For Some of Us there ARE Bad Foods
Replies
-
I hear it IRL all the time- from people I roll my eyes at though!
Oh that is so bad for you- look how many carbs it has!
Oh I dont eat muffins, those are so bad for you all that sugar.
I wonder how much fat is in that hamburger- that has to be bad for you.
You know how bad it is that that's not organic milk, right?
I cant eat subway- all that processed turkey is so bad for you.
Everything in the vending machine is bad for me!
"Bad" is everywhere.0 -
obviously calling any food bad is problematic because of how it can be interpreted.
but certainly for ME there are bad foods.
anything with splenda gives me seizures. i consider them bad foods, period. that *kitten*'s poison to me, and not to my husband, but the fact that he doesn't get seizures does not, in my opinion, qualify the chemical as "good". the reaction is so severe i really don't consider it good for anyone regardless of whether it gives them seizures.
other lab-created sweeteners are also known to cause bad health effects to a lot of people, so to me those are "bad" too. sugar isn't good, but unless you're diabetic, it's not going to kill you, so i do no consider sugar inherently bad (especially when it is natural form such as eating a slice of pineapple, since the sugar is tagging along with its buddies fibre and vitamins).
other stuff is more personalized, like doritos. they're designed to be addictive. they have next to nothing for actual nutrients. they induce terrible cravings that makes it extremely unpleasant to eat one little serving and not dive into the whole bag. while it is POSSIBLE to do so, i think the fact that those types of foods are engineered to make you fail at portion control makes them bad. that to me does NOT mean that i can never have one again, but it does mean it's bad for me.
the title of the thread is about bad foods existing for some of us, and i agree with the statement insofar as it applies to my examples and similar situations.0 -
MommyMeggo wrote: »I hear it IRL all the time- from people I roll my eyes at though!
Oh that is so bad for you- look how many carbs it has!
Oh I dont eat muffins, those are so bad for you all that sugar.
I wonder how much fat is in that hamburger- that has to be bad for you.
You know how bad it is that that's not organic milk, right?
I cant eat subway- all that processed turkey is so bad for you.
Everything in the vending machine is bad for me!
"Bad" is everywhere.
When you hear those IRL what is your reaction? Do you go into a rant about there not being bad foods?0 -
When I think back to the last few times I've heard the term used (outside of this forum), people were using it to mean "something that I shouldn't have eaten." The very last time I heard it, the person followed it up by saying "I'm terrible."
Precisely - the value gets transferred from the inanimate object to the person. With "bad" results, meaning that their self worth is negatively affected, they experience shame and self loathing, they express through their speech, demeanor and postings (here) that they are somehow less worthy of the respect of others and themselves.
Speech (words) are powerful - they can affect how we feel about others and ourselves. They can instill passion, anger, love, so many emotional responses.0 -
obviously calling any food bad is problematic because of how it can be interpreted.
but certainly for ME there are bad foods.
anything with splenda gives me seizures. i consider them bad foods, period. that *kitten*'s poison to me, and not to my husband, but the fact that he doesn't get seizures does not, in my opinion, qualify the chemical as "good". the reaction is so severe i really don't consider it good for anyone regardless of whether it gives them seizures.
other lab-created sweeteners are also known to cause bad health effects to a lot of people, so to me those are "bad" too. sugar isn't good, but unless you're diabetic, it's not going to kill you, so i do no consider sugar inherently bad (especially when it is natural form such as eating a slice of pineapple, since the sugar is tagging along with its buddies fibre and vitamins).
other stuff is more personalized, like doritos. they're designed to be addictive. they have next to nothing for actual nutrients. they induce terrible cravings that makes it extremely unpleasant to eat one little serving and not dive into the whole bag. while it is POSSIBLE to do so, i think the fact that those types of foods are engineered to make you fail at portion control makes them bad. that to me does NOT mean that i can never have one again, but it does mean it's bad for me.
the title of the thread is about bad foods existing for some of us, and i agree with the statement insofar as it applies to my examples and similar situations.
If to you bad = hard to control. Then thats what it means to you.
But thats not the "bad" we go up in arms over.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
I agree with this. I had "bad" food last night. It was a bite of a 100% Cacao Chocolate bar that looked like it would be a yummy candy bar, but tasted like ... just, it was gross. Bluk. Bad.
100% cacao? Wouldn't that be unsweetened, like baking chocolate? Yeah, tried that as a child and learned my lesson.
Ha! Me too!0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
I agree with this. I had "bad" food last night. It was a bite of a 100% Cacao Chocolate bar that looked like it would be a yummy candy bar, but tasted like ... just, it was gross. Bluk. Bad.
100% cacao? Wouldn't that be unsweetened, like baking chocolate? Yeah, tried that as a child and learned my lesson.
Yes for some reason I didn't make the connection. It was packaged like a regular candy bar so I was expecting something else. Bluk. I can still taste it. lol
I'm so surprised they sell those. I saw 90% and 100% at the store last week and told my husband how funny it was. Every child I know has been duped into tasting the baking chocolate for a laugh, and now they are sold as treats.
0 -
obviously calling any food bad is problematic because of how it can be interpreted.
but certainly for ME there are bad foods.
anything with splenda gives me seizures. i consider them bad foods, period. that *kitten*'s poison to me, and not to my husband, but the fact that he doesn't get seizures does not, in my opinion, qualify the chemical as "good". the reaction is so severe i really don't consider it good for anyone regardless of whether it gives them seizures.
other lab-created sweeteners are also known to cause bad health effects to a lot of people, so to me those are "bad" too. sugar isn't good, but unless you're diabetic, it's not going to kill you, so i do no consider sugar inherently bad (especially when it is natural form such as eating a slice of pineapple, since the sugar is tagging along with its buddies fibre and vitamins).
other stuff is more personalized, like doritos. they're designed to be addictive. they have next to nothing for actual nutrients. they induce terrible cravings that makes it extremely unpleasant to eat one little serving and not dive into the whole bag. while it is POSSIBLE to do so, i think the fact that those types of foods are engineered to make you fail at portion control makes them bad. that to me does NOT mean that i can never have one again, but it does mean it's bad for me.
the title of the thread is about bad foods existing for some of us, and i agree with the statement insofar as it applies to my examples and similar situations.
Doritos are designed to be *tasty*. Do some people have trouble moderating their consumption? Sure.
But lots of other people are able to moderate their consumption of them, even though they taste good. Just yesterday I saw someone put Doritos on top of a taco salad, eat about 60% of the salad, and then stop. She was full and didn't want any more.
A personalized decision that one has trouble moderating consumption of Doritos makes sense to me. Successful weight loss does, in my experience, require some self-awareness. But this would be extremely individual. One of the foods you praise, pineapple, happens to be a food that I struggle to moderate. When pineapple is in front of me, I want to eat it all until it is gone. Does this make pineapple "bad"? No. It just means I have to be self-aware.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
There was a thread not long ago where the OP was arguing just that -- she was saying "admit it, these foods ARE bad, you just don't want to admit you are eating BAD food."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
There was a thread not long ago where the OP was arguing just that -- she was saying "admit it, these foods ARE bad, you just don't want to admit you are eating BAD food."
Oh, well I stand corrected. One poster has said it. Still think the posts saying "you shouldn't think of food as good/bad" are in the lead, though. 0 -
obviously calling any food bad is problematic because of how it can be interpreted.
but certainly for ME there are bad foods.
anything with splenda gives me seizures. i consider them bad foods, period. that *kitten*'s poison to me, and not to my husband, but the fact that he doesn't get seizures does not, in my opinion, qualify the chemical as "good". the reaction is so severe i really don't consider it good for anyone regardless of whether it gives them seizures.
Disclaimer: I don't care if you want to call foods bad. This is just for discussion.
Do you then think it would make sense for me to call penicillin "bad" because I am allergic to it and ended up in the hospital because of it, as a kid?other stuff is more personalized, like doritos. they're designed to be addictive. they have next to nothing for actual nutrients. they induce terrible cravings that makes it extremely unpleasant to eat one little serving and not dive into the whole bag. while it is POSSIBLE to do so, i think the fact that those types of foods are engineered to make you fail at portion control makes them bad. that to me does NOT mean that i can never have one again, but it does mean it's bad for me.
What about someone, like me, who doesn't crave Doritos at all, or find not eating more than one of them, if I happen to eat one, tough to avoid at all? I mention this, because the way you wrote it appears as if you are claiming this is the case for everyone.
Also, yes, they try to make people crave them, but as a home cook I try to make my food delicious and hope that others will crave it. AND, if cooking for a holiday dinner or some such I am likely to include high cal ingredients in larger quantities than usual in order to make the food more delicious.
I really don't believe something like Doritos are more "addictive" or harder not to overeat than really good home cooked or restaurant food from a skilled chef (using regular types of ingredients). That would be the opposite of my experience. The difference is that I can go get some Doritos from my office kitchen and eat them as a snack any time I want (although I don't, not worth the calories), whereas if I wanted a home cooked meal I'd have to invest some time and am more likely to modify what I'm doing to fit with my calorie goal, it's easier to be mindful and not add the extra butter.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
There was a thread not long ago where the OP was arguing just that -- she was saying "admit it, these foods ARE bad, you just don't want to admit you are eating BAD food."
Oh, well I stand corrected. One poster has said it. Still think the posts saying "you shouldn't think of food as good/bad" are in the lead, though.
What about something like the post I mentioned earlier, with an OP talking about how she felt such guilt and shame whenever she ate a bad food like bread. I think for someone like that it is helpful (and kind) to encourage them to not think of foods as bad and good and certainly not to attach guilt and shame to eating decisions, and to talk about how trying to think really logically about foods and how they fit into an overall healthy diet has helped us and so on.
I wouldn't lecture her about not using the "bad foods" label, but I see her as someone who would be better off not using it (as I am). I think a lot of the discussion of this is about the theoretical example, or about why it doesn't work for us. I really don't think anyone cares if you use the term.
What I disagreed with here, with OP's post, wasn't that he personally considers Cheetos a bad food for him (I just consider it not tasty). It was that he seemed to be misunderstanding comments that there are no bad foods to mean that people didn't think there were differences between foods.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
There was a thread not long ago where the OP was arguing just that -- she was saying "admit it, these foods ARE bad, you just don't want to admit you are eating BAD food."
I shared my story in that thread. And one of the posters in this thread called me naive for not believing im bad foods.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
There was a thread not long ago where the OP was arguing just that -- she was saying "admit it, these foods ARE bad, you just don't want to admit you are eating BAD food."
Oh, well I stand corrected. One poster has said it. Still think the posts saying "you shouldn't think of food as good/bad" are in the lead, though.
What about something like the post I mentioned earlier, with an OP talking about how she felt such guilt and shame whenever she ate a bad food like bread. I think for someone like that it is helpful (and kind) to encourage them to not think of foods as bad and good and certainly not to attach guilt and shame to eating decisions, and to talk about how trying to think really logically about foods and how they fit into an overall healthy diet has helped us and so on.
I wouldn't lecture her about not using the "bad foods" label, but I see her as someone who would be better off not using it (as I am). I think a lot of the discussion of this is about the theoretical example, or about why it doesn't work for us. I really don't think anyone cares if you use the term.
What I disagreed with here, with OP's post, wasn't that he personally considers Cheetos a bad food for him (I just consider it not tasty). It was that he seemed to be misunderstanding comments that there are no bad foods to mean that people didn't think there were differences between foods.
Your posts seem like you think I'm trying to change your mind about or telling you not to do something.
Personally I don't think it's bad to feel guilt when you overeat or have been eating poorly, and not being familiar with the post of which speak I can only say that feeling guilt over eating bread within the confines of a balanced diet seems like an issue beyond what I think calling or not calling foods good/bad would be likely to help. But it's hard to say since I only have your interpretation to go on and honestly I rarely interpret posts in the same manner as you.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
There was a thread not long ago where the OP was arguing just that -- she was saying "admit it, these foods ARE bad, you just don't want to admit you are eating BAD food."
Oh, well I stand corrected. One poster has said it. Still think the posts saying "you shouldn't think of food as good/bad" are in the lead, though.
What about something like the post I mentioned earlier, with an OP talking about how she felt such guilt and shame whenever she ate a bad food like bread. I think for someone like that it is helpful (and kind) to encourage them to not think of foods as bad and good and certainly not to attach guilt and shame to eating decisions, and to talk about how trying to think really logically about foods and how they fit into an overall healthy diet has helped us and so on.
I wouldn't lecture her about not using the "bad foods" label, but I see her as someone who would be better off not using it (as I am). I think a lot of the discussion of this is about the theoretical example, or about why it doesn't work for us. I really don't think anyone cares if you use the term.
What I disagreed with here, with OP's post, wasn't that he personally considers Cheetos a bad food for him (I just consider it not tasty). It was that he seemed to be misunderstanding comments that there are no bad foods to mean that people didn't think there were differences between foods.
Your posts seem like you think I'm trying to change your mind about or telling you not to do something.
Personally I don't think it's bad to feel guilt when you overeat or have been eating poorly, and not being familiar with the post of which speak I can only say that feeling guilt over eating bread within the confines of a balanced diet seems like an issue beyond what I think calling or not calling foods good/bad would be likely to help. But it's hard to say since I only have your interpretation to go on and honestly I rarely interpret posts in the same manner as you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" in this context, but given my own personal experience and the dozens of posts I've seen around here, it doesn't seem like guilt around food choices is an emotion that helps drive anyone forward or make lasting changes in their life. It seems to only lead to misery, more emotional choices around food, and (sometimes) over-compensation. In this sense, I would say that guilt over food choices (or making food choice a moral issue) is a "bad" thing. It leads to more unhappiness in the world, something that we don't really need more of.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Actually, having a toe stubbed or shirt stained could be morally bad if the ethics system doesn't regard intent and blame. In such ethics, the world where your toe is stubbed is morally worse compared to an identical world where it isn't. Saying you believe morals requires intent doesn't even fix the comparison because almost all adults eating involves the intent of the adults.
For me personally, my biggest problem is that categorical statements are usually wrong (though to avoid the trap myself, I won't say they are always wrong!). A Twinkie is a bad food - well unless you're starving to death, or you're about to go into hypoglycemic shock, or you've been eating some odd diet that has left you thiamine deficient and now that oh-so-unclean food's B vitamin enrichment will fill in the deficiency - suddenly it is a good food because the food can't be judged outside of the context of use. It is like saying a tool like a hammer is bad - well sure, if you try to recreate the 3 Stooges with it, it is very bad, but most people use it for something good like building birdhouses or whatnot.
For someone that is starving would you say that a Twinkie, while maybe lifesaving, is not the best food for that person? That there would a better food if it were available?
Well now you're not discussing if a food is good, you're discussing if it is the best. So are good foods ones that meet a context and nothing could meet that context better? Does food being good depend on what is available to you, or are there foods that are always good, not just waiting for what's better to displace them? This seems another time I'm forced to use the phrase making the perfect the enemy of the good.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
I was attempting to provide some context as to why so many people consider "bad" to be an unhelpful description of a food. By your own point, if it can mean so many different things, it may not be the best choice to describe a food.
Perhaps not, though I've never had anyone question what I meant by "bad food" IRL. I'm sure a lot of phrases I use aren't the best, especially to those not from my area.
My guess is that most people "in real life" don't spend as much time thinking about food as we tend to do here.
When I think back to the last few times I've heard the term used (outside of this forum), people were using it to mean "something that I shouldn't have eaten." The very last time I heard it, the person followed it up by saying "I'm terrible."
The National Weight Loss Registry's personality inventories of their successful losers found that the one trait that stood out different about maintainers was more mindfulness of food and eating, otherwise they tended to have just as much personality variance as normal people. So yeah, MFP crowd probably has put more thought into food than the average person.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
There was a thread not long ago where the OP was arguing just that -- she was saying "admit it, these foods ARE bad, you just don't want to admit you are eating BAD food."
Oh, well I stand corrected. One poster has said it. Still think the posts saying "you shouldn't think of food as good/bad" are in the lead, though.
What about something like the post I mentioned earlier, with an OP talking about how she felt such guilt and shame whenever she ate a bad food like bread. I think for someone like that it is helpful (and kind) to encourage them to not think of foods as bad and good and certainly not to attach guilt and shame to eating decisions, and to talk about how trying to think really logically about foods and how they fit into an overall healthy diet has helped us and so on.
I wouldn't lecture her about not using the "bad foods" label, but I see her as someone who would be better off not using it (as I am). I think a lot of the discussion of this is about the theoretical example, or about why it doesn't work for us. I really don't think anyone cares if you use the term.
What I disagreed with here, with OP's post, wasn't that he personally considers Cheetos a bad food for him (I just consider it not tasty). It was that he seemed to be misunderstanding comments that there are no bad foods to mean that people didn't think there were differences between foods.
Your posts seem like you think I'm trying to change your mind about or telling you not to do something.
Personally I don't think it's bad to feel guilt when you overeat or have been eating poorly, and not being familiar with the post of which speak I can only say that feeling guilt over eating bread within the confines of a balanced diet seems like an issue beyond what I think calling or not calling foods good/bad would be likely to help. But it's hard to say since I only have your interpretation to go on and honestly I rarely interpret posts in the same manner as you.
You keep saying that changing the words doesn't help. We keep saying it has for us. Over and over again. This is the second time I've seen you post after I've shared my story of disordered eating patterns only to have you blow it off later in the thread. Almost anything else I could say right now would earn me a warning, so I'll say this: reread this thread, pay attention to the actual arguments being made, try to leave your baggage outside the door, and LISTEN to what people are telling you.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Actually, having a toe stubbed or shirt stained could be morally bad if the ethics system doesn't regard intent and blame. In such ethics, the world where your toe is stubbed is morally worse compared to an identical world where it isn't. Saying you believe morals requires intent doesn't even fix the comparison because almost all adults eating involves the intent of the adults.
For me personally, my biggest problem is that categorical statements are usually wrong (though to avoid the trap myself, I won't say they are always wrong!). A Twinkie is a bad food - well unless you're starving to death, or you're about to go into hypoglycemic shock, or you've been eating some odd diet that has left you thiamine deficient and now that oh-so-unclean food's B vitamin enrichment will fill in the deficiency - suddenly it is a good food because the food can't be judged outside of the context of use. It is like saying a tool like a hammer is bad - well sure, if you try to recreate the 3 Stooges with it, it is very bad, but most people use it for something good like building birdhouses or whatnot.
For someone that is starving would you say that a Twinkie, while maybe lifesaving, is not the best food for that person? That there would a better food if it were available?
Well now you're not discussing if a food is good, you're discussing if it is the best. So are good foods ones that meet a context and nothing could meet that context better? Does food being good depend on what is available to you, or are there foods that are always good, not just waiting for what's better to displace them? This seems another time I'm forced to use the phrase making the perfect the enemy of the good.
How can we have better or best without having good/bad?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
There was a thread not long ago where the OP was arguing just that -- she was saying "admit it, these foods ARE bad, you just don't want to admit you are eating BAD food."
Oh, well I stand corrected. One poster has said it. Still think the posts saying "you shouldn't think of food as good/bad" are in the lead, though.
What about something like the post I mentioned earlier, with an OP talking about how she felt such guilt and shame whenever she ate a bad food like bread. I think for someone like that it is helpful (and kind) to encourage them to not think of foods as bad and good and certainly not to attach guilt and shame to eating decisions, and to talk about how trying to think really logically about foods and how they fit into an overall healthy diet has helped us and so on.
I wouldn't lecture her about not using the "bad foods" label, but I see her as someone who would be better off not using it (as I am). I think a lot of the discussion of this is about the theoretical example, or about why it doesn't work for us. I really don't think anyone cares if you use the term.
What I disagreed with here, with OP's post, wasn't that he personally considers Cheetos a bad food for him (I just consider it not tasty). It was that he seemed to be misunderstanding comments that there are no bad foods to mean that people didn't think there were differences between foods.
Your posts seem like you think I'm trying to change your mind about or telling you not to do something.
Personally I don't think it's bad to feel guilt when you overeat or have been eating poorly, and not being familiar with the post of which speak I can only say that feeling guilt over eating bread within the confines of a balanced diet seems like an issue beyond what I think calling or not calling foods good/bad would be likely to help. But it's hard to say since I only have your interpretation to go on and honestly I rarely interpret posts in the same manner as you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" in this context, but given my own personal experience and the dozens of posts I've seen around here, it doesn't seem like guilt around food choices is an emotion that helps drive anyone forward or make lasting changes in their life. It seems to only lead to misery, more emotional choices around food, and (sometimes) over-compensation. In this sense, I would say that guilt over food choices (or making food choice a moral issue) is a "bad" thing. It leads to more unhappiness in the world, something that we don't really need more of.
My experience has been very different. I usually feel some level of guilt when I overindulge. I think it's one of the things that has helped me control my weight.
Edit: On second thought, I think regret might be a better description. Unless I was sneaking cookies behind my mom's back or something. Not that I personally ever did that.
0 -
It's my observation that many of the posters who are arguing that maybe we shouldn't call foods bad are those who are most often giving advice to newer posters on these boards. And that those are are adamant that they get to call foods bad really don't seem to do it that often.
There is a poster on these boards who's made 4 posts now asking if binging on protein bars will make her gain weight. Because she can't figure out if they're good or bad, for weight loss or weight gain.
There are fairly routine posts asking if fruit will make people gain weight, because of sugar or carbs or whatever other mystical thing is appearing in the media these days.
How often do we see someone say they can't eat more than 600-900 calories because they don't know what to eat?
There was a poster last week who made two posts asking if whole grain chips would stall their weight loss. Whole grain chips. And they continued to be confused after admitting that they would fit into their calorie and nutrition goals.
The evidence that people internalize the idea of "bad" foods is here on these boards every single day. The evidence that it affects their diet and mentality is out there. If you want to call foods bad that fine. But those of us who are trying to answer dozens of newbie requests here don't get to bury our heads in the sand and pretend the problem doesn't exist. We have to find a way to give them the most accurate advice while doing the least possible damage.0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
I agree with this. I had "bad" food last night. It was a bite of a 100% Cacao Chocolate bar that looked like it would be a yummy candy bar, but tasted like ... just, it was gross. Bluk. Bad.
OMG, you didn't! Yeah, it was gross. 100% Cacao is pure chocolate--which is not sweet! What you did there was the equivalent of eating a spoonful of Hershey's baking chocolate.0 -
As some have mentioned in this thread, labeling food as "bad" or even eating said "bad" foods doesn't mean that everyone who does this experiences guilt. For some people, yes this thread has shown that it is true. But not for others. The funny thing is that after eating Fritos corn chips with my lunch less than 2 hours ago, I can say that from personal experience.janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
There was a thread not long ago where the OP was arguing just that -- she was saying "admit it, these foods ARE bad, you just don't want to admit you are eating BAD food."
Oh, well I stand corrected. One poster has said it. Still think the posts saying "you shouldn't think of food as good/bad" are in the lead, though.
What about something like the post I mentioned earlier, with an OP talking about how she felt such guilt and shame whenever she ate a bad food like bread. I think for someone like that it is helpful (and kind) to encourage them to not think of foods as bad and good and certainly not to attach guilt and shame to eating decisions, and to talk about how trying to think really logically about foods and how they fit into an overall healthy diet has helped us and so on.
I wouldn't lecture her about not using the "bad foods" label, but I see her as someone who would be better off not using it (as I am). I think a lot of the discussion of this is about the theoretical example, or about why it doesn't work for us. I really don't think anyone cares if you use the term.
What I disagreed with here, with OP's post, wasn't that he personally considers Cheetos a bad food for him (I just consider it not tasty). It was that he seemed to be misunderstanding comments that there are no bad foods to mean that people didn't think there were differences between foods.
Your posts seem like you think I'm trying to change your mind about or telling you not to do something.
Personally I don't think it's bad to feel guilt when you overeat or have been eating poorly, and not being familiar with the post of which speak I can only say that feeling guilt over eating bread within the confines of a balanced diet seems like an issue beyond what I think calling or not calling foods good/bad would be likely to help. But it's hard to say since I only have your interpretation to go on and honestly I rarely interpret posts in the same manner as you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" in this context, but given my own personal experience and the dozens of posts I've seen around here, it doesn't seem like guilt around food choices is an emotion that helps drive anyone forward or make lasting changes in their life. It seems to only lead to misery, more emotional choices around food, and (sometimes) over-compensation. In this sense, I would say that guilt over food choices (or making food choice a moral issue) is a "bad" thing. It leads to more unhappiness in the world, something that we don't really need more of.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
There was a thread not long ago where the OP was arguing just that -- she was saying "admit it, these foods ARE bad, you just don't want to admit you are eating BAD food."
Oh, well I stand corrected. One poster has said it. Still think the posts saying "you shouldn't think of food as good/bad" are in the lead, though.
What about something like the post I mentioned earlier, with an OP talking about how she felt such guilt and shame whenever she ate a bad food like bread. I think for someone like that it is helpful (and kind) to encourage them to not think of foods as bad and good and certainly not to attach guilt and shame to eating decisions, and to talk about how trying to think really logically about foods and how they fit into an overall healthy diet has helped us and so on.
I wouldn't lecture her about not using the "bad foods" label, but I see her as someone who would be better off not using it (as I am). I think a lot of the discussion of this is about the theoretical example, or about why it doesn't work for us. I really don't think anyone cares if you use the term.
What I disagreed with here, with OP's post, wasn't that he personally considers Cheetos a bad food for him (I just consider it not tasty). It was that he seemed to be misunderstanding comments that there are no bad foods to mean that people didn't think there were differences between foods.
Your posts seem like you think I'm trying to change your mind about or telling you not to do something.
Personally I don't think it's bad to feel guilt when you overeat or have been eating poorly, and not being familiar with the post of which speak I can only say that feeling guilt over eating bread within the confines of a balanced diet seems like an issue beyond what I think calling or not calling foods good/bad would be likely to help. But it's hard to say since I only have your interpretation to go on and honestly I rarely interpret posts in the same manner as you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" in this context, but given my own personal experience and the dozens of posts I've seen around here, it doesn't seem like guilt around food choices is an emotion that helps drive anyone forward or make lasting changes in their life. It seems to only lead to misery, more emotional choices around food, and (sometimes) over-compensation. In this sense, I would say that guilt over food choices (or making food choice a moral issue) is a "bad" thing. It leads to more unhappiness in the world, something that we don't really need more of.
My experience has been very different. I usually feel some level of guilt when I overindulge. I think it's one of the things that has helped me control my weight.
I'm glad it works for you, but several people are trying to tell you that this type of thinking has been actively harmful to them.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »It's my observation that many of the posters who are arguing that maybe we shouldn't call foods bad are those who are most often giving advice to newer posters on these boards. And that those are are adamant that they get to call foods bad really don't seem to do it that often.
There is a poster on these boards who's made 4 posts now asking if binging on protein bars will make her gain weight. Because she can't figure out if they're good or bad, for weight loss or weight gain.
There are fairly routine posts asking if fruit will make people gain weight, because of sugar or carbs or whatever other mystical thing is appearing in the media these days.
How often do we see someone say they can't eat more than 600-900 calories because they don't know what to eat?
There was a poster last week who made two posts asking if whole grain chips would stall their weight loss. Whole grain chips. And they continued to be confused after admitting that they would fit into their calorie and nutrition goals.
The evidence that people internalize the idea of "bad" foods is here on these boards every single day. The evidence that it affects their diet and mentality is out there. If you want to call foods bad that fine. But those of us who are trying to answer dozens of newbie requests here don't get to bury our heads in the sand and pretend the problem doesn't exist. We have to find a way to give them the most accurate advice while doing the least possible damage.
Excellent, excellent post.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
There was a thread not long ago where the OP was arguing just that -- she was saying "admit it, these foods ARE bad, you just don't want to admit you are eating BAD food."
Oh, well I stand corrected. One poster has said it. Still think the posts saying "you shouldn't think of food as good/bad" are in the lead, though.
What about something like the post I mentioned earlier, with an OP talking about how she felt such guilt and shame whenever she ate a bad food like bread. I think for someone like that it is helpful (and kind) to encourage them to not think of foods as bad and good and certainly not to attach guilt and shame to eating decisions, and to talk about how trying to think really logically about foods and how they fit into an overall healthy diet has helped us and so on.
I wouldn't lecture her about not using the "bad foods" label, but I see her as someone who would be better off not using it (as I am). I think a lot of the discussion of this is about the theoretical example, or about why it doesn't work for us. I really don't think anyone cares if you use the term.
What I disagreed with here, with OP's post, wasn't that he personally considers Cheetos a bad food for him (I just consider it not tasty). It was that he seemed to be misunderstanding comments that there are no bad foods to mean that people didn't think there were differences between foods.
Your posts seem like you think I'm trying to change your mind about or telling you not to do something.
Personally I don't think it's bad to feel guilt when you overeat or have been eating poorly, and not being familiar with the post of which speak I can only say that feeling guilt over eating bread within the confines of a balanced diet seems like an issue beyond what I think calling or not calling foods good/bad would be likely to help. But it's hard to say since I only have your interpretation to go on and honestly I rarely interpret posts in the same manner as you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" in this context, but given my own personal experience and the dozens of posts I've seen around here, it doesn't seem like guilt around food choices is an emotion that helps drive anyone forward or make lasting changes in their life. It seems to only lead to misery, more emotional choices around food, and (sometimes) over-compensation. In this sense, I would say that guilt over food choices (or making food choice a moral issue) is a "bad" thing. It leads to more unhappiness in the world, something that we don't really need more of.
My experience has been very different. I usually feel some level of guilt when I overindulge. I think it's one of the things that has helped me control my weight.
I'm glad it works for you, but several people are trying to tell you that this type of thinking has been actively harmful to them.
Seriously? Wow, I totally didn't get that.
I'm not sure what response you are looking for. I have never (never, ever, ever) told anyone that they needed to think of food as good/bad. Never. Never, ever.
But if your intent is to assimilate me to the 'never call food good/bad' mindset it's not working.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Actually, having a toe stubbed or shirt stained could be morally bad if the ethics system doesn't regard intent and blame. In such ethics, the world where your toe is stubbed is morally worse compared to an identical world where it isn't. Saying you believe morals requires intent doesn't even fix the comparison because almost all adults eating involves the intent of the adults.
For me personally, my biggest problem is that categorical statements are usually wrong (though to avoid the trap myself, I won't say they are always wrong!). A Twinkie is a bad food - well unless you're starving to death, or you're about to go into hypoglycemic shock, or you've been eating some odd diet that has left you thiamine deficient and now that oh-so-unclean food's B vitamin enrichment will fill in the deficiency - suddenly it is a good food because the food can't be judged outside of the context of use. It is like saying a tool like a hammer is bad - well sure, if you try to recreate the 3 Stooges with it, it is very bad, but most people use it for something good like building birdhouses or whatnot.
For someone that is starving would you say that a Twinkie, while maybe lifesaving, is not the best food for that person? That there would a better food if it were available?
Well now you're not discussing if a food is good, you're discussing if it is the best. So are good foods ones that meet a context and nothing could meet that context better? Does food being good depend on what is available to you, or are there foods that are always good, not just waiting for what's better to displace them? This seems another time I'm forced to use the phrase making the perfect the enemy of the good.
How can we have better or best without having good/bad?
How can we have any without context?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Actually, having a toe stubbed or shirt stained could be morally bad if the ethics system doesn't regard intent and blame. In such ethics, the world where your toe is stubbed is morally worse compared to an identical world where it isn't. Saying you believe morals requires intent doesn't even fix the comparison because almost all adults eating involves the intent of the adults.
For me personally, my biggest problem is that categorical statements are usually wrong (though to avoid the trap myself, I won't say they are always wrong!). A Twinkie is a bad food - well unless you're starving to death, or you're about to go into hypoglycemic shock, or you've been eating some odd diet that has left you thiamine deficient and now that oh-so-unclean food's B vitamin enrichment will fill in the deficiency - suddenly it is a good food because the food can't be judged outside of the context of use. It is like saying a tool like a hammer is bad - well sure, if you try to recreate the 3 Stooges with it, it is very bad, but most people use it for something good like building birdhouses or whatnot.
For someone that is starving would you say that a Twinkie, while maybe lifesaving, is not the best food for that person? That there would a better food if it were available?
Well now you're not discussing if a food is good, you're discussing if it is the best. So are good foods ones that meet a context and nothing could meet that context better? Does food being good depend on what is available to you, or are there foods that are always good, not just waiting for what's better to displace them? This seems another time I'm forced to use the phrase making the perfect the enemy of the good.
How can we have better or best without having good/bad?
How can we have any without context?
So if I hurt my toe do I need context for that to be bad?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Actually, having a toe stubbed or shirt stained could be morally bad if the ethics system doesn't regard intent and blame. In such ethics, the world where your toe is stubbed is morally worse compared to an identical world where it isn't. Saying you believe morals requires intent doesn't even fix the comparison because almost all adults eating involves the intent of the adults.
For me personally, my biggest problem is that categorical statements are usually wrong (though to avoid the trap myself, I won't say they are always wrong!). A Twinkie is a bad food - well unless you're starving to death, or you're about to go into hypoglycemic shock, or you've been eating some odd diet that has left you thiamine deficient and now that oh-so-unclean food's B vitamin enrichment will fill in the deficiency - suddenly it is a good food because the food can't be judged outside of the context of use. It is like saying a tool like a hammer is bad - well sure, if you try to recreate the 3 Stooges with it, it is very bad, but most people use it for something good like building birdhouses or whatnot.
For someone that is starving would you say that a Twinkie, while maybe lifesaving, is not the best food for that person? That there would a better food if it were available?
Well now you're not discussing if a food is good, you're discussing if it is the best. So are good foods ones that meet a context and nothing could meet that context better? Does food being good depend on what is available to you, or are there foods that are always good, not just waiting for what's better to displace them? This seems another time I'm forced to use the phrase making the perfect the enemy of the good.
How can we have better or best without having good/bad?
How can we have any without context?
So if I hurt my toe do I need context for that to be bad?
Yes. That's how language and culture work.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Actually, having a toe stubbed or shirt stained could be morally bad if the ethics system doesn't regard intent and blame. In such ethics, the world where your toe is stubbed is morally worse compared to an identical world where it isn't. Saying you believe morals requires intent doesn't even fix the comparison because almost all adults eating involves the intent of the adults.
For me personally, my biggest problem is that categorical statements are usually wrong (though to avoid the trap myself, I won't say they are always wrong!). A Twinkie is a bad food - well unless you're starving to death, or you're about to go into hypoglycemic shock, or you've been eating some odd diet that has left you thiamine deficient and now that oh-so-unclean food's B vitamin enrichment will fill in the deficiency - suddenly it is a good food because the food can't be judged outside of the context of use. It is like saying a tool like a hammer is bad - well sure, if you try to recreate the 3 Stooges with it, it is very bad, but most people use it for something good like building birdhouses or whatnot.
For someone that is starving would you say that a Twinkie, while maybe lifesaving, is not the best food for that person? That there would a better food if it were available?
Well now you're not discussing if a food is good, you're discussing if it is the best. So are good foods ones that meet a context and nothing could meet that context better? Does food being good depend on what is available to you, or are there foods that are always good, not just waiting for what's better to displace them? This seems another time I'm forced to use the phrase making the perfect the enemy of the good.
How can we have better or best without having good/bad?
How can we have any without context?
So if I hurt my toe do I need context for that to be bad?
Yes. That's how language and culture work.
Interesting. In what context would it not be bad.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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions