There are 'BAD' foods
Options
Replies
-
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 -
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
You're still not demonstrating why those foods are unhealthy in and of themselves.
Just because you say so? Why is a low micronutrient profile unhealthy (read: shouldn't be eaten)?
And what is this "other stuff" in pop tarts and how are they bad for me?0 -
If you consider taking a crap a squat without anything but your own body damaging or dangerous how do you go the loo? You probably have squatted many times without injury. Somebody probably has the video of some 80+ YO doing a DL with some considerable weight. I think you'll be okay......or they eventually kill you. Either way you'll find out.ForecasterJason wrote: »
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Same issue as food. Having bacon to the absence of ever making calories for vegetables is probably bad like squatting with poor form. It isn't the one food or the one squat that's the issue. It's the overall context to either.
Also, you can find someone that will say anything. That doesn't make it correct.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.
I'm not saying that overeating healthy foods wouldn't give the same results, I'm simply implying that this isn't the cause of obesity and associated metabloic issues in the UK and to argue that point is just plain ridiculous. It's common knowledge that a culture of takeaways every weekend, quick fix ready meals are to blame for rising obesity not overeating healthy foods.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.
Obesity is not simply caused simply by overeating. Sugar and highly palatable foods interfere with our natural signals of fullness and satiation. A healthy body seeks to maintain its natural weight, and there are all sorts of biomechanical processes that regulate metabolism, hunger, and appetite in order to do so. When you consume highly palatable sugary foods that release dopamine, you are overriding your body's natural fullness signals.
0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »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.
I'm not saying that overeating healthy foods wouldn't give the same results, I'm simply implying that this isn't the cause of obesity and associated metabloic issues in the UK and to argue that point is just plane ridiculous. It's common knowledge that a culture of takeaways every weekend, quick fix ready meals are to blame for rising obesity not overeating healthy foods.
So a takeaway salad can cause an obesity crisis?0 -
Why does it have to be black or white? I can have a glass of semi skimmed milk, or I can have chocolate milk if I have a few extra calories, and get the same nutritional value from either. Why is one seen as good while the other is seen as bad? I find the definition of what makes something "bad" very murky. Is it the sugar? So does that mean fruits are bad too? Is it the calories? Does that make nuts bad? Is it the fat? So avocados are bad too? Is it the overall nutritional profile? So water is 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.
Obesity is not simply caused simply by overeating. Sugar and highly palatable foods interfere with our natural signals of fullness and satiation. A healthy body seeks to maintain its natural weight, and there are all sorts of biomechanical processes that regulate metabolism, hunger, and appetite in order to do so. When you consume highly palatable sugary foods that release dopamine, you are overriding your body's natural fullness signals.
No, awareness of food period releases dopamine. Eating leads to serotonin which then suppresses dopamine - not because we're designed to avoid overeating but because we're evolved to avoid wasting energy and safety looking for food while there is food available.0 -
Choices. They are ours to make for ourselves.
No one can say what is healthy or unhealthy for anyone else.
Individually, we can decide for ourselves, and really, it is no one else's business what we choose to eat.
Everyone has the same information at their finger tips, and we are all adults.
What I have learned here, in the almost 4 years I have been here, is all things in moderation, and do not consume more calories than you burn, if you want to become a healthy weight, and maintain a healthy weight.
It worked, and is working for me, and yes I do eat what many consider unhealthy foods. In order to stay at a healthy weight, it has to be sustainable. For me it's been over two years of maintaining a healthy weight, and that is proof enough for me.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 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
- 994 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions