Fed Up with Food Fear-Mongering

Options
123578

Replies

  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    There has been a "fear of" .... whatever in every decade. I think the 80's kicked it off pretty easily. I watch yoyo dieters swearing off the latest "bad" food to me (while my eyes glaze over) then gaining it all back and more each time. I'm taking bets on the next fad. Takers?

    Protein, we've already demonized fat and carbs/sugar
  • Iron_Siren
    Iron_Siren Posts: 22
    Options
    Protein, we've already demonized fat and carbs/sugar

    I think your assessment is spot on. Soon I'll be stopped at the gym and told how unhealthy I'll be due to my protein intake (and my eyes will glaze over again)
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    There has been a "fear of" .... whatever in every decade. I think the 80's kicked it off pretty easily. I watch yoyo dieters swearing off the latest "bad" food to me (while my eyes glaze over) then gaining it all back and more each time. I'm taking bets on the next fad. Takers?

    Sodium. I guess it already is somewhat, but I think it will be more so.
  • RivenV
    RivenV Posts: 1,667 Member
    Options
    In. I've noticed, too - on here and on my Facebook feed - that is often goes beyond just a phobia.

    For some people, it's turned in to pure moralizing. There's a self-righteous, almost religious flavor to their beliefs. It's beyond just a preference for certain types of diets and lifestyles, and there's nothing you can say, and no evidence you can present showing the flaw in the studies they paste everywhere that will convince them otherwise.

    Oh, you're fine eating GMOs? You're bad and wrong. Eat sugar? Shame on you, don't support the industry that is making the west obese. Eat artificial sweeteners instead of sugar? Enjoy your cancer. Ounce of whiskey in the evenings? Bad. Eat meat? Bad. Don't eat meat? Carbs? Fat? Bad bad bad bad bad.


    This type of thinking is ESPECIALLY frustrating when I see people posting claims that serious illnesses like cancer can be treated or prevented by eating or avoiding foods or special diets (Gershon therapy, cleanses, etc)... not only because it's woo BS that does squat to help sick people, but also because it's uncomfortably close to claiming that people with illness are to blame for their own suffering because of their diets. Fffffff.


    /soapbox. Eat in a way that works for you, damnit.

    I agree with this.... It isn't "bad" or "good" and you are not a bad or good person for eating/not eating something you enjoy because it tastes good and you want it. Food isn't moral or immoral, it's amoral. The hangups we get about it are unbelievable.

    I don't most people who use the terms good or bad for you are referring to morality, but rather healthiness. I know when I use those terms instead of actually saying healthy or unhealthy, I'm still referring to their impact on health, and not some innate morality to the food, nor to the morality of the person eating or not eating it. Now maybe some people are different in this (and I'm sure there are some) but most people probably mean health and not morality.

    ac8.gif

    So... who decides which foods are healthy and unhealthy? Someone once told me that "Well, of course everyone KNOWS that a handful of carrot sticks are better for you than a burger." I would say the healthy/unhealthy status of the food depends on the consumer's nutrition requirements and should be decided in context with the rest of the food in their diet. I'm willing to agree that certain trans fats (those created from partially hydrogenated oils) ought to be limited. I'd like to see a representative sample of foods that are inherently unhealthy and should be avoided, in your opinion, and why you consider them unhealthy.
  • Cindyinpg
    Cindyinpg Posts: 3,902 Member
    Options
    There has been a "fear of" .... whatever in every decade. I think the 80's kicked it off pretty easily. I watch yoyo dieters swearing off the latest "bad" food to me (while my eyes glaze over) then gaining it all back and more each time. I'm taking bets on the next fad. Takers?

    Sodium. I guess it already is somewhat, but I think it will be more so.
    I'll put my money on it being protein, especially meat/dairy.
  • Yanicka1
    Yanicka1 Posts: 4,564 Member
    Options
    There has been a "fear of" .... whatever in every decade. I think the 80's kicked it off pretty easily. I watch yoyo dieters swearing off the latest "bad" food to me (while my eyes glaze over) then gaining it all back and more each time. I'm taking bets on the next fad. Takers?

    Sodium. I guess it already is somewhat, but I think it will be more so.
    I'll put my money on it being protein, especially meat/dairy.

    I agree about it being protein. In fasting diets, they recommend a maximum of 50g of protein a day to reduce LGF1 and live longer
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    Options
    There has been a "fear of" .... whatever in every decade. I think the 80's kicked it off pretty easily. I watch yoyo dieters swearing off the latest "bad" food to me (while my eyes glaze over) then gaining it all back and more each time. I'm taking bets on the next fad. Takers?

    It's funny how the fad-fear is never of increasingly gigantic portion sizes isn't it?
  • RivenV
    RivenV Posts: 1,667 Member
    Options
    There has been a "fear of" .... whatever in every decade. I think the 80's kicked it off pretty easily. I watch yoyo dieters swearing off the latest "bad" food to me (while my eyes glaze over) then gaining it all back and more each time. I'm taking bets on the next fad. Takers?

    Sodium. I guess it already is somewhat, but I think it will be more so.
    I'll put my money on it being protein, especially meat/dairy.

    I agree about it being protein. In fasting diets, they recommend a maximum of 50g of protein a day to reduce LGF1 and live longer

    Reminds me of this debacle

    4b8.jpg

    Now, I love pizza... but I know it's not a vegetable. Let's get serious here.
    b62.png

    Ok, really. I've seen it mentioned on a couple places on these MFP boards that 50 g of protein really is the maximum necessary. I don't think that's accurate, but I've seen it pop up more and more recently.
  • Safiyandi
    Safiyandi Posts: 151
    Options
    I don't most people who use the terms good or bad for you are referring to morality, but rather healthiness. I know when I use those terms instead of actually saying healthy or unhealthy, I'm still referring to their impact on health, and not some innate morality to the food, nor to the morality of the person eating or not eating it. Now maybe some people are different in this (and I'm sure there are some) but most people probably mean health and not morality.


    Oh, I don't believe that anyone is consciously moralizing, nor do I believe that it's the majority of people who do this...but it does seem to happen more frequently. While it's all supposedly in the context of health there's definitely more to some of the "advice" that appears in forums and on facebook feeds. For example - there's a poster here who used to rail against artificial sweeteners and the sugar industry - if you disagreed with her, it's because you were an "industry shill", purposely giving harmful advice for monetary gain. For her, this was most definitely a moral issue, despite the fact that she had zero evidence that anyone was in the pay of "big sugar" or whateverthehell.


    Another example - I was told by a family member a while back that I was wrong(yes, in the moral sense) for taking medication instead of eating a pound of onions and garlic every day to cure my UTI because "doctors know nothing, your medicines are the cause of these new resistant superbugs". Now, I avoid taking antibiotics when it's not absolutely necessary. But when I am running a fever and passing little bloody chunks? You bet your a** I'm going to be eating Cipro like popcorn. That didn't seem to sway her much, and she wasn't concerned solely about my health because the drugs cleared it up just fine.

    Again, this isn't everyone, it's just a trend I've increasingly noticed lately, and it ticks me right off.
  • RivenV
    RivenV Posts: 1,667 Member
    Options
    I don't most people who use the terms good or bad for you are referring to morality, but rather healthiness. I know when I use those terms instead of actually saying healthy or unhealthy, I'm still referring to their impact on health, and not some innate morality to the food, nor to the morality of the person eating or not eating it. Now maybe some people are different in this (and I'm sure there are some) but most people probably mean health and not morality.


    Oh, I don't believe that anyone is consciously moralizing, nor do I believe that it's the majority of people who do this...but it does seem to happen more frequently. While it's all supposedly in the context of health there's definitely more to some of the "advice" that appears in forums and on facebook feeds. For example - there's a poster here who used to rail against artificial sweeteners and the sugar industry - if you disagreed with her, it's because you were an "industry shill", purposely giving harmful advice for monetary gain. For her, this was most definitely a moral issue, despite the fact that she had zero evidence that anyone was in the pay of "big sugar" or whateverthehell.


    Another example - I was told by a family member a while back that I was wrong(yes, in the moral sense) for taking medication instead of eating a pound of onions and garlic every day to cure my UTI because "doctors know nothing, your medicines are the cause of these new resistant superbugs". Now, I avoid taking antibiotics when it's not absolutely necessary. But when I am running a fever and passing little bloody chunks? You bet your a** I'm going to be eating Cipro like popcorn. That didn't seem to sway her much, and she wasn't concerned solely about my health because the drugs cleared it up just fine.

    Again, this isn't everyone, it's just a trend I've increasingly noticed lately, and it ticks me right off.

    d51.gif

    I haven't had any experiences with bloody chunks, but I've been a party to similar situations. I'm glad that everything's alright for you again.
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    Options
    Ok, really. I've seen it mentioned on a couple places on these MFP boards that 50 g of protein really is the maximum necessary. I don't think that's accurate, but I've seen it pop up more and more recently.

    whenever i've seen that posted, it's been by some vegan distance runner.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    There has been a "fear of" .... whatever in every decade. I think the 80's kicked it off pretty easily. I watch yoyo dieters swearing off the latest "bad" food to me (while my eyes glaze over) then gaining it all back and more each time. I'm taking bets on the next fad. Takers?

    Sodium. I guess it already is somewhat, but I think it will be more so.
    I'll put my money on it being protein, especially meat/dairy.

    Specifically meat / dairy protein? Or meat / dairy because of sat fat?
  • darkangel45422
    darkangel45422 Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    I don't most people who use the terms good or bad for you are referring to morality, but rather healthiness. I know when I use those terms instead of actually saying healthy or unhealthy, I'm still referring to their impact on health, and not some innate morality to the food, nor to the morality of the person eating or not eating it. Now maybe some people are different in this (and I'm sure there are some) but most people probably mean health and not morality.


    Oh, I don't believe that anyone is consciously moralizing, nor do I believe that it's the majority of people who do this...but it does seem to happen more frequently. While it's all supposedly in the context of health there's definitely more to some of the "advice" that appears in forums and on facebook feeds. For example - there's a poster here who used to rail against artificial sweeteners and the sugar industry - if you disagreed with her, it's because you were an "industry shill", purposely giving harmful advice for monetary gain. For her, this was most definitely a moral issue, despite the fact that she had zero evidence that anyone was in the pay of "big sugar" or whateverthehell.


    Another example - I was told by a family member a while back that I was wrong(yes, in the moral sense) for taking medication instead of eating a pound of onions and garlic every day to cure my UTI because "doctors know nothing, your medicines are the cause of these new resistant superbugs". Now, I avoid taking antibiotics when it's not absolutely necessary. But when I am running a fever and passing little bloody chunks? You bet your a** I'm going to be eating Cipro like popcorn. That didn't seem to sway her much, and she wasn't concerned solely about my health because the drugs cleared it up just fine.

    Again, this isn't everyone, it's just a trend I've increasingly noticed lately, and it ticks me right off.

    Ah; yes, this trend is somewhat aggravating. While I can agree with some of the basic ideas of this way of thinking (that drugs aren't the solution to everything; that food decisions at an industry level are being made without nutrition being the only priority, etc.) I agree that it's bogus to make judgments about people for still taking drugs or eating food from big companies, etc.
    So... who decides which foods are healthy and unhealthy? Someone once told me that "Well, of course everyone KNOWS that a handful of carrot sticks are better for you than a burger." I would say the healthy/unhealthy status of the food depends on the consumer's nutrition requirements and should be decided in context with the rest of the food in their diet. I'm willing to agree that certain trans fats (those created from partially hydrogenated oils) ought to be limited. I'd like to see a representative sample of foods that are inherently unhealthy and should be avoided, in your opinion, and why you consider them unhealthy.

    Well personally I think of health as a sliding scale (like 0-100, with 0 meaning it has absolutely no health benefits whatsoever (so no positives) and a host of worrisome negatives, and 100 being that is has a whole host of health benefits and absolutely no negatives whatsoever. Obviously just about no food will fit into one of these poles since almost everything has upsides and downsides, but foods that are lower on the scale are ones I'd classify as unhealthy and foods on the upper part of the scale are ones I'd call healthy.

    I think what effect a food will have on a person depends on their overall diet - obviously eating a single candy bar, despite it being less healthy, won't make a big deal if you otherwise eat well, but if you eat nothing but candy bars that's a different story.

    I don't advocate complete avoidance/elimination of any food, healthy or not, because even bad things in small amounts likely won't have much impact on your overall health, and for me the goal is not to eat only perfectly healthy foods but to live an overall healthy and happy life.

    For me foods that I'd classify as unhealthy would include things like most mainstream chocolate bars (Mars, Snickers, Smarties, etc.), deep fried Twinkies, etc. etc. Things that have little to no nutritional benefit and a whole host of downsides (tons of added sugars, added chemicals, etc.). That isn't to say they can never be eaten; I like me a chocolate bar once in a while when I feel like it, and I'll eat it without guilt - I just recognize it's not healthy food. For me, healthy food will make up the bulk of my diet, but if I feel like eating something unhealthy I will - I obviously try to keep it to once in a while because my goal is overall health, and those foods don't help me progress to that goal.

    Some foods are going to affect different people different ways, but I still believe food has an inherent healthiness to it (based on what it brings to the table). If for example you were allergic to carrots, you'd obviously avoid them for your own health, but that doesn't, in my opinion/way of thinking, make carrots themselves unhealthy.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    Well personally I think of health as a sliding scale (like 0-100, with 0 meaning it has absolutely no health benefits whatsoever (so no positives) and a host of worrisome negatives, and 100 being that is has a whole host of health benefits and absolutely no negatives whatsoever. Obviously just about no food will fit into one of these poles since almost everything has upsides and downsides, but foods that are lower on the scale are ones I'd classify as unhealthy and foods on the upper part of the scale are ones I'd call healthy.

    There's your problem right there.

    It's a person's overall DIET that's appropriate or not appropriate. No individual food can be placed on some linear bad to good" scale. It's nonsensical and completely ignores the realities of the human organism.
  • cassiepv
    cassiepv Posts: 242 Member
    Options
    AWESOME POST!

    Food derp fighting is a noble cause (especially when coupled with great gifs!). That being said... I totally bought into the BS of vilifying and demonizing certain foods.

    :::murmuring of crowd:::

    I used to not eat sugar at all for 3 months at a time, and when I "broke" it was ugly.

    :::someone gasps in the back of the room:::

    I remember hearing reading an anecdote from Oprah (I am a fan) saying that she did not eat bread for 1 year! I thought to myself "Well, that makes sense... maybe I should not eat bread too". In fact I have used keto sticks because I ate less than 50 gms of carbs a day. I have used Raspberry Ketones. I starved myself on 1200 calories per day and tried to run and not eat back the calories (of course when I went on a run I could only run 1/2 miles before I conked out). I went on fasts and I did not eat for entire days at a time. I spent two years skipping dinner and drinking only a Naked Juice... it was a game to see if I could do 1200 calories or less. (I am a 5'7" male who used to weigh over 200 lbs)

    If I did eat Pizza, Donuts, Ice Cream... I would

    1. Beat myself up for days and go totally "Siberian forgotten Prisoner diet" to make up.
    2. Go on epic binges of 4000-6000 calories per day which would last for weeks to then turn around and starve myself again.

    :::Agitation in the crowd - Mother's hide their children's eyes and ears:::

    Enough! - That's right Enough!

    I Eat Pizza, Pop Tarts, Ice Cream, Potato chips now - And I also eat chicken breasts, broccoli, egg whites, apples, grapes, and oatmeal. No food is off limits! (OK.. maybe Liver, Pâté de Foie Gras, and Brussel Sprouts). I have figured out my TDEE and My BMR and and as long as these foods fit in the mid range on a weekly averaged basic it is fine! The results are happening and I feel great!

    All I can say to people new to the board... read everything you can... find people that have a sense of irony and humor about their weightloss journey and you will learn a lot. I still "don't know what I don't know" and I am learning step by step.

    Good luck!




    ^^ you complete me Xo
  • laele75
    laele75 Posts: 283 Member
    Options
    Yay, sanity in the forums. Can this be stickied?
  • darkangel45422
    darkangel45422 Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    Well personally I think of health as a sliding scale (like 0-100, with 0 meaning it has absolutely no health benefits whatsoever (so no positives) and a host of worrisome negatives, and 100 being that is has a whole host of health benefits and absolutely no negatives whatsoever. Obviously just about no food will fit into one of these poles since almost everything has upsides and downsides, but foods that are lower on the scale are ones I'd classify as unhealthy and foods on the upper part of the scale are ones I'd call healthy.

    There's your problem right there.

    It's a person's overall DIET that's appropriate or not appropriate. No individual food can be placed on some linear bad to good" scale. It's nonsensical and completely ignores the realities of the human organism.

    Really? You're going to argue philosophy as being right or wrong? This ^^ is your belief about food; doesn't make my belief any worse or better. I think it's entirely possible to assess foods based on their negatives and positives and to find one has a more positive ratio than the other - which is exactly what my scale means. To say it's impossible to do so is actually what's nonsensical; that's like saying you can't take 100 academic papers and place them on a linear scale from best to worst.
  • thekyleo
    thekyleo Posts: 632 Member
    Options
    I know that most people can fit these foods into their life and not feel guilt for it or be afraid. I had ice cream last night and i'm beating myself up for it. I've been told all my life that certain foods are "good" and "bad" and that eating the "bad" foods will make you fat. So I did get fat but not by eating the bad foods, but the quantity I ate them in ( I know that now, but it still doesn't clear my neurosis). Even after realizing this, i'm still afraid of food and I don't have a normal relationship. I just want to throw it out there that it's not easy trying to over come a fear of food and that no food is good or bad.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    I know that most people can fit these foods into their life and not feel guilt for it or be afraid. I had ice cream last night and i'm beating myself up for it. I've been told all my life that certain foods are "good" and "bad" and that eating the "bad" foods will make you fat. So I did get fat but not by eating the bad foods, but the quantity I ate them in ( I know that now, but it still doesn't clear my neurosis). Even after realizing this, i'm still afraid of food and I don't have a normal relationship. I just want to throw it out there that it's not easy trying to over come a fear of food and that no food is good or bad.

    You've taken the first step.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    Well personally I think of health as a sliding scale (like 0-100, with 0 meaning it has absolutely no health benefits whatsoever (so no positives) and a host of worrisome negatives, and 100 being that is has a whole host of health benefits and absolutely no negatives whatsoever. Obviously just about no food will fit into one of these poles since almost everything has upsides and downsides, but foods that are lower on the scale are ones I'd classify as unhealthy and foods on the upper part of the scale are ones I'd call healthy.

    There's your problem right there.

    It's a person's overall DIET that's appropriate or not appropriate. No individual food can be placed on some linear bad to good" scale. It's nonsensical and completely ignores the realities of the human organism.

    Really? You're going to argue philosophy as being right or wrong? This ^^ is your belief about food; doesn't make my belief any worse or better. I think it's entirely possible to assess foods based on their negatives and positives and to find one has a more positive ratio than the other - which is exactly what my scale means. To say it's impossible to do so is actually what's nonsensical; that's like saying you can't take 100 academic papers and place them on a linear scale from best to worst.

    Not a belief. It's just reality.

Categories