Sugar and processed food good or bad?

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.

I give up. You have won me over. Starting tomorrow I will eat nothing but Twinkies, and I will feel great.

When you horribly mischaracterize someone's arguments and opinions like this, the only person you make look bad is yourself.

Sigh.
Lindsey, if you think eating that NO fruits and / or vegetables is better than eating processed fruits and vegetables, then best of luck with those doctor bills..

I HAVE TRIED to explain basic nutrition to the people of whom I speak. Some people simply choose differently.

While we're at it, I have TRIED to explain to you how condescending and ignorant your posts are, but that hasn't worked either. Perhaps I need to get a raise from "BIG FOOD CORP" so that I can take persuasive speaking lessons.

Just make reasonable suggestions instead of taking the wild exception and trying to extrapolate that out into a reasonable perspective. You may not agree with my opinions, but they certainly aren't ignorant.

As for the tone, I don't disagree with you. But, you don't seem to lack the ability to be terribly condescending yourself. Oh, the irony.

But see, in MY experience, which is obviously not yours (although, as you have argued so often before... you have all the knowledge and are so much more enlightened than I am), my "wild" examples are not at all wild. They are, in fact, the "rule" as opposed to the exception in many places.

Where I live, many pockets of the population don't have access to grocery stores with fresh produce or other markets. Many, many are illiterate and immersed in a culture resistant to change.

And I've been around the block enough to observe this not just in my community and local culture, but in others also. There are food deserts everywhere.

Read what I've actually written. Not what you THINK I've written. That's a skill you need to work on.

I give up. You have won me over. Starting tomorrow I will eat nothing but Twinkies, and I will feel great.

When you horribly mischaracterize someone's arguments and opinions like this, the only person you make look bad is yourself.

To be fair, I did this a bit too, but I'm one of those mean snarky people.

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.

A lot of processed food has unnecessary additives, extra sugar, high levels of sodium, etc. Some doesn't or it's greatly minimized -- that's what I mean by having to make more careful choices.

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.

My reading skills are fine. Those types of comments are condescending and completely inconsiderate to people who have had cancer in their own lives or lost someone to cancer. Not to mention they've studied those chemicals already and found no links to cancer.

Speaking as someone that lost someone to cancer, I didn't find it condescending nor inconsiderate. Please don't presume to speak for all of us.

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.

Cheesecake isn't healthy for an underweight, normal weight, or overweight person. Point period blank. It's extremely fattening and full of sugar.

You are what you eat. Sure, a slice of cheesecake once in a blue moon won't kill you but the more you eat these foods, the more you want them. Continue with this theory of yours that it's okay to eat these foods on the regular as long as they fit your goals, and before you know it, you'll be overweight and diabetic one day.

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.

Cheesecake isn't healthy for an underweight, normal weight, or overweight person. Point period blank. It's extremely fattening and full of sugar.

You are what you eat. Sure, a slice of cheesecake once in a blue moon won't kill you but the more you eat these foods, the more you want them. Continue with this theory of yours that it's okay to eat these foods on the regular as long as they fit your goals, and before you know it, you'll be overweight and diabetic one day.

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.

My reading skills are fine. Those types of comments are condescending and completely inconsiderate to people who have had cancer in their own lives or lost someone to cancer. Not to mention they've studied those chemicals already and found no links to cancer.

Speaking as someone that lost someone to cancer, I didn't find it condescending nor inconsiderate. Please don't presume to speak for all of us.

If you can, I can.

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.

Cheesecake isn't healthy for an underweight, normal weight, or overweight person. Point period blank. It's extremely fattening and full of sugar.

You are what you eat. Sure, a slice of cheesecake once in a blue moon won't kill you but the more you eat these foods, the more you want them. Continue with this theory of yours that it's okay to eat these foods on the regular as long as they fit your goals, and before you know it, you'll be overweight and diabetic one day.

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.

Cheesecake isn't healthy for an underweight, normal weight, or overweight person. Point period blank. It's extremely fattening and full of sugar.

You are what you eat. Sure, a slice of cheesecake once in a blue moon won't kill you but the more you eat these foods, the more you want them. Continue with this theory of yours that it's okay to eat these foods on the regular as long as they fit your goals, and before you know it, you'll be overweight and diabetic one day.

Riddle me this Batman.

What are you thoughts on me consuming a pint of ice cream every night before bed over a period of 30 days, whilst still hitting all of my micro nutrient goals everyday; maintaining only a mild calorie surplus, which resulted in about 3 lbs gain total (an intended goal since I'm bulking currently).

Last I checked I'm still lean, I'm not crying about having fallen victim sugar addition, I'm not diabetic, and my health markers are above average.

Sure - a 30 day period isn't exactly long-term... but long enough to prove that your point is utterly USELESS.

Cheesecake is tasty.

Sure, a slice of cheesecake once with a blue moon won't kill you and might be a tasty pairing.

I'm afraid I've never watched Swamp People. But, you're saying that were you live, you actually recommend that people increase their intake of processed foods, eating at restaurants, frozen meals rather than making better nutritional choices in ingredients for their home cooked meals?

You present a false dichotomy. The point is to get the right nutrients, not choose better ingredients in home cooked meals vs eating more processed foods.

I'm afraid I've never watched Swamp People. But, you're saying that were you live, you actually recommend that people increase their intake of processed foods, eating at restaurants, frozen meals rather than making better nutritional choices in ingredients for their home cooked meals?

You present a false dichotomy. The point is to get the right nutrients, not choose better ingredients in home cooked meals vs eating more processed foods.

No foods are inherently good or bad. Why would they be?

The idea that any individual food can be inherently good or bad is ludicrous, and represents an unhealthy way to think about food.

It is an overall diet that is either good or bad for an individual.