For Some of Us there ARE Bad Foods
Replies
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The Frito Lay corporation has mastered the skill of gaining stomach share by making each of their products compellingly desirable. It's certainly a challenge to try to include a few in your plan.
For you.
For me, not so much. It once was a challenge, but instead of demonizing the food...i looked at my own behavior, worked on it and changed it. Now, I can do it without much of a challenge at all.
Doesn't hurt to demonize the food as a way to change your own behavior. Our process is just different. LOL.
Best of luck with that.
No luck. It's just science.
Repeating something enough time will increase its efficiency. It's called practice, muscle memory. We do that all the time.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
diannethegeek wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The Frito Lay corporation has mastered the skill of gaining stomach share by making each of their products compellingly desirable. It's certainly a challenge to try to include a few in your plan.
For you.
For me, not so much. It once was a challenge, but instead of demonizing the food...i looked at my own behavior, worked on it and changed it. Now, I can do it without much of a challenge at all.
Doesn't hurt to demonize the food as a way to change your own behavior. Our process is just different. LOL.
*tackles Nathan Fillion*
I think telling yourself a food is evil is one thing (if it helps and you're not doing harm to yourself by telling yourself that). I think believing it is a whole other ball of wax.
<----eats ALL the evil foods and then some!
Yeah I just like telling as an exercise for the tongue while not really believing.... [sarcasm]
Do tell, what harm is there in believing that I need to limit or avoid evil lard ladden pork in order to have a chance with my cardio?0 -
I haven't eaten Cheetos for a year (because I didn't want them) but this thread makes them sound kind of good.
What I think the problem with calling foods bad is people don't do it with just low nutrition chips or cookies and they don't say "this is what works best for me". They say if you want to lose weight or be healthy you can't eat this food or this entire food group. They even do it with very nutritious foods. There are posts on this forum calling meat and potatoes unhealthy/bad foods for no reason other than they were brainwashed to think that. People come here believing they absolutely can't eat a hamburger, fruit, rice, pasta, cereal or bread because someone said it was bad food. They don't have an allergy or medical condition and they are making things unnecessarily hard on themselves to the point where they fear eating out with friends. I see great harm done to people by vaguely labeling foods bad or unhealthy.0 -
I am going to make one more attempt in what is arguably the most dysfunctional message string with which I have ever been involved in social media.
1) I would never suggest anyone ought to tell people there ARE bad foods either. Rather, I think that everyone needs to understand what works for them. Many people can succeed just by right-sizing their portions. Some people may have to eliminate some things to succeed. Everyone is different-the one point almost NO ONE seems to notice I made in the original post.
2) I never shame someone for what they eat. I totally agree that a moderate amount of most anything can be integrated into a healthy diet. I would not buy chips for my own children if I did not believe this to be true.
3) I have been largely successful in my journey by eliminating a few things. I personally don't miss them. If I really did, I might try other strategies to integrate them. But I am happy to give up the salty snacks and retain such things as pizza, pasta etc. Part of making this all work is to make trade-offs.
4) Just as telling people there are bad foods can be unhelpful to some people; blaming their so-called lack of control can be even more damaging. Guilt does not help with this battle.
We all need to find out what works for us. There are individual differences. Having done some research on how "junk food" companies develop and market their products, I will personally always retain a skepticism about them. I have no need to proselytize others.
Best Regards......0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The Frito Lay corporation has mastered the skill of gaining stomach share by making each of their products compellingly desirable. It's certainly a challenge to try to include a few in your plan.
For you.
For me, not so much. It once was a challenge, but instead of demonizing the food...i looked at my own behavior, worked on it and changed it. Now, I can do it without much of a challenge at all.
Doesn't hurt to demonize the food as a way to change your own behavior. Our process is just different. LOL.
Best of luck with that.
No luck. It's just science.
Repeating something enough time will increase its efficiency. It's called practice, muscle memory. We do that all the time.
I don't need your advice, especially in an inaccurate shame based dieting program, but thanks.
Who said I was giving advice . I just refuted your point.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The Frito Lay corporation has mastered the skill of gaining stomach share by making each of their products compellingly desirable. It's certainly a challenge to try to include a few in your plan.
For you.
For me, not so much. It once was a challenge, but instead of demonizing the food...i looked at my own behavior, worked on it and changed it. Now, I can do it without much of a challenge at all.
Doesn't hurt to demonize the food as a way to change your own behavior. Our process is just different. LOL.
*tackles Nathan Fillion*
I think telling yourself a food is evil is one thing (if it helps and you're not doing harm to yourself by telling yourself that). I think believing it is a whole other ball of wax.
<----eats ALL the evil foods and then some!
Yeah I just like telling as an exercise for the tongue while not really believing.... [sarcasm]
Do tell, what harm is there in believing that I need to limit or avoid evil lard ladden pork in order to have a chance with my cardio?
What harm it would do to you? I don't know. Very possibly none. What harm it would do to me? I have a rather lengthy post above getting into that.
Since your first statement in the above quote string didn't specify that you were talking about yourself and used "you" (whether personally directed at shell or as a more general pronoun, idk) you either haven't read some of the posts in this thread or just don't care.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »I just want to say that I do not support this type of Cheeto-shaming. Cheetos are a gift from the heavens.
Truthfully, I'd go for the Doritos more. Or Pringles. But every year my co worker and I toast our dead coworker with a bag of Cheetos and a small container of Pringles so I just have to suck it up.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The Frito Lay corporation has mastered the skill of gaining stomach share by making each of their products compellingly desirable. It's certainly a challenge to try to include a few in your plan.
For you.
For me, not so much. It once was a challenge, but instead of demonizing the food...i looked at my own behavior, worked on it and changed it. Now, I can do it without much of a challenge at all.
Doesn't hurt to demonize the food as a way to change your own behavior. Our process is just different. LOL.
*tackles Nathan Fillion*
I think telling yourself a food is evil is one thing (if it helps and you're not doing harm to yourself by telling yourself that). I think believing it is a whole other ball of wax.
<----eats ALL the evil foods and then some!
Yeah I just like telling as an exercise for the tongue while not really believing.... [sarcasm]
Do tell, what harm is there in believing that I need to limit or avoid evil lard ladden pork in order to have a chance with my cardio?
I think the important question here is how Nathan Fillion would feel if I actually *did* tackle him.0 -
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.
The no bad food argument is just a counter to people's claims that if they eat McDonald's they gain weight, but if they eat carrots they lose, so macca's is bad. But for weight loss they are equal if your eating the same calories of each.
Nutritionally and Heath wise they are clearly different.
0 -
3) I have been largely successful in my journey by eliminating a few things. I personally don't miss them. If I really did, I might try other strategies to integrate them. But I am happy to give up the salty snacks and retain such things as pizza, pasta etc. Part of making this all work is to make trade-offs.
I don't consider not eating foods I don't particularly want or miss to be giving them up. I consider it making a sensible choice about what to eat. I never really ate chips or similar things, and saw no reason to start just because I was losing weight (obviously). Other things that I did eat rather mindlessly I thought about and decided I didn't like them enough to eat them if I was going to limit what I ate. So of course, I think everyone does this.
I'm just not sure what it has to do with bad foods (or about packaged food being any harder to resist than other foods).
If it helps you to call certain foods "bad" in your own life, I don't care, and if you say "I like to call foods good and bad because it helps me," I won't argue--your thing (unless you seem to be struggling and feeling shame and so on, in which case I might engage, but you don't seem to fall into that category). If someone asserts that a food simply IS bad, though, I will disagree, since as I explained above to me "bad" means "no one should eat it as it is inherently bad for your health" and the vast majority of foods that get discussed in this way are foods that can be part of an overall healthful, balanced diet.
Similarly, I get that Need2 sees no conflict between considering foods "bad" and including them in a diet she considers healthful and balanced. She and I simply understand "bad food" to mean different things and so have different reactions to its use. Her way works for her, but not everyone.0 -
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.
It's about context. They'd say you can include even a deep fried Mars bar in your diet every once in a while and still have an overall healthful, balanced diet that is calorie-appropriate and meets your goals. Occasionally eating a deep fried Mars bar doesn't harm your health and isn't something to feel bad or shameful about.
Of course, not being Scottish I have not tried a deep-fried Mars bar and feel deeply skeptical about it being worth eating.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The Frito Lay corporation has mastered the skill of gaining stomach share by making each of their products compellingly desirable. It's certainly a challenge to try to include a few in your plan.
For you.
For me, not so much. It once was a challenge, but instead of demonizing the food...i looked at my own behavior, worked on it and changed it. Now, I can do it without much of a challenge at all.
Doesn't hurt to demonize the food as a way to change your own behavior. Our process is just different. LOL.
*tackles Nathan Fillion*
I think telling yourself a food is evil is one thing (if it helps and you're not doing harm to yourself by telling yourself that). I think believing it is a whole other ball of wax.
<----eats ALL the evil foods and then some!
Yeah I just like telling as an exercise for the tongue while not really believing.... [sarcasm]
Do tell, what harm is there in believing that I need to limit or avoid evil lard ladden pork in order to have a chance with my cardio?
What harm it would do to you? I don't know. Very possibly none. What harm it would do to me? I have a rather lengthy post above getting into that.
Since your first statement in the above quote string didn't specify that you were talking about yourself and used "you" (whether personally directed at shell or as a more general pronoun, idk) you either haven't read some of the posts in this thread or just don't care.
I also think she took what I said way too personally.
All I meant was we tell ourselves what we need to hear to succeed in weight loss. We also do what we have to. Now, that doesn't work well for me and the donuts one of clients looooooves to bring us when he just shows up in our office but if you tell yourself that piece of cheesecake was baked with extra protein in the form of bugs and believe it enough to not eat said piece of cheesecake (because you're lactose intolerant and not because the piece of cheesecake is like 9000 calories and you have 10 left for the day) then more power to you.
But if you tell yourself that snickers bar has no nutritional value whatsoever so you won't eat and fight to the death online to prove it.....
Damn, I wonder if I have some fun sized snickers at home. 0 -
I would say more nutritious foods help us to met daily needs easier than foods that are less nutritious. That doesn't mean one can't meet their nutritional (macro and micro) needs while eating "bad food". Once the needs are met, then health shouldn't be an issue if one isn't over/underweight.
Thanks for pointing this out! Once our nutritional needs are met, most of us actually have several hundred calories / day that are "Free" as in they can be anything we want them to be. This is particularly true for people who have paid careful attention to getting vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. through nutritionally "dense" foods. Even when you're overweight, if you're meeting your nutritional needs and your diet plan has extra calories, there should be no moral weight applied at all to how you fill out your diet.
Also, @diannethegeek pointed out something I've observed to be very true. There are a lot of people on these forums who exhibit quite disordered thinking about food. And my experience is that sub-clinical disordered eating/exercising is fairly frequent in the general population (particularly among teenage and early 20's women).
The psychology community has acknowledged another disorder, Orthorexia Nervosa, which is an obsession with "healthy" living. For people with the tendency to think this way, or engage in obsessive behavior, its a very fine line between casually calling a food "bad" and enabling a destructive lifestyle. And websites like this attract a larger-than-normal portion of these individuals. They need to hear good, healthy messages about weight, nutrition, and exercise as badly as those who are extremely overweight do.
Many people internalize messages about moral value of actions and food; they just do. This is part of human nature. And that internalization is something no one else can do anything about, but what you can do is be conscious of whether you're reinforcing negative self-talk.
"This food is bad" becomes "People who eat this food are bad" which turns into "I am a bad person if I eat this food." It's not accurate, and it's unnecessarily destructive to spread this kind of moralizing thinking.
0 -
I would say more nutritious foods help us to met daily needs easier than foods that are less nutritious. That doesn't mean one can't meet their nutritional (macro and micro) needs while eating "bad food". Once the needs are met, then health shouldn't be an issue if one isn't over/underweight.
Thanks for pointing this out! Once our nutritional needs are met, most of us actually have several hundred calories / day that are "Free" as in they can be anything we want them to be. This is particularly true for people who have paid careful attention to getting vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. through nutritionally "dense" foods. Even when you're overweight, if you're meeting your nutritional needs and your diet plan has extra calories, there should be no moral weight applied at all to how you fill out your diet.
Also, @diannethegeek pointed out something I've observed to be very true. There are a lot of people on these forums who exhibit quite disordered thinking about food. And my experience is that sub-clinical disordered eating/exercising is fairly frequent in the general population (particularly among teenage and early 20's women).
The psychology community has acknowledged another disorder, Orthorexia Nervosa, which is an obsession with "healthy" living. For people with the tendency to think this way, or engage in obsessive behavior, its a very fine line between casually calling a food "bad" and enabling a destructive lifestyle. And websites like this attract a larger-than-normal portion of these individuals. They need to hear good, healthy messages about weight, nutrition, and exercise as badly as those who are extremely overweight do.
Many people internalize messages about moral value of actions and food; they just do. This is part of human nature. And that internalization is something no one else can do anything about, but what you can do is be conscious of whether you're reinforcing negative self-talk.
"This food is bad" becomes "People who eat this food are bad" which turns into "I am a bad person if I eat this food." It's not accurate, and it's unnecessarily destructive to spread this kind of moralizing thinking.
/clap0 -
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.
The no bad food argument is just a counter to people's claims that if they eat McDonald's they gain weight, but if they eat carrots they lose, so macca's is bad. But for weight loss they are equal if your eating the same calories of each.
Nutritionally and Heath wise they are clearly different.
Even with nutrition in mind, there aren't bad foods, there are bad diets. Sure, an all-candy-bar diet would be nutritionally horrible. So would an all-lettuce diet. It's not because lettuce is "bad", it's because you need to evaluate nutrition at the level of the diet, not the single food. At best you can say some foods help more with meeting nutritional goals than others, but even that is difficult to generalize, because for certain people, a double cheeseburger may be healthier than a salad (for example, if the person has protein or B12 deficiency).
To the OP - my strategy for dealing with foods I like but aren't very sating are to pair them with meals I know are extremely sating. If I do tacos with 95% lean beef, they are incredibly filling for their calorie content. Then maybe I can have a piece of cake or something else that wouldn't typically fill me up. I don't eliminate non-sating foods, but when I plan my meals, I take satiety into consideration and plan accordingly.0 -
nut butters are a very good food...but not if it was in my pantry. I'd most likely end up eating it straight out of the jar at 10pm at night...and lots of it. So unfortunately, at this time in my life, it is a bad food (for me).0
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The Frito Lay corporation has mastered the skill of gaining stomach share by making each of their products compellingly desirable. It's certainly a challenge to try to include a few in your plan.
For you.
For me, not so much. It once was a challenge, but instead of demonizing the food...i looked at my own behavior, worked on it and changed it. Now, I can do it without much of a challenge at all.
Doesn't hurt to demonize the food as a way to change your own behavior. Our process is just different. LOL.
Best of luck with that.
No luck. It's just science.
Repeating something enough time will increase its efficiency. It's called practice, muscle memory. We do that all the time.
I don't need your advice, especially in an inaccurate shame based dieting program, but thanks.
Who said I was giving advice . I just refuted your point.
If you say so. LOL.
What a cop-out response. 0 -
nut butters are a very good food...but not if it was in my pantry. I'd most likely end up eating it straight out of the jar at 10pm at night...and lots of it. So unfortunately, at this time in my life, it is a bad food (for me).
That reminds me. My wife just discovered honey whipped butter and thought it was godsend.
Is that something sold in stores or just concocted up by chefs?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I would say more nutritious foods help us to met daily needs easier than foods that are less nutritious. That doesn't mean one can't meet their nutritional (macro and micro) needs while eating "bad food". Once the needs are met, then health shouldn't be an issue if one isn't over/underweight.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Wait, so if someone lost a significant amount of weight on a "junk food" diet and their health improved significantly (lower body fat, lower cholesterol, better sleep patterns) then couldn't that be labeled as "good food" for that person?Need2Exerc1se 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?
I think "itos" food group is a good enough example, along with other junk food, of bad foods. Good foods would be those associated with improved health - vegetables, fruits, nuts, lean meats, fish/seafood, etc.
Obviously almost all foods have a nutritional value, some much much higher than others, but just eating healthy food DOESN'T ensure improved health.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You or they can label it whatever you/they want, but no, I would not label it good food. And yes, though it seems off point, health is about more than just food. That doesn't change the fact that some foods improve our odds of being healthy and some do not. To me those that do are good and those that do not are bad.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But in most cases to meet one's nutritional needs with"bad foods" won't that person most likely be well over their caloric needs?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
I would say more nutritious foods help us to met daily needs easier than foods that are less nutritious. That doesn't mean one can't meet their nutritional (macro and micro) needs while eating "bad food". Once the needs are met, then health shouldn't be an issue if one isn't over/underweight.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Wait, so if someone lost a significant amount of weight on a "junk food" diet and their health improved significantly (lower body fat, lower cholesterol, better sleep patterns) then couldn't that be labeled as "good food" for that person?Need2Exerc1se 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?
I think "itos" food group is a good enough example, along with other junk food, of bad foods. Good foods would be those associated with improved health - vegetables, fruits, nuts, lean meats, fish/seafood, etc.
Obviously almost all foods have a nutritional value, some much much higher than others, but just eating healthy food DOESN'T ensure improved health.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You or they can label it whatever you/they want, but no, I would not label it good food. And yes, though it seems off point, health is about more than just food. That doesn't change the fact that some foods improve our odds of being healthy and some do not. To me those that do are good and those that do not are bad.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But in most cases to meet one's nutritional needs with"bad foods" won't that person most likely be well over their caloric needs?
I don't know if it would be possible to answer this question without knowing what someone meant by "bad foods." There are all sort of foods that are tossed into this category and many of them do contain reasonable qualities of macro- and micronutrients.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
I would say more nutritious foods help us to met daily needs easier than foods that are less nutritious. That doesn't mean one can't meet their nutritional (macro and micro) needs while eating "bad food". Once the needs are met, then health shouldn't be an issue if one isn't over/underweight.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Wait, so if someone lost a significant amount of weight on a "junk food" diet and their health improved significantly (lower body fat, lower cholesterol, better sleep patterns) then couldn't that be labeled as "good food" for that person?Need2Exerc1se 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?
I think "itos" food group is a good enough example, along with other junk food, of bad foods. Good foods would be those associated with improved health - vegetables, fruits, nuts, lean meats, fish/seafood, etc.
Obviously almost all foods have a nutritional value, some much much higher than others, but just eating healthy food DOESN'T ensure improved health.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You or they can label it whatever you/they want, but no, I would not label it good food. And yes, though it seems off point, health is about more than just food. That doesn't change the fact that some foods improve our odds of being healthy and some do not. To me those that do are good and those that do not are bad.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But in most cases to meet one's nutritional needs with"bad foods" won't that person most likely be well over their caloric needs?
Not really, particularly if one takes a multivitamin and eats a decently wide variety of foods.
The vitamin industry seems to have perpetuated the notion that it's really hard to get adequate nutrition, but when you look at the wide array of diets that humans have survived and thrived on, and the total lack of nutritional knowledge they had, our bodies seem to be very good at dealing with almost any kind of food source.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
I would say more nutritious foods help us to met daily needs easier than foods that are less nutritious. That doesn't mean one can't meet their nutritional (macro and micro) needs while eating "bad food". Once the needs are met, then health shouldn't be an issue if one isn't over/underweight.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Wait, so if someone lost a significant amount of weight on a "junk food" diet and their health improved significantly (lower body fat, lower cholesterol, better sleep patterns) then couldn't that be labeled as "good food" for that person?Need2Exerc1se 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?
I think "itos" food group is a good enough example, along with other junk food, of bad foods. Good foods would be those associated with improved health - vegetables, fruits, nuts, lean meats, fish/seafood, etc.
Obviously almost all foods have a nutritional value, some much much higher than others, but just eating healthy food DOESN'T ensure improved health.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You or they can label it whatever you/they want, but no, I would not label it good food. And yes, though it seems off point, health is about more than just food. That doesn't change the fact that some foods improve our odds of being healthy and some do not. To me those that do are good and those that do not are bad.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But in most cases to meet one's nutritional needs with"bad foods" won't that person most likely be well over their caloric needs?
He didn't say meeting your needs with "bad foods" alone, but meeting your needs and having "bad foods" as a part of your diet is very possible. No one is advocating against eating nutritious foods, but they are saying that there is some room in almost anyone's diet for some foods that are less than perfect.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
I would say more nutritious foods help us to met daily needs easier than foods that are less nutritious. That doesn't mean one can't meet their nutritional (macro and micro) needs while eating "bad food". Once the needs are met, then health shouldn't be an issue if one isn't over/underweight.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Wait, so if someone lost a significant amount of weight on a "junk food" diet and their health improved significantly (lower body fat, lower cholesterol, better sleep patterns) then couldn't that be labeled as "good food" for that person?Need2Exerc1se 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?
I think "itos" food group is a good enough example, along with other junk food, of bad foods. Good foods would be those associated with improved health - vegetables, fruits, nuts, lean meats, fish/seafood, etc.
Obviously almost all foods have a nutritional value, some much much higher than others, but just eating healthy food DOESN'T ensure improved health.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You or they can label it whatever you/they want, but no, I would not label it good food. And yes, though it seems off point, health is about more than just food. That doesn't change the fact that some foods improve our odds of being healthy and some do not. To me those that do are good and those that do not are bad.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But in most cases to meet one's nutritional needs with"bad foods" won't that person most likely be well over their caloric needs?
The thing is that you wouldn't try to eat only high cal, low nutrient foods. You'd include them in the diet along with lots of more nutrient-dense foods.
For example, "evil lard ridden pork" or something like that was identified as a "bad food" upthread. I think that's a weird description of a pretty low cal pork chop (which is easy to fit in a day), but one thing I do make for lunches sometimes is a pork shoulder, which is a higher fat/lower protein per calorie cut of meat, but tasty enough to be worth it. When I want to include that in my diet instead of, say, the pork chop or fish or chicken breast, I might add some other leaner form of protein (maybe a snack of 0% Fage with berries) and omit cheese that I otherwise might have had after dinner. I'd still have plenty of room for lots of vegetables and my normal breakfast and dinner and even some black beans or sweet potatoes with the pork and veg I'm bringing for lunch.
Or, similarly, I like to have a breakfast of about 350-400 calories, but if I feel like splurging on a higher cal lunch and keeping dinner the same there are breakfasts (that also include an adequate amount of protein and vegetables, which are my main goals for breakfast) that I can have that are lower cal (like 200). So on a day I want to save some calories I'd do that.
It's all context.0 -
Edit: Posted before realizing this thread is already way too long, and before realizing I can't delete it.0
-
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.
Of course there can be 'bad' foods for us on a personal level. In my case as long as it is not calories from sugar or any form of grain my weight will more or less manage itself.
Food is like rain.
If I am a farmer and my corn needs 2" of rain and it comes then it 'good' rain.
If I was the farmer's daughter and had planned a huge outside wedding for six month and it came a 2" rain at the wedding hour then it would be a 'bad' rain.
Same rain is called both good and bad. But like a calorie is a calorie a 2" rain is a 2" rain. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions