Sugar and processed food good or bad?

QuietBloom

Do some people associate the labels "good" and "bad" with some form of judgment/condemnation rather than just a description?

I just ask because it seems like quite a few people say that there is no good or bad, but then they'll follow up with some comment about good/bad for them, better/worse for weight loss, nutrition, etc.? Or how it's linked to some value judgment?

Just wondering, because I've never really looked at it that way before -- I considered it more of a simple description that was all -- though I think may explain some of the differences in semantics seen on this thread.

nvmd - can't get quotes to work

lindsey1979

You're right. If you would counsel someone that has the time and inclination to cook all their meals at home to start eating at restaurants, canned veggies/fruits and frozen processed dinners rather than educate them on implementing better nutritional choices into their home-cooked meals, yes, that's downright CRAZY and IRRATIONAL.

I'm just going to quote you for fun. I think your post speaks for itself.

As do I. Thank you.

So, just to play devil's advocate here, what about people who are not inclined to cook their meals at home? Am I not better off going with canned fruits/vegetables added to frozen processed meals or going out to eat and choosing meals that come with vegetables than just making a sangwich at home and calling it good? Or somehow if I do eat lots of fruits/vegetables (which I do) they are somehow "canceled out" by eating processed food too?

The way I see, it's not a binary situation, so it depends on many factors. I think many would like to have home-cooked meals (though they may not want or be able to do the cooking themselves). I've just never seen anyone imply that the convenience-based choices would be preferable as a general premise because a home cook makes high calorie or nutrient deficient choice. I think that's absurd.

For those that don't have the time or inclination to cook, sure, it makes sense why they make other choices. Processed foods, frozen dinners, eating out, and canned fruits/veggies are super convenient -- it's one of their greatest benefits -- and if you're limited to those options, you probably have to choose far more carefully to get your nutritional needs met as many have considerable extra sugar, empty calories, etc.

So, when you're comparing that to your sandwich, you've to to take that all into account. I think there are situations like the original poster posited -- so it is possible -- but the solution isn't to say "hey, eat more canned fruits/veggies, processed foods, at restaurants, etc." -- it makes much more sense to simply educate them on better food choices for their home cooked meals.

jonnythan

judge verb \ˈjəj\
: to form an opinion about (something or someone) after careful thought

: to regard (someone) as either good or bad

QueenBishOTUniverse

Here's my take from doing lots of research from documentaries, the interwebs, and reading. Of course, there can always be bias in anything you read or watch, but you can follow up and do your own research.

I stay away from processed foods as much as possible, but I still eat them occasionally. Most processed foods are so changed, that the essential vitamins and minerals that are in the original version of the basic ingredients get removed. In addition, remember that food companies are in the business to make money. Therefore a lot of what they add to these foods, such as food coloring, sweeteners, etc. are unnecessary. Some additives are put in with the express purpose of making you want more - basically addicting you to their product.

If you think government regulations and the FDA test these additives and foods to make sure they aren't cancer causing or in any way bad for you, you are incorrect. The FDA is generally staffed by former and future employees and execs of Monsanto and Cargill and other chemical and food companies. The FDA does almost no testing because of no budget, and instead relies on the food companies to test their own products and submit the results to the FDA. So just like cigarette companies had studies that said that smoking has no ill effects, food and chemical companies have their own studies that say these additives are just fine. And the FDA has no choice but to believe them.

The history of why this has happened over the decades is interesting, but not surprising, if you ever want to research it. But bottom line is it is cheaper for the food corps to take real food, process it, add stuff to it, package it, and sell it to you, than it is to sell you "real" food. In addition, with economies of scale, they can pump out more food to feed more people, though the food isn't as healthy. So there is a tradeoff. Subsidies from our tax dollars go to corporations that make processed foods, and you will not see those subsidies going to farmers that sell the real stuff, hence you can buy lots more processed food than real food.

Can you eat processed foods and lose weight? Yes. Can you eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner at McDonalds and still lose weight? Yes. But to me, being healthy isn't only about a goal weight. It is feeding my body with the appropriate number of calories, vitamins, and minerals to keep me alive and feeling energetic, while staving off colds, diseases, etc.

I'm not one of those tin-foil hat people who is looking for conspiracies, but the more research I do into today's food policies in the US, the more I see that I need to stay away from the cheap mass-produced processed stuff.

If you are interested in doing your own research, I started out with watching various food documentaries on Netflix (streaming). Some were blatantly biased, but some were fairly reasonable. From there, I got enough information to be able to cross reference what they were saying with reports, studies, etc. all available for free in the public domain.

Eating real foods is sometimes more expensive, but not that much more. But it does take a lot of time and effort to educate yourself, choose healthy alternatives, and of course takes time to do the extra cooking. But for me it has been worth it.

Some people never touch restaurant or eat pre-packaged foods - always home cooked - but still don't get the nutrients they need because the foods they cook and eat are not nutrient dense.

Most of those people would be better off eating canned fruits and vegetables, frozen processed meals, etc. than they are eating their own home-cooked meals. Many would probably have better control of their waistlines, too.

It's this sort of ridiculous I'm talking about --- which I've seen a lot on MFP.

Sure, people can home cook all their meals and still end up malnourished. But, as a general premise, no one recommends eating canned fruits and veggies, frozen processed meals and restaurant food over home cooked meals -- because the original premise is so incredibly unlikely, even if possible.

And if that was the case, then you'd tell the person to learn about basic nutrients and incorporate them in to their home cooking -- not to eat canned fruits/veggies, frozen processed meals and restaurant foods instead.

It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe that such posters aren't paid food corp. reps. Because, really, can people be this intentionally obtuse and still survive in society?

There are plenty of home cooked meals that are loaded with calories.

Instant oatmeal, cereal, and canned veggies are processed, yet can help people lose weight and consume nutrients.

I agree that there are real foods that are loaded with calories. And I agree that some foods are only minimally processed, and are still fairly healthy. But my definition of processed doesn't mean grabbing real food and chopping or blending it up.

I am not concerned with reaching any goal weight. I already did that by counting calories and working out. I am concerned with the additives they put in. One day, take a look at the ingredients in your favorite mini tacos or M&Ms or Mio Energy drink liquid or any other highly processed food that you love. Take each one of the ingredients and Google it. Especially the ones you can't pronounce. I even made a fun game out of Googling the phrase: "Is XXXX good for you". It's amazing the number of additives that have been banned in other countries that I see in many of our foods each day, and reading scientific studies performed in Europe or elsewhere linking them to various diseases. It's amazing the number of additives that, when you research them, have a maximum recommended allowance for pregnant women or the elderly or small children. You won't see that listed on the labels, but you can find it if you research it online.

Bottom line for me is that Over the last 5 decades there have been tons of stuff that we have used that was supposedly safe, which we now know is harmful. I am not a scientist, but if I have to question it, why not stay on the safe side and avoid them? Remember, smoking doesn't cause cancer. Nicotine and tar has no negative health effects. DDT is safe to spray on your kids to keep them safe from bugs. Asbestos is totally safe, and a good fire retardant. The list goes on and on.

For anyone who wants to eat highly processed foods, awesome! You can do that and still lose weight, if that is your only goal. But 20 years down the road when they prove that aspartame or red dye #4 or chemical XYZ is highly cancer-causing and people laugh at how people used to think it was safe, I will sleep better knowing that by eating real unprocessed food, I was able to stay away from it.

So what you're saying is, you hope people get cancer so you can be smug about it.

TX_Rhon

The less processed foods in your diet, the healthier you will be. Eat your food as close to the way God made it as possible. When food is cut up, nutrients at the surface deteriorate. The more it's processed, the more nutrients you lose, making foods that have been pulverized (like flour and sugar) pretty dead, especially if it's been sitting in a warehouse, a truck and then a store for who knows how long before you actually eat it. To counteract this, companies replace the nutrients that were lost with synthetic versions that your body does not know what to do with because they're not real food.

Sometimes our bodies don't know what to do with "real food".
Like my best friend, for example.
She is trying out "clean eating" and ate I don't know how many raw vegetables yesterday.

Last night, I had a serving of chicken and broccoli Chinese take-out. Followed it up with 1/2 a Ben & Jerry's ice cream bar.

My friend spent the night on the toilet with volcanic diarrhea.
Me? Nope. Not one rumble in my tummy.

But hey, whatever floats your ark.

First: There are some foods, such as garlic, that provide their benefit after chopping/crushing so there goes your "eating food as close to God made possible" theory on that.

Second: Why you gotta tell everyone about my gastric concerns Dame??? SMH!!! :grumble:

ETA: Third - OP, you of all people knew what would happen when you asked that question! :drinker:

lindsey1979

Do some people associate the labels "good" and "bad" with some form of judgment/condemnation rather than just a description?

I just ask because it seems like quite a few people say that there is no good or bad, but then they'll follow up with some comment about good/bad for them, better/worse for weight loss, nutrition, etc.? Or how it's linked to some value judgment?

Just wondering, because I've never really looked at it that way before -- I considered it more of a simple description that was all -- though I think may explain some of the differences in semantics seen on this thread.

How are "good" and "bad" simply "descriptions" and NOT judgment?

Good and bad are the very definition of judgment.

I think people use the word judgment differently. For example, some simply mean it in the evaluating/observational sense -- the sky is blue. Others mean it in the more condemnation of others choices way, or otherwise making a judgment on different values -- everyone who is not religion X is going to hell.

To me, those are used very differently, and that was what I was getting at with the questions.

geebusuk

I just ask because it seems like quite a few people say that there is no good or bad, but then they'll follow up with some comment about good/bad for them, better/worse for weight loss, nutrition, etc.? Or how it's linked to some value judgment?

I say there is no good or bad.

I follow that up with - there is then making it fit your macro and micronutrient goals.

I get irked when people try and describe food as healthy or unhealthy.

Sure, said cheese cake I described earlier would be 'unhealthy' for an overweight person with insulin issues and so on.

For an underweight person recovery from ED, eating a load of cheesecake might be 'healthy' for their body.

Again; does it meet your aims/goals. Then go for it good/healthy etc for you in this place.
If it can't fit in, then bad/unhealthy.

Before doing an ultramarathon I did a load of resarch on carb loading.
I needed to eat over 800g of carbs in one day.
Avoid foods high in fibre. Avoid fructose.

For most people, that would be considered a very 'unhealthy' day - for me that day, it was an ideal 'healthy' preperation and choosing foods like salads and high fibre vegetables would be a terrible idea.

jonnythan

Do some people associate the labels "good" and "bad" with some form of judgment/condemnation rather than just a description?

I just ask because it seems like quite a few people say that there is no good or bad, but then they'll follow up with some comment about good/bad for them, better/worse for weight loss, nutrition, etc.? Or how it's linked to some value judgment?

Just wondering, because I've never really looked at it that way before -- I considered it more of a simple description that was all -- though I think may explain some of the differences in semantics seen on this thread.

How are "good" and "bad" simply "descriptions" and NOT judgment?

Good and bad are the very definition of judgment.

I think people use the word judgment differently. For example, some simply mean it in the evaluating/observational sense -- the sky is blue. Others mean it in the more condemnation of others choices way, or otherwise making a judgment on different values -- everyone who is not religion X is going to hell.

To me, those are used very differently, and that was what I was getting at with the questions.

The question is whether sugar and processed food are good or bad. That's the question in this thread. Answering that question with "good" or "bad" is making a judgment about sugar and processed food.

lindsey1979

I'm starting to agree with some other users that such people are not true MFP users, but paid food corp. reps

it's hard to believe that such posters aren't paid food corp. reps.

Oh dear.

I wish someone were paying me to poke holes in food conspiracy theories.

Canned vegetables now - has anyone told Lindsey about how people survived before the onset of BIG FOOD when it came to fresh fruits and vegetables? They didn't have them year round. They resorted to (gasp) canning and root cellars.

Right, but did people opt for the canned ones when fresh ones were available as a general rule?

Talk about a strawman argument.

_HeartsOnFire_

I just ask because it seems like quite a few people say that there is no good or bad, but then they'll follow up with some comment about good/bad for them, better/worse for weight loss, nutrition, etc.? Or how it's linked to some value judgment?

I say there is no good or bad.

I follow that up with - there is then making it fit your macro and micronutrient goals.

I get irked when people try and describe food as healthy or unhealthy.

Sure, said cheese cake I described earlier would be 'unhealthy' for an overweight person with insulin issues and so on.

For an underweight person recovery from ED, eating a load of cheesecake might be 'healthy' for their body.

Again; does it meet your aims/goals. Then go for it good/healthy etc for you in this place.
If it can't fit in, then bad/unhealthy.

Before doing an ultramarathon I did a load of resarch on carb loading.
I needed to eat over 800g of carbs in one day.
Avoid foods high in fibre. Avoid fructose.

For most people, that would be considered a very 'unhealthy' day - for me that day, it was an ideal 'healthy' preperation and choosing foods like salads and high fibre vegetables would be a terrible idea.

This!

Also, I don't believe there is any good or bad foods, only bad eating habits.

GertrudeHorse

Seriously LOLing at the suggestion that "good" and "bad" are neutral descriptors and not value judgements. Like they are literally the definition of value judgement. They couldn't be more of a value judgement if they tried.

jonnythan

I'm starting to agree with some other users that such people are not true MFP users, but paid food corp. reps

it's hard to believe that such posters aren't paid food corp. reps.

Oh dear.

I wish someone were paying me to poke holes in food conspiracy theories.

Canned vegetables now - has anyone told Lindsey about how people survived before the onset of BIG FOOD when it came to fresh fruits and vegetables? They didn't have them year round. They resorted to (gasp) canning and root cellars.

Right, but did people opt for the canned ones when fresh ones were available as a general rule?

Talk about a strawman argument.

There's nothing wrong with canned anything, frozen anything, fresh anything, processed anything.

What matters is nutrients.

Nutrients are what matter.

_HeartsOnFire_

I'm starting to agree with some other users that such people are not true MFP users, but paid food corp. reps

it's hard to believe that such posters aren't paid food corp. reps.

Oh dear.

I wish someone were paying me to poke holes in food conspiracy theories.

Canned vegetables now - has anyone told Lindsey about how people survived before the onset of BIG FOOD when it came to fresh fruits and vegetables? They didn't have them year round. They resorted to (gasp) canning and root cellars.

Right, but did people opt for the canned ones when fresh ones were available as a general rule?

Talk about a strawman argument.

There's nothing wrong with canned anything, frozen anything, fresh anything, processed anything.

What matters is nutrients.

Nutrients are what matter.

Get out of here with your logic!

likitisplit

I'm starting to agree with some other users that such people are not true MFP users, but paid food corp. reps

it's hard to believe that such posters aren't paid food corp. reps.

Oh dear.

To be honest, I think a significant percentage of accounts are fakes that supplement sellers are aging.

GertrudeHorse

When I stopped assigning moral values to foods, I reclaimed control of my eating. The responsibility was mine the whole time, of course, but I couldn't see it as long as I was giving food so much power.

So the answer to your question "good or bad?" is simply "no."

Brilliant comment.

QueenBishOTUniverse

I'm starting to agree with some other users that such people are not true MFP users, but paid food corp. reps

it's hard to believe that such posters aren't paid food corp. reps.

Oh dear.

I wish someone were paying me to poke holes in food conspiracy theories.

Canned vegetables now - has anyone told Lindsey about how people survived before the onset of BIG FOOD when it came to fresh fruits and vegetables? They didn't have them year round. They resorted to (gasp) canning and root cellars.

Right, but did people opt for the canned ones when fresh ones were available as a general rule?

Talk about a strawman argument.

Yes, but have you taken in to your health considerations the carbon footprint being caused by our insistence of having fresh fruits and vegetables available year round?

GiveMeCoffee

Here's my take from doing lots of research from documentaries, the interwebs, and reading. Of course, there can always be bias in anything you read or watch, but you can follow up and do your own research.

I stay away from processed foods as much as possible, but I still eat them occasionally. Most processed foods are so changed, that the essential vitamins and minerals that are in the original version of the basic ingredients get removed. In addition, remember that food companies are in the business to make money. Therefore a lot of what they add to these foods, such as food coloring, sweeteners, etc. are unnecessary. Some additives are put in with the express purpose of making you want more - basically addicting you to their product.

If you think government regulations and the FDA test these additives and foods to make sure they aren't cancer causing or in any way bad for you, you are incorrect. The FDA is generally staffed by former and future employees and execs of Monsanto and Cargill and other chemical and food companies. The FDA does almost no testing because of no budget, and instead relies on the food companies to test their own products and submit the results to the FDA. So just like cigarette companies had studies that said that smoking has no ill effects, food and chemical companies have their own studies that say these additives are just fine. And the FDA has no choice but to believe them.

The history of why this has happened over the decades is interesting, but not surprising, if you ever want to research it. But bottom line is it is cheaper for the food corps to take real food, process it, add stuff to it, package it, and sell it to you, than it is to sell you "real" food. In addition, with economies of scale, they can pump out more food to feed more people, though the food isn't as healthy. So there is a tradeoff. Subsidies from our tax dollars go to corporations that make processed foods, and you will not see those subsidies going to farmers that sell the real stuff, hence you can buy lots more processed food than real food.

Can you eat processed foods and lose weight? Yes. Can you eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner at McDonalds and still lose weight? Yes. But to me, being healthy isn't only about a goal weight. It is feeding my body with the appropriate number of calories, vitamins, and minerals to keep me alive and feeling energetic, while staving off colds, diseases, etc.

I'm not one of those tin-foil hat people who is looking for conspiracies, but the more research I do into today's food policies in the US, the more I see that I need to stay away from the cheap mass-produced processed stuff.

If you are interested in doing your own research, I started out with watching various food documentaries on Netflix (streaming). Some were blatantly biased, but some were fairly reasonable. From there, I got enough information to be able to cross reference what they were saying with reports, studies, etc. all available for free in the public domain.

Eating real foods is sometimes more expensive, but not that much more. But it does take a lot of time and effort to educate yourself, choose healthy alternatives, and of course takes time to do the extra cooking. But for me it has been worth it.

Some people never touch restaurant or eat pre-packaged foods - always home cooked - but still don't get the nutrients they need because the foods they cook and eat are not nutrient dense.

Most of those people would be better off eating canned fruits and vegetables, frozen processed meals, etc. than they are eating their own home-cooked meals. Many would probably have better control of their waistlines, too.

It's this sort of ridiculous I'm talking about --- which I've seen a lot on MFP.

Sure, people can home cook all their meals and still end up malnourished. But, as a general premise, no one recommends eating canned fruits and veggies, frozen processed meals and restaurant food over home cooked meals -- because the original premise is so incredibly unlikely, even if possible.

And if that was the case, then you'd tell the person to learn about basic nutrients and incorporate them in to their home cooking -- not to eat canned fruits/veggies, frozen processed meals and restaurant foods instead.

It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe that such posters aren't paid food corp. reps. Because, really, can people be this intentionally obtuse and still survive in society?

There are plenty of home cooked meals that are loaded with calories.

Instant oatmeal, cereal, and canned veggies are processed, yet can help people lose weight and consume nutrients.

I agree that there are real foods that are loaded with calories. And I agree that some foods are only minimally processed, and are still fairly healthy. But my definition of processed doesn't mean grabbing real food and chopping or blending it up.

I am not concerned with reaching any goal weight. I already did that by counting calories and working out. I am concerned with the additives they put in. One day, take a look at the ingredients in your favorite mini tacos or M&Ms or Mio Energy drink liquid or any other highly processed food that you love. Take each one of the ingredients and Google it. Especially the ones you can't pronounce. I even made a fun game out of Googling the phrase: "Is XXXX good for you". It's amazing the number of additives that have been banned in other countries that I see in many of our foods each day, and reading scientific studies performed in Europe or elsewhere linking them to various diseases. It's amazing the number of additives that, when you research them, have a maximum recommended allowance for pregnant women or the elderly or small children. You won't see that listed on the labels, but you can find it if you research it online.

Bottom line for me is that Over the last 5 decades there have been tons of stuff that we have used that was supposedly safe, which we now know is harmful. I am not a scientist, but if I have to question it, why not stay on the safe side and avoid them? Remember, smoking doesn't cause cancer. Nicotine and tar has no negative health effects. DDT is safe to spray on your kids to keep them safe from bugs. Asbestos is totally safe, and a good fire retardant. The list goes on and on.

For anyone who wants to eat highly processed foods, awesome! You can do that and still lose weight, if that is your only goal. But 20 years down the road when they prove that aspartame or red dye #4 or chemical XYZ is highly cancer-causing and people laugh at how people used to think it was safe, I will sleep better knowing that by eating real unprocessed food, I was able to stay away from it.

So if your argument was true, can you explain to me how my mother who has been a "clean" eating obsessive person all my life, way before it was popular, grows her own vegetables, if she doesn't grow it she buys from local farms, has never had a soda, only time she eats in out in a restaurant is if we drag her there, doesn't smoke but was diagnosed with cancer last year?

Maybe if she had eaten more chemicals or processed foods..... luckily she's fine but try a new argument.

QuietBloom

The way I see, it's not a binary situation, so it depends on many factors. I think many would like to have home-cooked meals (though they may not want or be able to do the cooking themselves). I've just never seen anyone imply that the convenience-based choices would be preferable as a general premise because a home cook makes high calorie or nutrient deficient choice. I think that's absurd.

For those that don't have the time or inclination to cook, sure, it makes sense why they make other choices. Processed foods, frozen dinners, eating out, and canned fruits/veggies are super convenient -- it's one of their greatest benefits -- and if you're limited to those options, you probably have to choose far more carefully to get your nutritional needs met as many have considerable extra sugar, empty calories, etc.

So, when you're comparing that to your sandwich, you've to to take that all into account. I think there are situations like the original poster posited -- so it is possible -- but the solution isn't to say "hey, eat more canned fruits/veggies, processed foods, at restaurants, etc." -- it makes much more sense to simply educate them on better food choices for their home cooked meals.

Why would someone have to make more careful choices if they were going to use canned fruits and veggies as apposed to fresh? There is SOME nutrient difference, but not much. I eat frozen all the time, both fruits and veggies. I hit my micros just fine with them. The same with processed foods - it's really easy to pick foods that have the macros AND micros you desire. We have so much variety in stores these days, it's pretty amazing. In fact, I guess you would probably consider the vast majority of what I eat to be processed - cottage cheese, yogurt, whey protein, Jimmy Dean turkey sausages, frozen veggies and fruits. Potato chips, chocolate, beer - you name it. Though yesterday wasn't a great day, most days I hit all my targets with no problem. And that pic is of me, so you can see my results.

thomaszabel

Here's my take from doing lots of research from documentaries, the interwebs, and reading. Of course, there can always be bias in anything you read or watch, but you can follow up and do your own research.

I stay away from processed foods as much as possible, but I still eat them occasionally. Most processed foods are so changed, that the essential vitamins and minerals that are in the original version of the basic ingredients get removed. In addition, remember that food companies are in the business to make money. Therefore a lot of what they add to these foods, such as food coloring, sweeteners, etc. are unnecessary. Some additives are put in with the express purpose of making you want more - basically addicting you to their product.

If you think government regulations and the FDA test these additives and foods to make sure they aren't cancer causing or in any way bad for you, you are incorrect. The FDA is generally staffed by former and future employees and execs of Monsanto and Cargill and other chemical and food companies. The FDA does almost no testing because of no budget, and instead relies on the food companies to test their own products and submit the results to the FDA. So just like cigarette companies had studies that said that smoking has no ill effects, food and chemical companies have their own studies that say these additives are just fine. And the FDA has no choice but to believe them.

The history of why this has happened over the decades is interesting, but not surprising, if you ever want to research it. But bottom line is it is cheaper for the food corps to take real food, process it, add stuff to it, package it, and sell it to you, than it is to sell you "real" food. In addition, with economies of scale, they can pump out more food to feed more people, though the food isn't as healthy. So there is a tradeoff. Subsidies from our tax dollars go to corporations that make processed foods, and you will not see those subsidies going to farmers that sell the real stuff, hence you can buy lots more processed food than real food.

Can you eat processed foods and lose weight? Yes. Can you eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner at McDonalds and still lose weight? Yes. But to me, being healthy isn't only about a goal weight. It is feeding my body with the appropriate number of calories, vitamins, and minerals to keep me alive and feeling energetic, while staving off colds, diseases, etc.

I'm not one of those tin-foil hat people who is looking for conspiracies, but the more research I do into today's food policies in the US, the more I see that I need to stay away from the cheap mass-produced processed stuff.

If you are interested in doing your own research, I started out with watching various food documentaries on Netflix (streaming). Some were blatantly biased, but some were fairly reasonable. From there, I got enough information to be able to cross reference what they were saying with reports, studies, etc. all available for free in the public domain.

Eating real foods is sometimes more expensive, but not that much more. But it does take a lot of time and effort to educate yourself, choose healthy alternatives, and of course takes time to do the extra cooking. But for me it has been worth it.

Some people never touch restaurant or eat pre-packaged foods - always home cooked - but still don't get the nutrients they need because the foods they cook and eat are not nutrient dense.

Most of those people would be better off eating canned fruits and vegetables, frozen processed meals, etc. than they are eating their own home-cooked meals. Many would probably have better control of their waistlines, too.

It's this sort of ridiculous I'm talking about --- which I've seen a lot on MFP.

Sure, people can home cook all their meals and still end up malnourished. But, as a general premise, no one recommends eating canned fruits and veggies, frozen processed meals and restaurant food over home cooked meals -- because the original premise is so incredibly unlikely, even if possible.

And if that was the case, then you'd tell the person to learn about basic nutrients and incorporate them in to their home cooking -- not to eat canned fruits/veggies, frozen processed meals and restaurant foods instead.

It's so ridiculous it's hard to believe that such posters aren't paid food corp. reps. Because, really, can people be this intentionally obtuse and still survive in society?

There are plenty of home cooked meals that are loaded with calories.

Instant oatmeal, cereal, and canned veggies are processed, yet can help people lose weight and consume nutrients.

I agree that there are real foods that are loaded with calories. And I agree that some foods are only minimally processed, and are still fairly healthy. But my definition of processed doesn't mean grabbing real food and chopping or blending it up.

I am not concerned with reaching any goal weight. I already did that by counting calories and working out. I am concerned with the additives they put in. One day, take a look at the ingredients in your favorite mini tacos or M&Ms or Mio Energy drink liquid or any other highly processed food that you love. Take each one of the ingredients and Google it. Especially the ones you can't pronounce. I even made a fun game out of Googling the phrase: "Is XXXX good for you". It's amazing the number of additives that have been banned in other countries that I see in many of our foods each day, and reading scientific studies performed in Europe or elsewhere linking them to various diseases. It's amazing the number of additives that, when you research them, have a maximum recommended allowance for pregnant women or the elderly or small children. You won't see that listed on the labels, but you can find it if you research it online.

Bottom line for me is that Over the last 5 decades there have been tons of stuff that we have used that was supposedly safe, which we now know is harmful. I am not a scientist, but if I have to question it, why not stay on the safe side and avoid them? Remember, smoking doesn't cause cancer. Nicotine and tar has no negative health effects. DDT is safe to spray on your kids to keep them safe from bugs. Asbestos is totally safe, and a good fire retardant. The list goes on and on.

For anyone who wants to eat highly processed foods, awesome! You can do that and still lose weight, if that is your only goal. But 20 years down the road when they prove that aspartame or red dye #4 or chemical XYZ is highly cancer-causing and people laugh at how people used to think it was safe, I will sleep better knowing that by eating real unprocessed food, I was able to stay away from it.

So what you're saying is, you hope people get cancer so you can be smug about it.

No. Sharpen your reading skills. I'm saying that if they find out the stuff is bad, I'll be glad I didn't feed it to myself and my wife and kids. I said nothing about being happy that others suffer. But since that is the conclusion you jumped to, I guess that is how you would feel. I do, however, consult for a number of companies that deal with chemotherapy radiation, so it would be good for my job security with those clients. But I would gladly give up that job security at the chance to get my mother back after she died of lung cancer from second hand smoke 8 years ago.

jonnythan

I'm saying that if they find out the stuff is bad, I'll be glad I didn't feed it to myself and my wife and kids.

I wish I could be like you and just know things about the world just by imagining.

If it feels right to you, it must be the truth!

That must be wonderful.