"Four terms that make dietitians cringe" - Why we say what we do on these boards

OooohToast

missblondi2u wrote: »

I didn't get to read the entire article because I hit a pay wall, but I'm curious as to whether hydrogenated oil would be a "bad" food. Not saying all calories aren't equal, but I do consider foods with hydrogenated oil bad, but maybe I've been misinformed.

Here in the UK, hydrogenated fat is considered bad in any quantity.

NovusDies

nettiklive wrote: »

What I don't understand is why we need to get all triggered and attach morals and emotions to what is a fairly reasonable categorization of foods based on how they affect the body and health. And I know it's difficult because most foods fall in the grey zone where they're fine in moderation and balance. But some foods are still objectively better or worse for you than others. It's like saying that breathing clean air somewhere in the Swiss mountains is better than the polluted air in a factory town in China. There's no moral value to it, you're not a less worthy person for breathing the factory smoke, it is just worse for your health, that is all. Consuming food with substances that are shown to be endocrine disrupters, for instance, is worse than not consuming them, and there's a reason many of these are banned in other countries but not US. I'm not talking about broccoli vs donuts; but things like hydrogenated oils like someone brought up, transfats, artificial sweeteners, flavorings and colors, BPA from plastic packaging, are things that add absolutely no benefit to the body, and could potentially be harmful even if it's not proven yet. There's no need to attach moral weight to it. Nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol also don't need to be in your body for the same reasons. That's not to say I'll give up my wine or coffee, but I just accept this as a risk-benefit decision I'm making for myself. I'm not going to suffer from guilt and self-loathing while drowning my shame in cup after cup of coffee just because I'm aware that it's not the healthiest thing. I don't know if the good-bad obsession is some sort of puritanical thing or what. Maybe people should just stop being so sensitive about these concepts.

With a few exceptions there is no reason to live in fear of food. There is no evidence that most foods people label as "crap" or "bad" is actually bad for you. There is evidence to suggest that once your body has what it needs eating excess nutrition is a waste of time so why not enjoy other calories in moderation?

The clean movement would have you believe that a normal healthy human body is this fragile instrument and we have to be really careful what we put into it. They use scare phrases like "potentially harmful". A healthy human body has an amazing ability to process nutrition in varying ways and filter out things that it does not need. Unprocessed foods all have things the body filters out too. Plants have trace amounts of toxins. Where is the potentially harmful disclaimer there?

lemurcat2

OooohToast wrote: »

missblondi2u wrote: »

I didn't get to read the entire article because I hit a pay wall, but I'm curious as to whether hydrogenated oil would be a "bad" food. Not saying all calories aren't equal, but I do consider foods with hydrogenated oil bad, but maybe I've been misinformed.

Here in the UK, hydrogenated fat is considered bad in any quantity.

Has the UK banned trans fats yet? I know it hadn't even by the time the US did: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/countries-urged-wipe-killer-trans-fats-foods/

I mention this just because I suspect you may be trying to suggest that the UK has a different view on trans fats than the US.

Of course, partially hydrogenated oils are distinct from fully hydrogenated oils, and there are also naturally occurring trans fats which are not believed to pose the same problems as the artificial ones. (As I understand it, fully hydrogenated oils do not result in trans fats, but sat fat.)

I suspect most people would agree that there are some things that can be actively harmful in but the tracest of doses, which is why there are various ingredients that are banned, but I think this is different from the claim that is being discussed in the original post here, that foods in general can be divided into "good" and "bad." That's an overly simplistic and not all that helpful way to approach nutrition.

Ainadan

I think food has always had moral connotations to it. Most major religions have dietary restrictions. Now we don't have the specific religion to tell us what to eat. Instead, we make up what is "good" and "bad" based on flawed understanding of the latest journalist's retelling of a scientific article, which is then used by opportunist to market to dieters.

I ate sand pies as a little kid. Talk about eating dirty.

magnusthenerd

nettiklive wrote: »

What I don't understand is why we need to get all triggered and attach morals and emotions to what is a fairly reasonable categorization of foods based on how they affect the body and health. And I know it's difficult because most foods fall in the grey zone where they're fine in moderation and balance. But some foods are still objectively better or worse for you than others. It's like saying that breathing clean air somewhere in the Swiss mountains is better than the polluted air in a factory town in China. There's no moral value to it, you're not a less worthy person for breathing the factory smoke, it is just worse for your health, that is all. Consuming food with substances that are shown to be endocrine disrupters, for instance, is worse than not consuming them, and there's a reason many of these are banned in other countries but not US. I'm not talking about broccoli vs donuts; but things like hydrogenated oils like someone brought up, transfats, artificial sweeteners, flavorings and colors, BPA from plastic packaging, are things that add absolutely no benefit to the body, and could potentially be harmful even if it's not proven yet. There's no need to attach moral weight to it. Nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol also don't need to be in your body for the same reasons. That's not to say I'll give up my wine or coffee, but I just accept this as a risk-benefit decision I'm making for myself. I'm not going to suffer from guilt and self-loathing while drowning my shame in cup after cup of coffee just because I'm aware that it's not the healthiest thing. I don't know if the good-bad obsession is some sort of puritanical thing or what. Maybe people should just stop being so sensitive about these concepts.

I'm not sure there is an objectively better or worse simplicitor. I think better and worse always categorical and can only be with respect to a goal.
Artificial flavors and sweeteners are both generally good for one's health if they replace higher calorie natural flavors and sweetners. They're also improving health if they make someone more satisfied.
Caffeine is actually associated with better health within a certain intake range. I don't care for coffee, but I drink a cup at work because of the evidence suggesting it has health effects.
Alcohol is the same - I almost never drink (I think it is years since my last one), but I'm aware that people that drink regularly at the rate of one drink or less per day are generally healthier than those that are non-drinkers.

kshama2001

littlegreenparrot1 wrote: »

Years ago I stopped going to WW because of the whole good/bad food thing.

I should make clear it wasn't anything official to do with the program, but the general chat in the weigh in queue at the start. These people going on about how awful they were because they ate a kit-kat on Tuesday....had a moment of clarity when I realized I was having a can of diet coke and a packet of low cal crisps for lunch, and quit. It was not helpful to me, and in many ways made me worse.
(I'm not knocking it for others, I know some find it very helpful)

These days it's much more about the nutrition, and reasonable, balanced choices.

Yes, I didn't like that about WW either. Plus what they considered good foods were bad foods for me. ("Bad" meaning I had bad reactions, didn't like the taste, etc.)

mojavemtbr

Number #4 is a biggie to me. So many people think Carbohydrates are the Boogey Man.
Carbs are mainly the macros built the Great Pyramids, fueled Roman Legions to conquer what was most of the known world, allowed Native American messengers to run 40, 50, 60...miles to deliver important information to other distant tribes, and what got winners of the Tour de France to the podium.
Yet in the last couple decades carbs have somehow magically become bad.
Weird how none of those past groups I mentioned in the above examples ever were known for having weight problems huh ?