For Some of Us there ARE Bad Foods
Options
Replies
-
-
Pretty sure the point that the OP has tried to put across has been lost several pages back.
You can use the 'stickies' on here as your bible all you want...to each their own.
But everybody is different, and all the OP was trying to say (from what I see) is that it may not be appropriate to tell people looking for advice that there are no bad foods, simply because what works for some can 110% not work for others.
I know people who could eat nothing but donuts and lose weight, and I know people who could have 1 donut a day and be stopped dead in their tracks (yes, even while having a deficit).
The bolded is physically impossible.
0 -
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.
Yet in the history you outlined in your OP you stated that you were perfectly self aware of what your bad or trigger foods were even before entering into these forums. If that is the case for you when why would it not be the case for others unless you are perhaps smarter than the average bear?
I think we actually need to be more careful when we attempt to infantilise the adults who use these forums. There are some hugely patronising and condescending assumptions we must make, in my view, if we are to do so. I see them as follows:
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
I think neither of the above is true for the vast majority of people who use this forum and if it does apply to a tiny minority then they weren't in a mental or emotional position to receive advice in the first place.
I think it goes without question that being kind or empathetic is a good recommendation. Should it be a requirement? No. Should we be compelled to be careful in the event our views may cause other to feel uncomfortable? No.
And perhaps most importantly of all should we allow the need to preserve feelings trump the need to provide accurate information or the free flow of ideas? Unquestionably no.
Let's not turn this place into Tumblr...
0 -
My husband is allergic to cats.
Therefore cats are a bad pet.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »My husband is allergic to cats.
Therefore cats are a bad pet.
Well, and have you met them?0 -
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?0 -
Nutritionally, I think of a lot of foods as being good and bad. However, I do still eat some foods I think of as being "bad". It means that I know if I'm not very careful, I can/will damage my health (even if I just maintain my weight).0
-
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?
Nobody should be boxed into a corner and stifled from airing their legitimately held viewpoint in my opinion in an adult environment (with a few exceptions pertaining to hate speech and the like.)
If some people feel that there are bad foods then they should be free to say so. Conversely, people should also be able to rebut the assertion without the attempted use of social shame to stop them doing so because they are labeled as being insensitive, uncaring or malicious for example.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Nutritionally, I think of a lot of foods as being good and bad. However, I do still eat some foods I think of as being "bad". It means that I know if I'm not very careful, I can/will damage my health (even if I just maintain my weight).
That's nice. You also feel that even gaining 1lb of fat would be detrimental to your health even though you are underweight.0 -
I may have been exaggerating a bit, but you do realize I said that because of my medical condition (which has a strong correlation with body fat)?ForecasterJason wrote: »Nutritionally, I think of a lot of foods as being good and bad. However, I do still eat some foods I think of as being "bad". It means that I know if I'm not very careful, I can/will damage my health (even if I just maintain my weight).
That's nice. You also feel that even gaining 1lb of fat would be detrimental to your health even though you are underweight.0 -
I find myself regretting using the term "bad food" in my initial post as it seems to have tons of baggage attached to it. But I do have a couple questions for my various attackers attackers and insulters?
Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
Self discipline is actually something of a strength of mine. But sometimes I exercise this by avoiding foods that impact me in a way I don't like. I don't see this as a sign of weakness-quite the contrary. Yet there were several times in this discussion where I basically received the message "Cheetos are fine; YOU suck."
I also think there are people who think that my statement "X is bad for me" logically means "anyone who eats X is bad." This is quite a stretch in logic; and is NOT something that I believe.
0 -
My definition of bad and your definition of bad may be completely different. My observation is that for some of the folks involved in this incredibly convoluted discussion are that what they now consider "bad" foods (ie triggers, unhealthy etc) were once "good" foods, as clearly they were consumed, and probably to great excess as they have now been transferred to the "bad" food side of the ledger, due to the relationship that resulted. "Good" and "Bad" are simply labels we put on food depending on our individualized relationship with it - food is just food. It is inanimate. And the value put upon it is entirely dependant on the purpose for which it is used. Even the lovely mushroom chart back a few pages was labelled as "bad" foods - because they are deadly. BUT, if you want to make someone sick or die, they are "good". Thats not to say there isnt a better choice for making someone sick/die. So, "bad" donuts exist for people who find that they derail their committment to their goals, and negatively affect their weight loss, while "good" donuts are available for people who are able to control their urges and fit them into their calories as they give those eaters pleasure, and do not negatively affect their weight loss.
Someone days ago posted about context - absolutely. Context, the inadequacies of language and semantics.0 -
No. NO, NO! By definition, if you're in a deficit, you'll be losing weight. It isn't a negotiable, everyone is different kind of thing. You'd have to be the first human being capable of photosynthesis or something else beyond human physiology to do something even close to this, and even then, it wouldn't be a deficit, it would simply mean calories in or out were wrong, so they weren't in a deficit.Pretty sure the point that the OP has tried to put across has been lost several pages back.
You can use the 'stickies' on here as your bible all you want...to each their own.
But everybody is different, and all the OP was trying to say (from what I see) is that it may not be appropriate to tell people looking for advice that there are no bad foods, simply because what works for some can 110% not work for others.
I know people who could eat nothing but donuts and lose weight, and I know people who could have 1 donut a day and be stopped dead in their tracks (yes, even while having a deficit).
Deficit is, by definition, taking away. You're saying you know people that could take 5, 1 lb plates, remove 1 of them, and still weight them out as 5 lb correctly. You're saying you know people that can subtract 5 from a number and get the same or a bigger number - against the definition of subtraction.0 -
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.
Yet in the history you outlined in your OP you stated that you were perfectly self aware of what your bad or trigger foods were even before entering into these forums. If that is the case for you when why would it not be the case for others unless you are perhaps smarter than the average bear?
I think we actually need to be more careful when we attempt to infantilise the adults who use these forums. There are some hugely patronising and condescending assumptions we must make, in my view, if we are to do so. I see them as follows:
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
I think neither of the above is true for the vast majority of people who use this forum and if it does apply to a tiny minority then they weren't in a mental or emotional position to receive advice in the first place.
I think it goes without question that being kind or empathetic is a good recommendation. Should it be a requirement? No. Should we be compelled to be careful in the event our views may cause other to feel uncomfortable? No.
And perhaps most importantly of all should we allow the need to preserve feelings trump the need to provide accurate information or the free flow of ideas? Unquestionably no.
Let's not turn this place into Tumblr...
This. I don't understand why people insist upon assuming that others are complete idiots or lack sense such that they might react to the statement that you can lose weight eating anything to mean that nutrition doesn't matter or it will make no difference to how hungry they are (contrary to their own personal experience) or by eating only donuts. It's absurd and offensive. Treat others as if they are of normal intelligence and responsible people.0 -
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.0 -
I find myself regretting using the term "bad food" in my initial post as it seems to have tons of baggage attached to it. But I do have a couple questions for my various attackers attackers and insulters?
Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
Self discipline is actually something of a strength of mine. But sometimes I exercise this by avoiding foods that impact me in a way I don't like. I don't see this as a sign of weakness-quite the contrary. Yet there were several times in this discussion where I basically received the message "Cheetos are fine; YOU suck."
I also think there are people who think that my statement "X is bad for me" logically means "anyone who eats X is bad." This is quite a stretch in logic; and is NOT something that I believe.
I was right. I do regret posting in this thread. I explained a while back in this thread why blaming the foods was detrimental to me. Do I think taking the blamr off food is helpful to people? I hope so. Otherwise I would never expose myself like that on the Internet.
Qualifying statements like mine as an attack or insults is designed to do nothing more than shut down my experiences and increase the drama. Try reading your own thread and see that many here have explained themselves over and over again even though no one is listening.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I find myself regretting using the term "bad food" in my initial post as it seems to have tons of baggage attached to it. But I do have a couple questions for my various attackers attackers and insulters?
Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
Self discipline is actually something of a strength of mine. But sometimes I exercise this by avoiding foods that impact me in a way I don't like. I don't see this as a sign of weakness-quite the contrary. Yet there were several times in this discussion where I basically received the message "Cheetos are fine; YOU suck."
I also think there are people who think that my statement "X is bad for me" logically means "anyone who eats X is bad." This is quite a stretch in logic; and is NOT something that I believe.
I was right. I do regret posting in this thread. I explained a while back in this thread why blaming the foods was detrimental to me. Do I think taking the blamr off food is helpful to people? I hope so. Otherwise I would never expose myself like that on the Internet.
Qualifying statements like mine as an attack or insults is designed to do nothing more than shut down my experiences and increase the drama. Try reading your own thread and see that many here have explained themselves over and over again even though no one is listening.
I did not have any of your posts in mind when I wrote this. I respect your point of view. Given the manner in which the concept 'bad foods" is understood by some people, I will use different terminology in the future.0 -
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.0 -
I find myself regretting using the term "bad food" in my initial post as it seems to have tons of baggage attached to it. But I do have a couple questions for my various attackers attackers and insulters?
I think you are misinterpreting the response.Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
I probably agree somewhat, although I think it's hard to separate out what's a psychological craving/habit thing (positive associations with the food or using the food for comfort or some such) vs. what's actually physiologically caused by the food, especially since people report the reaction for one food and not another despite the foods being quite similar in ingredients or make-up. I suspect that if you have this reaction to Cheetos it's more about your history with Cheetos or finding them tasty. But it's possible, and I do think overall make-up of the diet can matter and that we tend to crave foods we eat more.
I DON'T think we can generalize about this foods and assert that if you eat carbs you (mean everyone) will crave them or the like, which is commonly done. People have to figure out for themselves how foods affect them (or, how an overall diet affects them), and no one is saying not to. That's what I thought you were misunderstanding in your first post.Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
I don't see it as blaming. I see it as focusing on things that can be addressed. I am exposed to foods all the time beyond what I seek out myself, so telling myself I don't have self control around a cake isn't a good strategy. And it tends to result in people being more likely to go overboard if they do have a little cake.
I see nothing wrong with eliminating foods if that's a good strategy for you -- I eliminated added sugar for a while before I realized that for me a better strategy was not snacking. I just don't think that makes the foods the problem or means that they are BAD.Self discipline is actually something of a strength of mine. But sometimes I exercise this by avoiding foods that impact me in a way I don't like. I don't see this as a sign of weakness-quite the contrary. Yet there were several times in this discussion where I basically received the message "Cheetos are fine; YOU suck."
I didn't see any posts that seemed to me to be saying that.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions