There are 'BAD' foods

Options
145791056

Replies

  • suziecue20
    suziecue20 Posts: 567 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Francl27 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.

    Yay!!
  • 100df
    100df Posts: 668 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Francl27 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.
  • GBrady43068
    GBrady43068 Posts: 1,256 Member
    Options
    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.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Francl27 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.
  • TheBeachgod
    TheBeachgod Posts: 825 Member
    edited January 2016
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Francl27 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.

    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.
  • bethclabburn
    bethclabburn Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    I support the notion that some foods are unhealthy.
    Hornsby wrote: »
    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?
    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.
    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.
    That would be an option, though right now we have specific food types and items to provide for them.


    Hornsby wrote:
    So "nothing" is healthier than energy without micros? That makes zero sense.
    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.
    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.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Francl27 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.
    Since when did healthy and good/bad become interchangeable?
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Options
    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/
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    I support the notion that some foods are unhealthy.
    Hornsby wrote: »
    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?
    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.

    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?
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    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."
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    edited January 2016
    Options
    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"?


    Francl27 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Francl27 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.
  • salembambi
    salembambi Posts: 5,585 Member
    Options
    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 care
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    Options
    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: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    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?
    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.

    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 ;)

    dr4h74izuzsk.jpeg
    woo hoo! Love the pic.....and in my next life I want to move faster then a turtle(terrapin) ;)

    I thought you were trying to get there in this life. Might improve your reincarnation status :tongue:
    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: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    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?
    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.

    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 ;)

    dr4h74izuzsk.jpeg
    woo hoo! Love the pic.....and in my next life I want to move faster then a turtle(terrapin) ;)

    I thought you were trying to get there in this life. Might improve your reincarnation status :tongue:

    This I did not know.....hmmm....okay seems legit.
  • bethclabburn
    bethclabburn Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 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
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 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

    yep
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 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.




  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    edited January 2016
    Options
    queenliz99 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.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    _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: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    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?
    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.

    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 ;)

    dr4h74izuzsk.jpeg
    woo hoo! Love the pic.....and in my next life I want to move faster then a turtle(terrapin) ;)

    I thought you were trying to get there in this life. Might improve your reincarnation status :tongue:
    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: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    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?
    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.

    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 ;)

    dr4h74izuzsk.jpeg
    woo hoo! Love the pic.....and in my next life I want to move faster then a turtle(terrapin) ;)

    I thought you were trying to get there in this life. Might improve your reincarnation status :tongue:

    This I did not know.....hmmm....okay seems legit.

    Look at this face... Would I lie? :bigsmile:
  • JoshuaMcAllister
    JoshuaMcAllister Posts: 500 Member
    Options
    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.