Good Food, Bad Food

2

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    nickssweetheart wrote: »
    NovusDies wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Experience or mindset maybe. I just believe that an apple would be healthier for my body than 80 calories of candy... and would fill me up better as well. Of course you can still have a healthy diet with 100 calories of candy here and there though... But nobody can deny that there are food that have way more nutrition value than others.

    That is not what you said though. You said there was "bad" food. I guess here the candy is "bad" because an apple is better. So then maybe if 80 calories of blueberries are better than an apple... the apple is "bad"?

    Meh, I feel like we're arguing semantics here. Is a diet of pure apples going to provide adequate nutrition? No. Is a diet of pure Skittles going to provide adequate nutrition? No. Can someone eat Skittles as part of a healthy lifestyle? Sure.

    That doesn't make them equivalents. I don't think it's unreasonable for some people to classify foods that offer nothing but calories and tooth decay as falling below a point on the nutritional spectrum that can be considered "good". I also understand why some people are resistant to classifying food as "good" or "bad" just as some people are resistant to the use of "cheat" day. Not everyone's diet has to be the same, so why does what constitutes a healthy mindset about food have to be exactly the same for everyone?

    I don't think it's just semantics.

    No one disagrees that some food is more nutrient dense than others, and that the nutrition in foods differ (so that depending on the rest of the diet one might be a better choice than another). So that's not the discussion.

    The question is whether the fact that another food has more of certain kinds of nutrients makes a specific food inherently "bad." I know some call it that without it being an issue, and I don't really care (to me "junk food" is a neutral term and I use it descriptively without feeling bad about eating something I class as such). But some find that calling a food "bad food" is a negative thing for them, and can be quite damaging (given how common it is to associate shame with food and eating this is not surprising) and so will explain why it might be something to beware of, and that it was harmful for them.

    Personally, I don't think the "bad food" term is especially harmful for me, as I don't take it that seriously, but I also don't think it's helpful, and I DO find that trying to think about food logically, and not in moral terms, is very helpful. Rather than feel bad because I ate something not nutrient dense for breakfast and overreact to it (and tell myself I am now starving -- which would be in my head -- and have to have a bad day), it works better to think "yeah, if I want to meet my goals now, important to eat lots of vegetables and protein for lunch and dinner and maybe keep added calories from things like starchy carbs and fat a bit lighter than usual."

    I think it's fine to decide that you are different and find the terms bad and good for food useful. I don't think it's cool to dismiss someone else's strongly felt reasons for explaining that the terms are important for them to avoid as not caring about nutrition (which no one did here, but I've seen it before) or denial or some such.

    IMO, discussions about what we call things and how that affects thoughts are relevant and interesting.

    Also, OP seemed to think that not using the term "bad food" means you don't pay attention to nutrition, which is just odd.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    acorsaut89 wrote: »
    I once read in a book, called Mindless Eating, that humans don't actually consume calories . . . we consume volume. And in my experience, both with my own weight loss struggles and friends who are on the latest "fad" diet, conventionally "bad" foods tend to be foods that offer large amounts of calories for the volume our brains deem to be adequate for us.

    This is conventional thought, and for many of us it's true.

    I think it only goes so far, though. For example, many who do keto or low carb and find it helpful are replacing higher volume with smaller, more caloric volume (high fat) and yet finding it more satisfying.

    I'm more of a volume eater, but I found eating a bit higher fat to be really helpful for me, since I don't have much problem feeling sated, but I get unsatisfied on a low fat diet over time, and am far less likely to want to say "screw it" and go off my own plan when I have more fat on average, even though that decreases volume some. I will find a dinner more satisfying with a smaller portion of pasta or potatoes and a bit more fat (lots of veg and sufficient protein in either case).

    Also, it doesn't seem that people DO use "bad food" consistently for foods that are high cal/low volume. Olive oil is one good example that usually doesn't get classed as such.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    Also, OP seemed to think that not using the term "bad food" means you don't pay attention to nutrition, which is just odd.

    Just my personal experience: since letting go of the good/bad food distinctions, I find I think about nutrition more and more thoughtfully because instead of just eating things because they are "good" or avoiding them because they're "bad," I'm actually planning meals based on my overall needs.

    (Not saying this is the only way to think about nutrition, but it's certainly worked for me).

    This is exactly the experience I had too.
  • hesn92
    hesn92 Posts: 5,966 Member
    Tbh I feel like this entire argument is just semantics. I once made a post a couple years ago asking for low calorie junk food and I got torn apart for using that term. Which I think is silly. I agree with the general concept that there isn’t “good” food or “bad” food. It’s about having a “good” or balanced diet overall and getting your nutrition requirements. If I ate all broccoli I’m sure I would have unpleasant side effects too. However skittles are certainly not very nutritious.
  • hesn92
    hesn92 Posts: 5,966 Member
    I guess the good food bad food terminology doesn’t affect me at all but I recognize that it can be harmful for people new to weight loss. When someone asks for advice on how to lose weight or what to eat, you always hear the same things. Don’t eat white foods, don’t eat processed foods, don’t drink soda, etc etc. I think those suggestions are very UNhelpful because these people get burnt out eliminating all of these things from their diet and then fall off the wagon. It doesn’t teach them moderation.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    edited May 2018
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    Also, OP seemed to think that not using the term "bad food" means you don't pay attention to nutrition, which is just odd.

    Just my personal experience: since letting go of the good/bad food distinctions, I find I think about nutrition more and more thoughtfully because instead of just eating things because they are "good" or avoiding them because they're "bad," I'm actually planning meals based on my overall needs.

    (Not saying this is the only way to think about nutrition, but it's certainly worked for me).

    But you still make choices and pick some foods instead of others, because, as you say, you're more thoughtful about it.

    For me, distinguishing between what will fill me up for the calories and what won't (which I put in the 'good' or 'bad' category) is definitely a tool that is necessary for meal planning (which is a skill that OP seems to be lacking lol). I mean, technically, eating 3 cookies will never be 'good' for my diet because I'll be hungry later.
  • acorsaut89
    acorsaut89 Posts: 1,147 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    acorsaut89 wrote: »
    I once read in a book, called Mindless Eating, that humans don't actually consume calories . . . we consume volume. And in my experience, both with my own weight loss struggles and friends who are on the latest "fad" diet, conventionally "bad" foods tend to be foods that offer large amounts of calories for the volume our brains deem to be adequate for us.

    This is conventional thought, and for many of us it's true.

    I think it only goes so far, though. For example, many who do keto or low carb and find it helpful are replacing higher volume with smaller, more caloric volume (high fat) and yet finding it more satisfying.

    I'm more of a volume eater, but I found eating a bit higher fat to be really helpful for me, since I don't have much problem feeling sated, but I get unsatisfied on a low fat diet over time, and am far less likely to want to say "screw it" and go off my own plan when I have more fat on average, even though that decreases volume some. I will find a dinner more satisfying with a smaller portion of pasta or potatoes and a bit more fat (lots of veg and sufficient protein in either case).

    Also, it doesn't seem that people DO use "bad food" consistently for foods that are high cal/low volume. Olive oil is one good example that usually doesn't get classed as such.

    That's why I said bad foods tend to foods that offer large amounts of calories and low volumes. A lot of people don't think about oils they use for cooking the food in, just what they can see in front of them.

    re: Those who do keto and can stay on it, I'll have to take your word because I don't follow a keto diet. However, I have had many experiences with friends who do it for about 3 or 4 weeks and then fall off and repeat cycle. I follow an everything in moderation view of life . . . so I've never tried low carb. This was, of course, my experience with weight loss.
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    edited May 2018
    Francl27 wrote: »
    For me, distinguishing between what will fill me up for the calories and what won't (which I put in the 'good' or 'bad' category) is definitely a tool that is necessary for meal planning (which is a skill that OP seems to be lacking lol). I mean, technically, eating 3 cookies will never be 'good' for my diet because I'll be hungry later.

    I think it is very possible to have good and bad food on a personal level. Jerky is widely considered a good high protein snack but for me it makes me incredibly hungry and that is not good. I only want to personally use that distinction for foods that trigger that type of response though or in case of medical conditions. I don't eat high fiber foods at night because I have acid reflux. High fiber foods are good at lunch and bad for dinner. These foods are not universally bad just bad for me either completely or situationally.

    I look at my meal planning a little differently so I am not in the kitchen making judgement calls on food. For one thing I have a weekly template and another I typically know at least 24 hours in advance what I will be eating most days. My weekly template takes care of what I perceive I need in nutritional variety and then I fill in the gaps. It is more like I need to eat XYZ so I am comfortable having the treat stuff. So if I am having a sandwich I might add some Doritos to it.

    ETA: I just realized what I do is a form of "eat your vegetables or no dessert" except I do it on a weekly basis not meal by meal and sometimes the whole meal is the "dessert".
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I guess bad = does not help me meet nutritional needs other than calories, but I don't see why that makes something bad. That's like defining activities that help me make money as good and all others as bad and then saying that spending the day working in my flower garden or reading a novel = bad, since I could have been doing other activities that would have been more profitable.

    But I don't really care. I do think there are good and bad diets, of course.

    Bad = being on MFP when I should be working in my garden :lol:

    ;-)
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    NovusDies wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Letting go of "good/bad" freed me up to make more decisions like this.

    Past me would pick up the cake, interpret that as being "bad," and figure I might as well eat the whole thing. I mean, when you're breaking the rules, you're breaking the rules, right?

    Today I'm more likely to pick up the cake (if it appeals) and know that an entire piece is going to be way more calories than I want to have, but a few bites will fit just fine. So I have a few bites.

    (I'm not saying that everyone who thinks some foods are "bad" is eating the whole slice of cake, but that's the way it worked too often with me).

    You knew I would have to respond to this... grrrrrr

    Cake IS bad. Pie IS good.

    :D
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    garystrickland357 wrote: »

    Instead of the huge 500 - 700 calorie servings I saw others consuming I had a small serving and literally ate about three bites. I estimated it at about 150 calories. It was a "bad" food without much nutrition, but those three bites made me happy and didn't bust my calorie budget. They also won't derail my pursuit of fitness.

    Letting go of "good/bad" freed me up to make more decisions like this.

    Past me would pick up the cake, interpret that as being "bad," and figure I might as well eat the whole thing. I mean, when you're breaking the rules, you're breaking the rules, right?

    Today I'm more likely to pick up the cake (if it appeals) and know that an entire piece is going to be way more calories than I want to have, but a few bites will fit just fine. So I have a few bites.

    (I'm not saying that everyone who thinks some foods are "bad" is eating the whole slice of cake, but that's the way it worked too often with me).

    It's interesting though. For me it's absolutely the distinction between good and bad that makes me stop eating too much of the bad choice.
  • tropicalchicy
    tropicalchicy Posts: 27 Member
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    I suppose I'll tell my story.

    When I was in the heart of dieting, the really deep part where I had lost the easy weight and was chipping away at the harder stuff and having a hell of a time with it, I developed some control issues with food. I would panic at parties and restaurants because I couldn't log the food accurately. I broke into tears at a world-renowned burger place because they didn't have the quinoa burger I had prelogged and I didn't know how to adjust my plans without it. I was spiraling because I felt like I was surrounded by all of these bad, heavy foods and there was something wrong with me because I couldn't say no to them. Food became my enemy unless it was the right kind of food, the kind I had full control over.

    Fortunately, my therapist caught it early and we worked hard to keep it from developing into a full-fledged eating disorder. But part of that work was to stop seeing foods in terms of good and bad. I believe in balanced diets and unbalanced diets, foods that fit into your goals and foods that don't, foods that make me feel better and foods that make me feel worse. I believe in looking at the big picture of a diet, concentrating on what I want to include instead of what I feel like I have to remove, and having chill food guidelines that I can stick to without stressing. I don't believe in good foods vs. bad ones.

    But everyone approaches food differently. I just refuse to travel back down that particular rabbit hole.

    I went through a similar phase/issue a couple of years ago when losing weight for my wedding. It was during the time when "clean eating" was popular and all over social media.

    I had a mini meltdown because I "had" to eat out for dinner the second time that week, which also interfered with my workout schedule, because of social celebrations. Eating "clean" more to me than catching up with friends and family. I luckly realised how unhealthy this was and worked on my personal relationship with food and lifestyle.

    I really hate food labels, even if some food are have a higher nutritional value because it can lead to unhealthy relationship with food.

  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    How about “expensive” foods like butter, almond butter, or mayonnaise? I watch these carefully because they add up quickly.

    Laughing cow light cream cheese wedges go well with Doritos.

    A great salad is even better with a few sunflower seeds and ranch dressing.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    tropicalchicy wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    I suppose I'll tell my story.

    When I was in the heart of dieting, the really deep part where I had lost the easy weight and was chipping away at the harder stuff and having a hell of a time with it, I developed some control issues with food. I would panic at parties and restaurants because I couldn't log the food accurately. I broke into tears at a world-renowned burger place because they didn't have the quinoa burger I had prelogged and I didn't know how to adjust my plans without it. I was spiraling because I felt like I was surrounded by all of these bad, heavy foods and there was something wrong with me because I couldn't say no to them. Food became my enemy unless it was the right kind of food, the kind I had full control over.

    Fortunately, my therapist caught it early and we worked hard to keep it from developing into a full-fledged eating disorder. But part of that work was to stop seeing foods in terms of good and bad. I believe in balanced diets and unbalanced diets, foods that fit into your goals and foods that don't, foods that make me feel better and foods that make me feel worse. I believe in looking at the big picture of a diet, concentrating on what I want to include instead of what I feel like I have to remove, and having chill food guidelines that I can stick to without stressing. I don't believe in good foods vs. bad ones.

    But everyone approaches food differently. I just refuse to travel back down that particular rabbit hole.

    I went through a similar phase/issue a couple of years ago when losing weight for my wedding. It was during the time when "clean eating" was popular and all over social media.

    I had a mini meltdown because I "had" to eat out for dinner the second time that week, which also interfered with my workout schedule, because of social celebrations. Eating "clean" more to me than catching up with friends and family. I luckly realised how unhealthy this was and worked on my personal relationship with food and lifestyle.

    I really hate food labels, even if some food are have a higher nutritional value because it can lead to unhealthy relationship with food.

    Eating out or meeting with friends was a huge issue too but not because of 'good' or 'bad' food... because of high calorie foods and lower calorie options not always being available (and I'm not going to be THAT person who's never happy with what people want to eat either). Again, for ME, good/bad, that's just semantics and it doesn't affect much. I DO feel bad when I eat higher calorie foods because, honestly, I'm a hungry person and it's always hard to fit in for me - and if it's for dinner, it's guaranteed to put me over for the day (I'm always hungrier during the day). Feeling bad about it is what keeps me on track.

    That being said, I let go of the guilt and anxiety about eating with my friends, and I've gained 20 lbs back in the last 2 years. I'm happier in my every day life for sure, but really not happy with my look anymore. It's a hard balance. I really DO need the 'I shouldn't eat this' mentality if I want to stay on track, unfortunately.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I don't understand how calling something a "bad food" is more useful in managing a desire to eat it than, say, thinking that it's X calories and not filling at all to me, and if I eat it I'll have X fewer calories to spend on something else and also have to still meet my protein and micronutrient goals (which are things I think about even when not logging).

    But I do suspect it works differently for different people, as Ann said (and I think my mind works more like hers).

    I know I have tendencies in the direction that janejellyroll mentioned -- if I think of food as good and bad and bad as off limits, then if I eat something classified as bad I'm likely to decide I ruined the day so eh, might as well go nuts. I don't do that much now, since I've worked on making my thoughts about food more logical, but it was a real issue.

    That I don't think of cheese as bad doesn't mean I'm not aware of how caloric it is (although as noted above satiety isn't actually an issue, I always want to eat because I like food, not that I perceive myself as being uncontrollably hungry).
This discussion has been closed.

Categories