For Some of Us there ARE Bad Foods
Replies
-
@lemurcat12
Sorry I meant lard laden pork. Whatever.
But isn't it common knowledge that lard is very high in cholesterol?0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »@lemurcat12
Sorry I meant lard laden pork. Whatever.
But isn't it common knowledge that lard is very high in cholesterol?
Lots of food are high in cholesterol, including many that have been part of traditional diets for years. Do you think people need to eliminate high cholesterol foods from their diet?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »@lemurcat12
Sorry I meant lard laden pork. Whatever.
But isn't it common knowledge that lard is very high in cholesterol?
Lots of food are high in cholesterol, including many that have been part of traditional diets for years. Do you think people need to eliminate high cholesterol foods from their diet?
Yes, if it's important for them to live a long life.
0 -
Actually there is a food that is bad for everyone - long pork.
At least if you are the long pork.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »@lemurcat12
Sorry I meant lard laden pork. Whatever.
But isn't it common knowledge that lard is very high in cholesterol?
Lots of food are high in cholesterol, including many that have been part of traditional diets for years. Do you think people need to eliminate high cholesterol foods from their diet?
Yes, if it's important for them to live a long life.
It sounds like you may be working from out-dated information. Even when experts thought there was a connection between cholesterol and disease, they still didn't recommend completely eliminating high cholesterol foods -- just limiting consumption.
But even that isn't generally accepted any more.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »@lemurcat12
Sorry I meant lard laden pork. Whatever.
But isn't it common knowledge that lard is very high in cholesterol?
Lots of food are high in cholesterol, including many that have been part of traditional diets for years. Do you think people need to eliminate high cholesterol foods from their diet?
Yes, if it's important for them to live a long life.
It sounds like you may be working from out-dated information. Even when experts thought there was a connection between cholesterol and disease, they still didn't recommend completely eliminating high cholesterol foods -- just limiting consumption.
But even that isn't generally accepted any more.
So I was right. It was a trick question.
I try to eliminate high cholesterol foods but still get a high number in the blood work report. Imagine if I only tried to "limit"...0 -
If people are going to use strawman arguments like eating 1000 calories of Mars bars I will as well. What would keep you alive longer eating nothing but ice cream or nothing but celery? Not the celery, that's for sure.
Anyone who eats nothing but foods with low nutrients is asking for trouble. No one is saying to eat a large amount of those foods but it is not going to hurt to eat them sparingly. If they are binge-triggering foods for you, avoid them, otherwise, live!0 -
If people are going to use strawman arguments like eating 1000 calories of Mars bars I will as well. What would keep you alive longer eating nothing but ice cream or nothing but celery? Not the celery, that's for sure.
Anyone who eats nothing but foods with low nutrients is asking for trouble. No one is saying to eat a large amount of those foods but it is not going to hurt to eat them sparingly. If they are binge-triggering foods for you, avoid them, otherwise, live!
Would you ever leave the bathroom eating celery alone?0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »@lemurcat12
Sorry I meant lard laden pork. Whatever.
But isn't it common knowledge that lard is very high in cholesterol?
Lots of food are high in cholesterol, including many that have been part of traditional diets for years. Do you think people need to eliminate high cholesterol foods from their diet?
Yes, if it's important for them to live a long life.
It sounds like you may be working from out-dated information. Even when experts thought there was a connection between cholesterol and disease, they still didn't recommend completely eliminating high cholesterol foods -- just limiting consumption.
But even that isn't generally accepted any more.
So I was right. It was a trick question.
I try to eliminate high cholesterol foods but still get a high number in the blood work report. Imagine if I only tried to "limit"...
Your blood work would likely be the same. It was once widely believed that saturated fat and cholesterol in the diet caused higher levels of cholesterol in the blood, but newer and better designed studies have shown that is not true in general; your blood cholesterol is unrelated to your dietary cholesterol.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »@lemurcat12
Sorry I meant lard laden pork. Whatever.
But isn't it common knowledge that lard is very high in cholesterol?
(1) What others said about cholesterol. (Also, just for the record, it has 71 mg -- for comparison, one large (50 g) egg has 186 mg. I eat eggs most mornings, so obviously am not horrified by this number.)
(2) 120 grams of pork loin, raw, has 26 g of protein, and only 7 g of fat, of which 2.3 g are saturated.
(3) It also has only 172 calories.
Is that tough to fit into a day or worthy of being called a "bad food"? Your call, obviously. I don't think so.
The broader point is even the pork I think is tougher to fit, fits easily enough with a few changes to my overall day, as I described above. Pork shoulder, raw (120 grams, I'll use the fattier option just to be fair):
(1) 21 g protein, 283 calories
(2) 7.5 g of sat fat -- pretty high for one food, yeah, that's why I'd cut back on something like cheese, which also tends to be high in sat fat
(3) 85 mg cholesterol
I am probably having shrimp tonight, btw. I don't usually hear that called a "bad food" (but anything can be), and it has 161 mg of cholesterol in 100 g.0 -
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »@lemurcat12
Sorry I meant lard laden pork. Whatever.
But isn't it common knowledge that lard is very high in cholesterol?
Lots of food are high in cholesterol, including many that have been part of traditional diets for years. Do you think people need to eliminate high cholesterol foods from their diet?
Yes, if it's important for them to live a long life.
It sounds like you may be working from out-dated information. Even when experts thought there was a connection between cholesterol and disease, they still didn't recommend completely eliminating high cholesterol foods -- just limiting consumption.
But even that isn't generally accepted any more.
So I was right. It was a trick question.
I try to eliminate high cholesterol foods but still get a high number in the blood work report. Imagine if I only tried to "limit"...
There's generally believed not to be a link between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol, at least for most. For some there's a link with sat fat (my dad lowered his sat fat and improved his cholesterol numbers).
I've always had great cholesterol results, even when I was fat, and they improved even more when I lost weight, even though that's when I started eating 2 eggs (with vegetables) most mornings.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »@lemurcat12
Sorry I meant lard laden pork. Whatever.
But isn't it common knowledge that lard is very high in cholesterol?
Lots of food are high in cholesterol, including many that have been part of traditional diets for years. Do you think people need to eliminate high cholesterol foods from their diet?
Yes, if it's important for them to live a long life.
It sounds like you may be working from out-dated information. Even when experts thought there was a connection between cholesterol and disease, they still didn't recommend completely eliminating high cholesterol foods -- just limiting consumption.
But even that isn't generally accepted any more.
So I was right. It was a trick question.
I try to eliminate high cholesterol foods but still get a high number in the blood work report. Imagine if I only tried to "limit"...
My bad cholesterol and triglycerides went down once I started eating eggs every day.
Nothing else changed.
True story.0 -
Lowered my weight, I now have perfect blood numbers. Eggs, FTW!! Another true story.0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »Lowered my weight, I now have perfect blood numbers. Another true story.
Were cheetos or doritos involved?0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Lowered my weight, I now have perfect blood numbers. Another true story.
Were cheetos or doritos involved?
Cheetos and eggs, you quoted me before edit. That's how I roll. HeeHee
0 -
This doesn't even make any sense. Of course in the situation you outlined you wouldn't choose the cheetos. It still doesn't make them bad. Lets say you've hit all your micro and macros for the day, are not hungry, and have 160 discretionary calories to use. You can have cheetos, right? That's what most of us on the board are arguing. It does not make the cheetos a bad food, just perhaps not the best choice when you're hungry and have 160 calories left.0
-
Dollar Tree cheese balls>Cheetos
True story!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.
OP, I completely agree with you!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.
OP, I completely agree with you!
Any chance you will bother responding to the other posts?
Somehow I think not, although I do regret that.
I think it's rude not to address counterarguments, even to express disagreement. I'd be interested in reasoned disagreement, and would consider it (just as I've come to understand that Need2 simply means something different from "bad food" than I would and so calling it "bad food" works for her). So many seem to refuse to understand the arguments and pretend, instead, that others are ignoring nutrition, which is 180 degrees from the reality. (I think I am much more concerned with nutrition than someone who oversimplifies it to not eating a few "bad" foods.)
I'd particularly be interested in any response to how (a) not eating foods you don't want to eat or care about isn't cutting them out; and (b) the posts about how one fits "bad foods" (like my pork example) into a healthy diet (if you claim it can't be done or can't be healthy or pork shoulder is still BAD).0 -
If by bad foods you mean ones that inhibit you from losing 'weight' ? Then yes, there absolutely are foods that will do this.
Diet is not just a numbers game, theres so much more science to it. CICO may be the foundation to it all, but there are still many variables involved (if there weren't then everyone would be in perfect shape)
For starters, the term 'weight loss' is misleading. The focus should be fat loss.
You don't want to lose muscle (go ahead and eat 1200cal/day of mars bars if you do though).
Depending on an individuals insulin sensitivity, thyroid levels, vitamin deficencies, testosterone, estrogen (the list goes on) a bag of cheetos could be mildly counter-productive or wreak havoc, and this is strictly chemical (inducing cravings is a whole other story)
Truth is, if option C is chosen...the individual will then go to bed with his/her blood sugar spiked ....the liver (your main fat burning organ) will then be so consumed with insulin production that it will shut down HSL production, causing fat burning to come to a halt. This does happen...
The extremety of this depends on your insulin sensitivity, but nonetheless it will happen. And that's only one of the ways it's affecting your body.
I don't know how you can view these cheeto's as anything but bad.0 -
When I used to think of good foods vs. bad foods, it always broke down along the typical moralistic categories of junk/not junk, healthy/unhealthy, etc. The problem for me was it created a cycle where I would eat "virtuously " for a while and then slip into a cycle of indulgence of whatever the particular "sinful" item was.
For me, it helped avoiding unnecessary moral pronouncements of food value. That doesn't mean there aren't trade offs and consequences to the choices I make each day, but I don't have the all or nothing mindset to contend with.
Some people will still feel the need to argue that a bag of "-itos" is somehow objectively bad. For me, it is now a simple matter of whether it fits in the context of my needs for the day or not. If it fits, great. If it doesn't fit and I eat it anyway, move on and go back to the plan the next day.0 -
If by bad foods you mean ones that inhibit you from losing 'weight' ? Then yes, there absolutely are foods that will do this.
Diet is not just a numbers game, theres so much more science to it. CICO may be the foundation to it all, but there are still many variables involved (if there weren't then everyone would be in perfect shape)
For starters, the term 'weight loss' is misleading. The focus should be fat loss.
You don't want to lose muscle (go ahead and eat 1200cal/day of mars bars if you do though).
Depending on an individuals insulin sensitivity, thyroid levels, vitamin deficencies, testosterone, estrogen (the list goes on) a bag of cheetos could be mildly counter-productive or wreak havoc, and this is strictly chemical (inducing cravings is a whole other story)
Truth is, if option C is chosen...the individual will then go to bed with his/her blood sugar spiked ....the liver (your main fat burning organ) will then be so consumed with insulin production that it will shut down HSL production, causing fat burning to come to a halt. This does happen...
The extremety of this depends on your insulin sensitivity, but nonetheless it will happen. And that's only one of the ways it's affecting your body.
I don't know how you can view these cheeto's as anything but bad.
You are simply so wrong here. The only thing that is correct is that eating nothing but chocolate will cause you to sacrifice lean body mass due to severely low protein intake and long term health.
Insulin will not shut down fat oxidation. CICO is not only the foundation but the sole reason we lose/gain weight.
Examine.com <<<please use that to learn about nutrition. Thanks.
0 -
For me, the issue is one of power/control.
If I start labeling food as good, bad, healthy, unhealthy, etc., I am giving the food power that it shouldn't have. I prefer to give myself that power/control. So it isn't about placing a value judgment on the food. Instead, I apply that value judgment to my choice whether or not to consume that food given my overall diet (and I am talking big picture here, not just my daily goal). Within that context there are foods I prefer and foods I don't care for, but that is on me, not the food. I recognize that there is nothing wrong with pickled bologna, it just happens not to appeal to me, so I choose not to eat it given the availability of so many foods that do appeal to me.
Since personally, a fried Mars bar sounds revolting, that could never be a good choice for me. For me, a freshly baked chocolate chip cookie, however, is very pleasurable to consume, so if a situation came up where such a cookie was available and I thought the pleasure that came from eating it was worthwhile given the calories it contains, then it would be a good choice. If it put me over my daily goal by a couple hundred calories, that isn't going to hold me back in the context of my weekly or monthly calorie consumption, so isn't a big deal to me as long as it is not something that occurs often. I could be in the exact same situation another day and think that the pleasure of eating the cookie was not outweighed by the calorie hit, and it would then be a good choice not to eat the cookie. Like any other decision I make, I value making a thoughtful decision - it is the mindless or impulsive ones that I tend to regret.0 -
If by bad foods you mean ones that inhibit you from losing 'weight' ? Then yes, there absolutely are foods that will do this.
Diet is not just a numbers game, theres so much more science to it. CICO may be the foundation to it all, but there are still many variables involved (if there weren't then everyone would be in perfect shape)
For starters, the term 'weight loss' is misleading. The focus should be fat loss.
You don't want to lose muscle (go ahead and eat 1200cal/day of mars bars if you do though).
Depending on an individuals insulin sensitivity, thyroid levels, vitamin deficencies, testosterone, estrogen (the list goes on) a bag of cheetos could be mildly counter-productive or wreak havoc, and this is strictly chemical (inducing cravings is a whole other story)
Truth is, if option C is chosen...the individual will then go to bed with his/her blood sugar spiked ....the liver (your main fat burning organ) will then be so consumed with insulin production that it will shut down HSL production, causing fat burning to come to a halt. This does happen...
The extremety of this depends on your insulin sensitivity, but nonetheless it will happen. And that's only one of the ways it's affecting your body.
I don't know how you can view these cheeto's as anything but bad.
You are simply so wrong here. The only thing that is correct is that eating nothing but chocolate will cause you to sacrifice lean body mass due to severely low protein intake and long term health.
Insulin will not shut down fat oxidation. CICO is not only the foundation but the sole reason we lose/gain weight.
Examine.com <<<please use that to learn about nutrition. Thanks.
Forgot to post this reference insulin.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/0 -
Of course there are bad foods. Some of the stuff sold in the US is not even legal in the EU like Olestra or rBST etc. also some foods still contain transfats, which are health risky. Any processed food with a ton of E Nr. are IMO bad but we all eat it.0
-
biggsterjackster wrote: »Of course there are bad foods. Some of the stuff sold in the US is not even legal in the EU like Olestra or rBST etc. also some foods still contain transfats, which are health risky. Any processed food with a ton of E Nr. are IMO bad but we all eat it.
Some of the stuff sold in the EU like haggis is not even legal in the US. In some countries apostasy and homosexuality are punishable by death, but I'd hope you don't consider that proof those things are worthy of a death sentence (hopefully not even bad).
Some foods will always contain trans fats, such as dairy. While I'm okay with banning them, trans fats aren't unhealthy per se, they are unhealthy to use in most fried food oils given the health impact of using that much trans fat and that there are alternatives for producing the same food, just at the cost of higher turn over of cooking oil. Something as innocuous as water is unhealthy in large enough quantities.0 -
makingmark wrote: »If people are going to use strawman arguments like eating 1000 calories of Mars bars I will as well. What would keep you alive longer eating nothing but ice cream or nothing but celery? Not the celery, that's for sure.
Anyone who eats nothing but foods with low nutrients is asking for trouble. No one is saying to eat a large amount of those foods but it is not going to hurt to eat them sparingly. If they are binge-triggering foods for you, avoid them, otherwise, live!
Would you ever leave the bathroom eating celery alone?
You'd leave it a mess.
0 -
If by bad foods you mean ones that inhibit you from losing 'weight' ? Then yes, there absolutely are foods that will do this.
Diet is not just a numbers game, theres so much more science to it. CICO may be the foundation to it all, but there are still many variables involved (if there weren't then everyone would be in perfect shape)
For starters, the term 'weight loss' is misleading. The focus should be fat loss.
You don't want to lose muscle (go ahead and eat 1200cal/day of mars bars if you do though).
Depending on an individuals insulin sensitivity, thyroid levels, vitamin deficencies, testosterone, estrogen (the list goes on) a bag of cheetos could be mildly counter-productive or wreak havoc, and this is strictly chemical (inducing cravings is a whole other story)
Truth is, if option C is chosen...the individual will then go to bed with his/her blood sugar spiked ....the liver (your main fat burning organ) will then be so consumed with insulin production that it will shut down HSL production, causing fat burning to come to a halt. This does happen...
The extremety of this depends on your insulin sensitivity, but nonetheless it will happen. And that's only one of the ways it's affecting your body.
I don't know how you can view these cheeto's as anything but bad.
Why, just why do people always go back to the 1200 cals of PopTarts/ice cream/Mars Bars/cake strawman? Who tells people to eat like that? Seriously?
It's about context; 160 calories of Cheetos aren't inherently bad. It's the diet as a whole that matters. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that?
Also, did you not read the thread? There is a whole thread of information here that debunks everything in your post.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions