food is not doing much good from a micronutrient standpoint.Since these discussions always go to the extremes, let me ask this.
If there is a starving child that hasn't eaten in 3 days, are there any foods that are bad for them?
How does that in any way demonstrate that any given food, in context of appropriate portions and balanced overall diet, is bad or unhealthy in and of itself?0 -
bethclabburn wrote: »Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you
I think you're confusing "gross to think about" and "bad for you."0 -
bethclabburn wrote: »Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you
Didn't watch, already know how they're made, don't care. Hot dogs on an occasional basis, within the context of a balanced diet, aren't going to hurt anything. A diet consisting entirely of hot dogs is bad for you. Context and dosage.
Sorry for the people who believe that every single thing you put in your mouth all day, every day has to meet some certain standard of "healthiness" or "nutritiousness" or it's poisoning you. Does that also mean that you spend every waking hour in the gym or outside doing cardio because sitting on the couch watching TV is "bad"?stevencloser wrote: »OP I'm with you. I'm not going to pretend that a Keebler cookie is not 'bad' food. Doesn't mean I won't eat it, doesn't mean I feel guilty about it either (as long as I only eat one or two), but I'd be in denial if I didn't realize that there could be better choices.
Why would a Keebler cookie be a "bad" food if you've eaten a balanced diet all day, are within your calorie goals, have hit/come reasonably close to your macro goals, and are having that cookie as a snack because you have room under your calorie limit for it and it sounds good at the moment?
Context and dosage. No such thing as bad foods, but there is such a thing as a bad diet/eating habits overall. A Keebler cookie, or a bowl of ice cream, or a Big Mac or french fries or whatever aren't "bad" within the context of an overall balanced diet. Subsisting mostly or entirely upon those items would be a bad idea, just as subsisting entirely upon a diet of broccoli or kale or fresh fruits or chicken would be.
Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 7:30 am on a weekday would be bad. Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 1:00 am on a Saturday wouldn't carry the same risks. Context.
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
Foods have different nutrients, not just more or less. A piece of chicken is objectively better for getting in your protein than broccoli. That doesn't make chicken good and broccoli bad.
Context.
And.
Dosage.
Glad that some people get it.0 -
since im vegan i view dairy,eggs & animal parts to be bad and disgusting "foods"
anything vegan though is awesome ...some of it might not be nutritionally awesome for me but that does not mean i don't eat them or i demonize them
i eat candy,chocolate,ice cream,chips on a regular basis i find when i don't eat some i binge on them and binging is not healthy at all imo
most of my diet is veggies,fruit,grains,legumes,tofu...the rest of it is what you might consider "Bad" but i consider yummy and don't care0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »I need some foods to be 'bad' - if everything was good I'd never lose weight.
This is a different issue from your OP. I don't consider food good or bad. I will sometimes make choices based on what my goals are, such as eating chicken breast because my protein is low, or a steak because protein and iron are low.
I feel that by labeling foods it's too easy to allow that to become personal. I ate a bad food, therefore I suck at dieting. It becomes a spiral of guilt and shame around food. This isn't the case for all people, but I have seen it often enough to know it happens._Terrapin_ wrote: »
woo hoo! Love the pic.....and in my next life I want to move faster then a turtle(terrapin)queenliz99 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Gosh, IDK, bacon has fatty acids I need?!? It tastes really good and what cancer will I get by eating it or increase a likelihood of XXXX cancer? Colon? Can they tell me where it will begin in my body? Any idea where or what primary organs it will go to? The problem with statements like this 'cancer causing' is always fascinating to me. And while I'm American, bangers and mash is heaven on Earth with a Bass Ale. If I am going to die due this glorious combo of foods....I'm okay with it.suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
Sorry OP; if you need to use labels have it. I'm just eating for fuel to do stuff. I would say things like stress have a greater impact on health then almost any combo of food consumption.
Bowel cancer
I think this has been 'known' for a while, seared meat, etc comes to mind. Moderation probably helps; if I eat 2 pounds of sausage daily and sit around like 3 toed sloth then maybe it increases my likelihood of cancer. Then again....
Three toed sloths are cute! I want to be one in my next life
I thought you were trying to get there in this life. Might improve your reincarnation status
nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »I need some foods to be 'bad' - if everything was good I'd never lose weight.
This is a different issue from your OP. I don't consider food good or bad. I will sometimes make choices based on what my goals are, such as eating chicken breast because my protein is low, or a steak because protein and iron are low.
I feel that by labeling foods it's too easy to allow that to become personal. I ate a bad food, therefore I suck at dieting. It becomes a spiral of guilt and shame around food. This isn't the case for all people, but I have seen it often enough to know it happens._Terrapin_ wrote: »
woo hoo! Love the pic.....and in my next life I want to move faster then a turtle(terrapin)queenliz99 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Gosh, IDK, bacon has fatty acids I need?!? It tastes really good and what cancer will I get by eating it or increase a likelihood of XXXX cancer? Colon? Can they tell me where it will begin in my body? Any idea where or what primary organs it will go to? The problem with statements like this 'cancer causing' is always fascinating to me. And while I'm American, bangers and mash is heaven on Earth with a Bass Ale. If I am going to die due this glorious combo of foods....I'm okay with it.suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
Sorry OP; if you need to use labels have it. I'm just eating for fuel to do stuff. I would say things like stress have a greater impact on health then almost any combo of food consumption.
Bowel cancer
I think this has been 'known' for a while, seared meat, etc comes to mind. Moderation probably helps; if I eat 2 pounds of sausage daily and sit around like 3 toed sloth then maybe it increases my likelihood of cancer. Then again....
Three toed sloths are cute! I want to be one in my next life
I thought you were trying to get there in this life. Might improve your reincarnation status
This I did not know.....hmmm....okay seems legit.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »bethclabburn wrote: »Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you
http://www.snopes.com/clear-foods-hot-dog-dna-study/
So human DNA found in hot dogs and the meat in vegetarian ones are good for you? Probably not0 -
bethclabburn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »bethclabburn wrote: »Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you
http://www.snopes.com/clear-foods-hot-dog-dna-study/
So human DNA found in hot dogs and the meat in vegetarian ones are good for you? Probably not
yep0 -
bethclabburn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »bethclabburn wrote: »Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you
http://www.snopes.com/clear-foods-hot-dog-dna-study/
So human DNA found in hot dogs and the meat in vegetarian ones are good for you? Probably not
You might try actually reading the link.
Missing from the bevy of articles about human DNA in hot dogs (and meat in veggie dogs) was any explanation about how Clear Food determined those percentages, under which conditions testing occurred, whether any independent entities confirmed or duplicated the claims, and the methodology by which Clear Food arrived at their overall conclusions. Information on the site and Clear Food's Kickstarter provided no information about their testing methods, the credibility of their research, or (most important) what the company's specific objective might be.
...
Certain brands were deemed "problematic" at a rate of 14.4 percent, but again, no evidence was presented to substantiate that claim or establish the methodology as worthy of consideration. In short, while the results could bear out to some degree should testing be conducted in a scientific setting, Clear Food didn't appear to be an established laboratory presenting vetted data.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »bethclabburn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »bethclabburn wrote: »Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you
http://www.snopes.com/clear-foods-hot-dog-dna-study/
So human DNA found in hot dogs and the meat in vegetarian ones are good for you? Probably not
You might try actually reading the link.
Missing from the bevy of articles about human DNA in hot dogs (and meat in veggie dogs) was any explanation about how Clear Food determined those percentages, under which conditions testing occurred, whether any independent entities confirmed or duplicated the claims, and the methodology by which Clear Food arrived at their overall conclusions. Information on the site and Clear Food's Kickstarter provided no information about their testing methods, the credibility of their research, or (most important) what the company's specific objective might be.
...
Certain brands were deemed "problematic" at a rate of 14.4 percent, but again, no evidence was presented to substantiate that claim or establish the methodology as worthy of consideration. In short, while the results could bear out to some degree should testing be conducted in a scientific setting, Clear Food didn't appear to be an established laboratory presenting vetted data.
Research quality/validity is usually considered irrelevant as long as the findings are consistent with a person's agenda.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »I need some foods to be 'bad' - if everything was good I'd never lose weight.
This is a different issue from your OP. I don't consider food good or bad. I will sometimes make choices based on what my goals are, such as eating chicken breast because my protein is low, or a steak because protein and iron are low.
I feel that by labeling foods it's too easy to allow that to become personal. I ate a bad food, therefore I suck at dieting. It becomes a spiral of guilt and shame around food. This isn't the case for all people, but I have seen it often enough to know it happens._Terrapin_ wrote: »
woo hoo! Love the pic.....and in my next life I want to move faster then a turtle(terrapin)queenliz99 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Gosh, IDK, bacon has fatty acids I need?!? It tastes really good and what cancer will I get by eating it or increase a likelihood of XXXX cancer? Colon? Can they tell me where it will begin in my body? Any idea where or what primary organs it will go to? The problem with statements like this 'cancer causing' is always fascinating to me. And while I'm American, bangers and mash is heaven on Earth with a Bass Ale. If I am going to die due this glorious combo of foods....I'm okay with it.suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
Sorry OP; if you need to use labels have it. I'm just eating for fuel to do stuff. I would say things like stress have a greater impact on health then almost any combo of food consumption.
Bowel cancer
I think this has been 'known' for a while, seared meat, etc comes to mind. Moderation probably helps; if I eat 2 pounds of sausage daily and sit around like 3 toed sloth then maybe it increases my likelihood of cancer. Then again....
Three toed sloths are cute! I want to be one in my next life
I thought you were trying to get there in this life. Might improve your reincarnation statusnutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »I need some foods to be 'bad' - if everything was good I'd never lose weight.
This is a different issue from your OP. I don't consider food good or bad. I will sometimes make choices based on what my goals are, such as eating chicken breast because my protein is low, or a steak because protein and iron are low.
I feel that by labeling foods it's too easy to allow that to become personal. I ate a bad food, therefore I suck at dieting. It becomes a spiral of guilt and shame around food. This isn't the case for all people, but I have seen it often enough to know it happens._Terrapin_ wrote: »
woo hoo! Love the pic.....and in my next life I want to move faster then a turtle(terrapin)queenliz99 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Gosh, IDK, bacon has fatty acids I need?!? It tastes really good and what cancer will I get by eating it or increase a likelihood of XXXX cancer? Colon? Can they tell me where it will begin in my body? Any idea where or what primary organs it will go to? The problem with statements like this 'cancer causing' is always fascinating to me. And while I'm American, bangers and mash is heaven on Earth with a Bass Ale. If I am going to die due this glorious combo of foods....I'm okay with it.suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
Sorry OP; if you need to use labels have it. I'm just eating for fuel to do stuff. I would say things like stress have a greater impact on health then almost any combo of food consumption.
Bowel cancer
I think this has been 'known' for a while, seared meat, etc comes to mind. Moderation probably helps; if I eat 2 pounds of sausage daily and sit around like 3 toed sloth then maybe it increases my likelihood of cancer. Then again....
Three toed sloths are cute! I want to be one in my next life
I thought you were trying to get there in this life. Might improve your reincarnation status
This I did not know.....hmmm....okay seems legit.
Look at this face... Would I lie? :bigsmile:0 -
Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.0
-
I can't believe this conversation; I feel like people are being intentionally dense. Of course certain foods can be bad for you! Highly processed artificial foods, foods high in saturated fat, trans fat, HFCS can cause heart disease, type 2 diabetes, etc. Why do you think we have so much disease in our country? Now the whole of your diet is what influences your health--it may be okay to eat certain foods on occasion or in small amounts, but how you say that no foods are bad? If we take foods, strip away their nutrients, add all sorts of random artificial crap to make them look pretty and last forever, then these foods can cause health problems, i.e. they are 'bad'!0
-
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.0 -
The problem with terms like "good" and "bad" is that they're vague and ignore context and goals.
When I was underweight, pints of ice cream and cheese were good because I desperately needed calories. I still ate plenty of veggies and proteins, but I needed calorie dense foods to make up for what I couldn't eat if I relied on things that were more satiating. Now that I'm trying to drop a couple pounds, they aren't my go-to snacks.
I don't call shellfish a bad food just because I'm allergic to it. It's not inherently bad; it's deadly to me, but not a bad food in and of itself.
I'll concede that there are good and bad diets for particular goals, but I'm not going to go around demonizing foods. I can say that cupcake would be a bad choice for me right now without saying all cupcakes are always bad. And next week, when the cupcake fits in my goals, maybe, then the cupcake would be a good choice because it's yummy and satisfying and it is okay to enjoy food, even when that food is just helping me get my energy for the day and making me happy.0 -
susan100df wrote: »OP I'm with you. I'm not going to pretend that a Keebler cookie is not 'bad' food. Doesn't mean I won't eat it, doesn't mean I feel guilty about it either (as long as I only eat one or two), but I'd be in denial if I didn't realize that there could be better choices.
Why would a Keebler cookie be a "bad" food if you've eaten a balanced diet all day, are within your calorie goals, have hit/come reasonably close to your macro goals, and are having that cookie as a snack because you have room under your calorie limit for it and it sounds good at the moment?
Context and dosage. No such thing as bad foods, but there is such a thing as a bad diet/eating habits overall. A Keebler cookie, or a bowl of ice cream, or a Big Mac or french fries or whatever aren't "bad" within the context of an overall balanced diet. Subsisting mostly or entirely upon those items would be a bad idea, just as subsisting entirely upon a diet of broccoli or kale or fresh fruits or chicken would be.
Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 7:30 am on a weekday would be bad. Driving through a school zone at 40 mph at 1:00 am on a Saturday wouldn't carry the same risks. Context.
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
It puzzles me too why some people need to insist there are not bad foods. While I agree what might be bad for me, is fine for others, I think it's lying to myself to say no food is bad.
While eating at a deficit, you need the most nutrients you can getget with the calories you have available.
Not really. You need sufficient nutrients. For many nutrients, as soon as you have enough, any additional is useless, and in a few cases, excess can be harmful.0 -
Mezzie1024 wrote: »The problem with terms like "good" and "bad" is that they're vague and ignore context and goals.
When I was underweight, pints of ice cream and cheese were good because I desperately needed calories. I still ate plenty of veggies and proteins, but I needed calorie dense foods to make up for what I couldn't eat if I relied on things that were more satiating. Now that I'm trying to drop a couple pounds, they aren't my go-to snacks.
I don't call shellfish a bad food just because I'm allergic to it. It's not inherently bad; it's deadly to me, but not a bad food in and of itself.
I'll concede that there are good and bad diets for particular goals, but I'm not going to go around demonizing foods. I can say that cupcake would be a bad choice for me right now without saying all cupcakes are always bad. And next week, when the cupcake fits in my goals, maybe, then the cupcake would be a good choice because it's yummy and satisfying and it is okay to enjoy food, even when that food is just helping me get my energy for the day and making me happy.
Boom.0 -
Because the foods I think of as being unhealthy are either very low in micronutrients and/or loaded with ingredients that I don't think belong in food. In the context of a balanced diet that supplies all of the micronutrients in recommended amounts, I don't think there's much harm in eating those other foods in moderation. But to me, that doesn't change the fact that the food itself (such as poptarts) doesn't provide much nutritional value (from a micronutrient standpoint), and is loaded with other "stuff". Foods like that I'd call unhealthy, although when eaten in moderation I agree that it doesn't make the diet itself unhealthy.Carlos_421 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I support the notion that some foods are unhealthy.
To be honest, my answer is yes. At my church, we pack food for kids at the local elementary school who have little to no food to eat on the weekends. Because of the nature of this undertaking (most of the food is processed and packaged), most of the food they're getting from us is low in nutrients. They're getting fed from a macronutrient standpoint, which is the most important thing, but that food is not doing much good from a micronutrient standpoint.Since these discussions always go to the extremes, let me ask this.
If there is a starving child that hasn't eaten in 3 days, are there any foods that are bad for them?
How does that in any way demonstrate that any given food, in context of appropriate portions and balanced overall diet, is bad or unhealthy in and of itself?0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »As comparison, smoking increases your risk of developing by 2500%. 2 pieces of bacon every day increases your risk by 18% (from 5 to 6%). Not that big of an increase
Well I totally agree but tell that to the UK Government - why scaremonger over a bacon butty? The Government has demonised processed meat, making it 'bad' though.
Because no government is governed by nutritional or medic experts. They get all their information through political filters and lobbiests. There is and always will be bias involved.
Absolutely true . This goes not only for medicine but science. To the degree that many "scientific" decisions are recognizably "science", not science, as in they're lobbyist wishes.0 -
This is true. But the bigger question is, in a hypothetical environment, if there was no such thing as low nutrient dense food, and no foods that aren't part of the food groups existed, would we still have the same rate of obesity? Yes there would still be overweight and obese people, but I have a hard time believing there would be as many people in this position.JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.
0 -
If it is the quantity and not the food itself, why is the food bad? Are exercises bad because enough leads to injury?0
-
suziecue20 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »As comparison, smoking increases your risk of developing by 2500%. 2 pieces of bacon every day increases your risk by 18% (from 5 to 6%). Not that big of an increase
Well I totally agree but tell that to the UK Government - why scaremonger over a bacon butty? The Government has demonised processed meat, making it 'bad' though.
Because no government is governed by nutritional or medic experts. They get all their information through political filters and lobbiests. There is and always will be bias involved.
Was it even the government scaremongering our just stating facts? I saw a lot of horrible reporting on the IARC report. Reporting these days has a need to scare to draw views and clicks.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions