Fed Up with Food Fear-Mongering

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

IN because someone actually recently claimed to me that gluten caused both autism and schizophrenia.

And because these always get to be so much fun to read.

I once had an assessing psychologist tell me to take gluten and dairy out of my ASD son's diet to "fix" him

I took my son elsewhere

While I agree with the overall opinion of the original post - that eating anything in moderate amounts with an overall healthy diet and lifestyle won't be a problem - I don't agree that recognizing a food as being less healthy somehow equates to food fear-mongering. Some of the examples used are not, to my mind, inherently problematic for the reasons stated. For example, the person choosing to not make legumes a primary sources of carbs and proteins because lectins could potentially cause problems with leaky gut syndrome, etc. is not making an unhealthy or problematic choice. He recognizes there are other healthy sources of these nutrients, so why choose a potentially problematic one over ones that are generally agreed upon to be healthy? Same with the person avoiding consuming much fruit because of the high sugar content - if you're worried about your sugar intake then this is an entirely logical approach to your diet.

Just because you realize some foods are healthier or less healthy than other foods doesn't mean you're necessarily afraid of that food or are taking it to the extremes that the original post describes (things like bread will KILL YOU!). While I can't deny this exists, I think people have taken reactions against this behavior too far as well, to the point that any recognition that a food is less healthy than other alternatives suddenly becomes fear mongering.

For example, choosing to make grains a minimal part of your diet because you've read about the potential health issues and would rather choose other foods doesn't make you somehow a blind slave to fad diets and the media. It might be the case, but blindly labeling everyone who acknowledges some foods are inherently less healthy than others doesn't necessarily mean that either.

This article comes as a reaction to one extreme, and goes to the opposite extreme.

^^^ this

:huh: Not sure we read the same article.

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)

My sister has a co-worker who is working out (I think to get bigger, but I'm not positive), and my sister wanted to pass on a little of what I've learned to her co-worker. She asked about her protein intake. The co-worker's response? "Oh, you have to stay away from protein. It's bad for you."

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.

...You really don't know what the difference between a belief/opinion and fact is do you?

"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! "

Hmph. I eat Liver, Pate de Foie Gras and Brussel Sprouts. Love them. I also love whole eggs. Think pop tarts may be the biggest waste of calories ever (give me a donut please), potato chips are CRACK and ice cream - meh. No food is off limits, but there are quite a few I choose not to eat. No binge, no recrimination, no crazy. I can have them whenever I want them. Cue "I got the Power"

The best diet is the diet you can stick with. Period.

Actually lilacinfinity does know the difference between opinion and fact. It's pure opinion to label foods as good or bad.
If you're underfed and NEED the calories, a Mars bar is infinitely better for you than a bowl of spinach.So is a good thick "not missing its gluten" sandwich.
If you're big and fat (like me), the spinach may be better - or at least less Mars bar and more spinach!

I'm actually in, but waiting for someone to seriously try to convince us that cauliflower will kill us all.

If there's one food that is genuinely evil, it's cauliflower.

Cauliflower got no reason to live.

I disagree. It's kale.

I raise your kale with celery.

I hate the phrase 'empty calories'. A snickers bar can be a waste of calories for someone sitting in front of a computer all day. A snickers bar is an excellent food choice for someone running a trail marathon (all that fat and salt and easily available sugar energy!). The food is not good or bad. The calories are not good or bad, they are just calories. The lifestyle of the person consuming them makes it a good or bad choice.

bump

Yes!