Have you ever tried clean eating?
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better in that they may learn something new, that just because you can't pronounce something doesn't make it inherently bad for you. Eat it or not, but don't use ignorance or unfamiliarity as a reason when that is easily corrected.
Why not? What is wrong with willfully remaining ignorant of food additives and avoiding them if that is my choice? We all remain ignorant of something. Nobody has the time to learn everything.
If you choose to remain willfully ignorant and make decisions about what you eat based on that, then that's fine, I have no issue with it.
However, it has been stated many times in this thread and others, that a helpful rule about whether or not to eat something should be based on whether the ingredients can be pronounced. As a piece of advice to others, that suggestion that ignorance should be the benchmark seems kind of silly. The complexity of the pronunciation of the ingredient has nothing to do with whether or not the ingredient is "bad".
I completely agree it's silly while acknowledging that people have every right to be silly if they want. There are likely very few (if any) people using this app that couldn't follow that rule and still have plenty of food available to provide a balanced nutritious diet.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better in that they may learn something new, that just because you can't pronounce something doesn't make it inherently bad for you. Eat it or not, but don't use ignorance or unfamiliarity as a reason when that is easily corrected.
Why not? What is wrong with willfully remaining ignorant of food additives and avoiding them if that is my choice? We all remain ignorant of something. Nobody has the time to learn everything.
If you choose to remain willfully ignorant and make decisions about what you eat based on that, then that's fine, I have no issue with it.
However, it has been stated many times in this thread and others, that a helpful rule about whether or not to eat something should be based on whether the ingredients can be pronounced. As a piece of advice to others, that suggestion that ignorance should be the benchmark seems kind of silly. The complexity of the pronunciation of the ingredient has nothing to do with whether or not the ingredient is "bad".
I completely agree it's silly while acknowledging that people have every right to be silly if they want. There are likely very few (if any) people using this app that couldn't follow that rule and still have plenty of food available to provide a balanced nutritious diet.
You could say that about any random rule though -- I could follow a rule that I don't eat food produced in Montana or any food that has yellow in the label and still have plenty of food available, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a pretty silly rule and one that doesn't serve any real purpose other than limiting the number of foods I can eat.
3 -
This thread is just plain silly now...3
-
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better in that they may learn something new, that just because you can't pronounce something doesn't make it inherently bad for you. Eat it or not, but don't use ignorance or unfamiliarity as a reason when that is easily corrected.
Why not? What is wrong with willfully remaining ignorant of food additives and avoiding them if that is my choice? We all remain ignorant of something. Nobody has the time to learn everything.
If you choose to remain willfully ignorant and make decisions about what you eat based on that, then that's fine, I have no issue with it.
However, it has been stated many times in this thread and others, that a helpful rule about whether or not to eat something should be based on whether the ingredients can be pronounced. As a piece of advice to others, that suggestion that ignorance should be the benchmark seems kind of silly. The complexity of the pronunciation of the ingredient has nothing to do with whether or not the ingredient is "bad".
I completely agree it's silly while acknowledging that people have every right to be silly if they want. There are likely very few (if any) people using this app that couldn't follow that rule and still have plenty of food available to provide a balanced nutritious diet.
It's just irresponsible to pass your ignorance/silliness on to newbies reading this thread who quite possibly don't know any better...3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better for me since I hopefully wouldn't have to see, "if you can't read it, don't eat it" anymore.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It wouldn't be unfamiliar if they just looked the ingredient up.
No it wouldn't. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing not to look it up and eating something else if that is a person's preference.
Reminds me of this:
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better in that they may learn something new, that just because you can't pronounce something doesn't make it inherently bad for you. Eat it or not, but don't use ignorance or unfamiliarity as a reason when that is easily corrected.
Why not? What is wrong with willfully remaining ignorant of food additives and avoiding them if that is my choice? We all remain ignorant of something. Nobody has the time to learn everything.
If you choose to remain willfully ignorant and make decisions about what you eat based on that, then that's fine, I have no issue with it.
However, it has been stated many times in this thread and others, that a helpful rule about whether or not to eat something should be based on whether the ingredients can be pronounced. As a piece of advice to others, that suggestion that ignorance should be the benchmark seems kind of silly. The complexity of the pronunciation of the ingredient has nothing to do with whether or not the ingredient is "bad".
I completely agree it's silly while acknowledging that people have every right to be silly if they want. There are likely very few (if any) people using this app that couldn't follow that rule and still have plenty of food available to provide a balanced nutritious diet.
You could say that about any random rule though -- I could follow a rule that I don't eat food produced in Montana or any food that has yellow in the label and still have plenty of food available, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a pretty silly rule and one that doesn't serve any real purpose other than limiting the number of foods I can eat.
Agreed.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better in that they may learn something new, that just because you can't pronounce something doesn't make it inherently bad for you. Eat it or not, but don't use ignorance or unfamiliarity as a reason when that is easily corrected.
Why not? What is wrong with willfully remaining ignorant of food additives and avoiding them if that is my choice? We all remain ignorant of something. Nobody has the time to learn everything.
If you choose to remain willfully ignorant and make decisions about what you eat based on that, then that's fine, I have no issue with it.
However, it has been stated many times in this thread and others, that a helpful rule about whether or not to eat something should be based on whether the ingredients can be pronounced. As a piece of advice to others, that suggestion that ignorance should be the benchmark seems kind of silly. The complexity of the pronunciation of the ingredient has nothing to do with whether or not the ingredient is "bad".
I completely agree it's silly while acknowledging that people have every right to be silly if they want. There are likely very few (if any) people using this app that couldn't follow that rule and still have plenty of food available to provide a balanced nutritious diet.
It's just irresponsible to pass your ignorance/silliness on to newbies reading this thread who quite possibly don't know any better...
If they are old enough to be on this site and don't know any better they have already chose willful ignorance. Anyone that reads these forums and thinks they have learned something without doing further research has already chosen willful ignorance.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better in that they may learn something new, that just because you can't pronounce something doesn't make it inherently bad for you. Eat it or not, but don't use ignorance or unfamiliarity as a reason when that is easily corrected.
Why not? What is wrong with willfully remaining ignorant of food additives and avoiding them if that is my choice? We all remain ignorant of something. Nobody has the time to learn everything.
If you choose to remain willfully ignorant and make decisions about what you eat based on that, then that's fine, I have no issue with it.
However, it has been stated many times in this thread and others, that a helpful rule about whether or not to eat something should be based on whether the ingredients can be pronounced. As a piece of advice to others, that suggestion that ignorance should be the benchmark seems kind of silly. The complexity of the pronunciation of the ingredient has nothing to do with whether or not the ingredient is "bad".
I completely agree it's silly while acknowledging that people have every right to be silly if they want. There are likely very few (if any) people using this app that couldn't follow that rule and still have plenty of food available to provide a balanced nutritious diet.
It's just irresponsible to pass your ignorance/silliness on to newbies reading this thread who quite possibly don't know any better...
If they are old enough to be on this site and don't know any better they have already chose willful ignorance. Anyone that reads these forums and thinks they have learned something without doing further research has already chosen willful ignorance.
You make a lot of assumptions...2 -
This is the first time I think I've ever seen anyone feel the need to argue for willful ignorance.
There's this country song with this line about not knowing the difference between Iran and Iraq that to me illustrates a certain willful ignorance about the world common to too many Americans. I always think about that when this "don't eat what you can't pronounce" nonsense comes up -- it strikes me as an attitude of almost pride in ignorance that bothers me.9 -
if I want to eat a hotdog occasionally I will choose to be ignorant of it's ingredients....please don't ruin them for me just yet...I only eat 1 or 2 a year.
Same applies to bologna and kraft dinner...mind you I've never eaten a twinkie...I can't now after I read an article where it hadn't spoiled in over 20 years of sitting on the shelf of a chalk board...3 -
-
^^^I don't like Twinkies. That makes me like them even less.
0 -
Lol I saw this at Walmart the other day and I was confused as to why people would want to buy something with the word slime describing itannaskiski wrote: »
1 -
0
-
-
Lol I saw this at Walmart the other day and I was confused as to why people would want to buy something with the word slime describing itannaskiski wrote: »
Not a Ghostbusters fan I take it.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
Those last two threads got very silly indeed. Now, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do, except perhaps my wife and some of her friends. Oh yes, and Captain Johnson. Come to think of it, most people like a good laugh more than I do, but that's beside the point.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 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