For Some of Us there ARE Bad Foods
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Ω < 10 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
In the context of a culture that's different from ours. Honestly, did you never take an anthropology course in college?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?
I think what many are trying to say is, Is hurting your toe "Bad"? Or is it annoying, frustrating, inconvenient, painful, or any of a thousand other descriptive words that are not morally charged but equally as meaningful?
At least, that's how I'm interpreting it.0 -
And for ME, choice A would put me over the edge. I LOVE nuts - and the only way I can limit myself to a single serving is to buy individual packets. But Cheetos? Meh. I like the occasional handful, but they don't set me off the way a bag of pistachios would. Does that mean I should go around telling everyone nuts are "bad"?
Same here. I used to occasionally buy a can or bag of nuts/peanuts to keep at the office. And sure enough, I'd usually polish it off in a couple days.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I think the intent is more to get people to avoid saying foods are bad in general, without the "for me" qualifier. You seem to be pretty good as saying that what you mean is less perfect/ideal (but maybe it's just because I mostly see you in these kinds of discussions) but there are many people who just say, essentially, "admit it, there are bad foods." And many diets that focus on the good/bad (allowed/not allowed). And there are many people - probably far more than most of us realize - who feel guilt about eating something "bad."0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Thanks. I suspect it will go largely unread since certain posters are just here to hijack the thread into petty arguments.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I have no medical reason not to eat any food, I still maintain that there are bad and good foods. I have never seen anything on this site or elsewhere to make me think otherwise.
Examples and rationale?
Its only in this forum that people insist we have to eat all foods moderately or you are a failed human being.
Identifying the bad foods for me has been key. If I won't exercise self-control and willpower around a food item and eat it beyond my calorie goal, I have no problem saying that the food item(s) are bad for me. Other than good taste, nothing good comes to me through those foods.
People lose/maintain/gain weight in many different ways using MFP as a tool. There is no one right way. If you are successful by eliminating or temporarily eliminating certain foods, who cares what the MFP chorus says?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
I know you weren't asking me ... but I have heard the same kinds of things in real life
"It's bad for you - look how many carbs" I'll say something like "there's nothing wrong with carbs. It's not bad"
"how much fat in the hamburger - that has to be bad" - I'll respond with, it depends on what else you're having that meal or that day.
If it's said directly in relation to what I'm eating, or directly to me, I'll of course refute it. If it's said in a general discussion (like these boards are) I'll decide whether it's worth jumping in, and at what point. If it's said to a new dieter (or one who is still trying to figure it out, even after however long), I'll try to offer a different viewpoint. Because maybe my thoughts will give them a key in finding what works for them.
If it's overheard in a discussion between people I don't know, I'll generally shudder but not get involved. But that doesn't really apply here, because the boards are for public discussion (that would equate more to surfing the profile so someone who isn't a friend here and refuting there claims there).0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I have no medical reason not to eat any food, I still maintain that there are bad and good foods. I have never seen anything on this site or elsewhere to make me think otherwise.
Examples and rationale?
Its only in this forum that people insist we have to eat all foods moderately or you are a failed human being.
Identifying the bad foods for me has been key. If I won't exercise self-control and willpower around a food item and eat it beyond my calorie goal, I have no problem saying that the food item(s) are bad for me. Other than good taste, nothing good comes to me through those foods.
People lose/maintain/gain weight in many different ways using MFP as a tool. There is no one right way. If you are successful by eliminating or temporarily eliminating certain foods, who cares what the MFP chorus says?
I don't think anyone argues that one MUST eat ALL foods moderately (especially with the qualifier you added).
Many of us will argue that it's not advantageous, and potentially harmful, to tell someone they shouldn't eat a food they enjoy. It's better to tell someone that it's possible to eat those foods in moderation.
There are many people who don't/haven't eaten certain foods they found to be trigger them, who are now arguing against calling a food bad. (lemurcat comes to mind). The point that we are trying to make is that it is okay to choose what you do and don't eat. If you choose not to eat ice cream because you don't like it, or because it leads to a binge, few people will tell you that you are a failed human. But call ice cream bad, because you haven't figured out how to moderate it, and you will have people countering that.
Because there are threads regularly here that say "HALP!!! I ate [bad food x]today what do I do now!!!"0 -
I think what many are trying to say is, Is hurting your toe "Bad"? Or is it annoying, frustrating, inconvenient, painful, or any of a thousand other descriptive words that are not morally charged but equally as meaningful?
At least, that's how I'm interpreting it.[/quote]
Brilliant. You've got it.
0 -
The only bad foods I've encountered in my journey was a "carrot" "cake" that a low carber friend made. As it turns out, neither of us liked the sad shameful clump of demolished dead carrot, even though she pretended to like it. Her facial expressions said otherwise. A week later she finally discussed said carrot abomination.
Also, a bad burned batch of chocolate chip cookies in an non calibrated oven. That was a sad occasion. Raw on the inside, black on the outside only after 8 minutes.
Demonizing foods has always lead to failure for me . It wasn't until I read around mfp that I started to relax my approach to eating and losing weight.
Another Aussie here.lemurcat12 wrote: »My understanding is that the whole no bad food thing is about weight loss and only weight loss.
As in 1000 calories of deep fried mars bars is the same as 1000 calories of assorted vegetables, for weight loss.
I don't think I have ever seen someone say there are no bad foods, eat all the deep fried mars bars you like, you will fill all your macros perfectly and live in perfect health.
Of course, not being Scottish I have not tried a deep-fried Mars bar and feel deeply skeptical about it being worth eating.
Australian here, no they aren't worth it in my oppinion, not because of calories which I assume are high but they don't taste great, rather just eat a mars bar.
I've never tried a DF mars bar, and reading this, I think I'll stick to just the mars bar...Or make a cheesecake out of them. 0 -
cerise_noir wrote: »The only bad foods I've encountered in my journey was a "carrot" "cake" that a low carber friend made. As it turns out, neither of us liked the sad shameful clump of demolished dead carrot, even though she pretended to like it. Her facial expressions said otherwise. A week later she finally discussed said carrot abomination.
As a carrot cake connoisseur, this makes me sad.
0 -
I've been having an emotionally challenged day. Right now I want to eat the entire package of Oreos I bought while grocery shopping. That would be a bad decision (and I'm not going to ... not even opening them yet).
But it doesn't make Oreos bad.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
Rant? No- that implies I am talking mostly to myself to make my point...
I try not to argue with stupid- as the saying goes. (or uneducated or indifferent or woo kool-aid drinkers)
If they want to discuss it...sure. But they dont. They dont open the door for it.
The believe what they want.0 -
BecomingBane 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?
I think what many are trying to say is, Is hurting your toe "Bad"? Or is it annoying, frustrating, inconvenient, painful, or any of a thousand other descriptive words that are not morally charged but equally as meaningful?
At least, that's how I'm interpreting it.
Well, I certainly think of it as bad. But then I'd think of most things that are annoying, frustrating, inconvenient, painful, etc. as bad.
I'm not sure why everyone keeps insisting that I don't. I'm not trying to tell any of you to change the way you think, and I'm happy to keep going back and forth if it makes y'all happy but I've thought of certain foods as bad for as long as I can remember. You really aren't going to change the way I think. Sorry if that bothers anyone.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I have no medical reason not to eat any food, I still maintain that there are bad and good foods. I have never seen anything on this site or elsewhere to make me think otherwise.
Examples and rationale?
Its only in this forum that people insist we have to eat all foods moderately or you are a failed human being.
Sigh. Except that no one here has been saying you have to eat all foods moderately. No one.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. If you did it saving an orphanage, is it as bad as hurting it in the context of you picked a lousy place for your nightstand?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I have no medical reason not to eat any food, I still maintain that there are bad and good foods. I have never seen anything on this site or elsewhere to make me think otherwise.
Examples and rationale?
Its only in this forum that people insist we have to eat all foods moderately or you are a failed human being.
Sigh. Except that no one here has been saying you have to eat all foods moderately. No one.
I am. I demand everyone here eat moderate amounts of all possible foods this instant. It doesn't matter if you like them, or have a medical condition for it, you must do so now.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions