Sugar and processed food good or bad?

If you don't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations, you probably wouldn't understand the point she is trying to make. Even with additives, preservatives, processing, and restaurants, the foods can still be a better option. You're looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources.

Do you mean that if one doesn't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations that one is looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources? Or did you mean Lindsey in particular? Because I don't know that you can necessarily make that claim unless you happen to know her background.

I don't disagree with your general point, I just wanted to remind people to be careful of their assumptions. Just because someone has advanced degrees doesn't mean they haven't ever had to stand in line for government cheese or habitually eat food out of a garbage truck at some point in their life.

I was speaking to Lindsay in particular, as she only seems to approach the issue from a nutritional standpoint without considering other factors, which someone who doesn't have experience with it would tend to do. She also suggested encouraging people to make better choices when it comes to ingredients, which is a nice idea but disregards the reality of their living situations. It wasn't meant to be an insult, I was simply basing my response on her comments. I would think someone who has experienced this sort of thing would have been able to discern the nuances the issue a bit more, rather than having a laser-like focus on nutrition as the only determining factor of good vs. bad.

I do see what you're saying though, which is why I qualified my statement with "if." I try not to generalize or assume anything about people.

This is a simple question open to all response:

Do you personally think that added sugar products and processed food are good to eat or bad to eat (in any level).

Thanks.

This is a simple question open to all response:

Do you personally think that added sugar products and processed food are good to eat or bad to eat (in any level).

Thanks.

Yes! there are no bad categories of food but there are plenty of bad foods. Food companies make food (if that is what you want to call some of it) for money... That is there #1 goal to make money.

I can has PhD.

Our lab once did a measurement of aflatoxin in various styles and brands of peanut butter. The rotation student who did the study only used like 2 tbls of each.

After the experiment, I ate all the peanut butters. Jif tastes the best followed by Reese's then one of the natural ones made of Valencia peanuts. Every peanut butter had measurable aflatoxin b1.

I just believe that you'll get to your nutrient intake with less empty calories and unnecessary, potentially harmfully additives opting for "better ingredients" in home cooked meals than with a bunch of highly processed foods -- at least as a general rule.

Now this all came from the MFP Databases...

Delmonte Canned Green Beans
Calories 20
Sodium 10
Potassium 95
Carbs 4
Fiber 2
Sugars 2
Protein 1

Fresh Green Beans
Calories 17
Sodium 4
Potassium 115
Carbs 4
Fiber 2
Sugar 2
Protein 1

Honestly, not much difference.

But, do most processed foods contain just the fruit/vegetable, salt and water? I think it is likely a significant outlier.

nope, not an outlier.

Abstract: The first of a two-part review of the recent and classical literature reveals that loss of nutrients in fresh products during storage and cooking may be more substantial than commonly perceived. Depending on the commodity, freezing and canning processes may preserve nutrient value

Rickman JC, Barrett DM, and Bruhn CM (2007). Nutritional comparison of fresh, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. Part I. Vitamins C and B and phenolic compounds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87, 930-944.

Rickman JC, Barrett DM, and Bruhn CM (2007). Nutritional comparison of fresh, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. Part II. Vitamin A and carotenoids, vitamin E, minerals and fiber. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87, 1185-1196.

Agreed. I think people need to do a bit more research about processed foods, particularly fruit and veggies, if they think this is an outlier. I regularly purchase store brand frozen veggies (Wegmans). They have a "rainbow blend" of green beans, red bell peppers, yellow carrots, and orange carrots. The ingredient list per the package: "Green beans, orange carrots, yellow carrots, red bell pepper." That's it. Straight up frozen veggies, no additives or preservatives. Costs $0.99 a package. I couldn't purchase those fresh veggies for that price, nor do they even carry yellow carrots in the store. Takes a few minutes to heat and serve. We rarely eat out, but even cooking at home I don't have time to cut up all those veggies and steam them in the evenings. Removing those extra steps is often the difference between having veggies with dinner or not in our house. So I do agree that canned/frozen foods can be a healthy choice and can also help people enjoy a variety of fruits and veggies they would not otherwise be able to find fresh where they live or even know how to prepare if they did have access to them.

I agree with you on the frozen veggies in particular. Canned I'm not so sure about -- I'd have to look into it more. It was my understanding that a lot of canned veggies and fruits had extra additives and often sugar (especially fruits) -- but I may be very off on this.

But, the original statement went beyond just canned veggies and fruits -- to processed frozen dinners (which I do believe have a lot of additives), processed foods (ditto) and eating at restaurants (additives -- maybe, maybe not depending on where you are -- but often extremely large portions if you find a place that doesn't use the additives) versus just making home-cooked meals with better nutrient values.

Home-cooked does not always mean better nutrient values. That's the point that DamePiglet was trying to make. If you don't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations, you probably wouldn't understand the point she is trying to make. Even with additives, preservatives, processing, and restaurants, the foods can still be a better option. You're looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources.

The populations she is referring to are limited not only by education and finances, but location and living conditions. Not everyone has tons of space to store fresh foods in their home, nor do they live in a place with lots of variety. Canned foods can be stored damn near anywhere in a home and don't need to be eaten right away. They also go on sale and have coupons for them, unlike fresh foods. Telling people to incorporate more fresh foods into their home-cooking is all well and good but if they cannot afford the foods, have no place to put them, and have limited access, it doesn't do them much good. Canned and frozen are better than no fruits and veggies at all.

I live in the wealthiest county in the nation, and I send prepackaged foods into school with my daughter for kids in her class who have either forgotten their snack or who have food insecurity and don't always have a snack to bring. I always send something that has servings of fruits and/or veggies in it. I would hate to think that someone somewhere is getting their back up about me giving kids who would otherwise not have something to eat "bad" foods because simply because it's processed. The issue is not as black and white as people here like to make it out to be.

If you don't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations, you probably wouldn't understand the point she is trying to make. Even with additives, preservatives, processing, and restaurants, the foods can still be a better option. You're looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources.

Do you mean that if one doesn't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations that one is looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources? Or did you mean Lindsey in particular? Because I don't know that you can necessarily make that claim unless you happen to know her background.

I don't disagree with your general point, I just wanted to remind people to be careful of their assumptions. Just because someone has advanced degrees doesn't mean they haven't ever had to stand in line for government cheese or habitually eat food out of a garbage truck at some point in their life.

I was speaking to Lindsay in particular, as she only seems to approach the issue from a nutritional standpoint without considering other factors, which someone who doesn't have experience with it would tend to do. She also suggested encouraging people to make better choices when it comes to ingredients, which is a nice idea but disregards the reality of their living situations. It wasn't meant to be an insult, I was simply basing my response on her comments. I would think someone who has experienced this sort of thing would have been able to discern the nuances the issue a bit more, rather than having a laser-like focus on nutrition as the only determining factor of good vs. bad.

I do see what you're saying though, which is why I qualified my statement with "if." I try not to generalize or assume anything about people.

And, I was talking about it from a nutritional perspective because we weren't discussing socioeconomic factors or otherwise. I agree that people make choices taking into account a wide range of factors -- cost, time expenditure, effort expenditure, etc. But, that wasn't the basis for many of the counterarguments until Dame Piglet specifically brought it up -- which I agreed with to some degree.

Look, I'm not getting into an argument about this tonight. I've just noticed when it's a discussion about whether a calorie is a calorie, you get upset when people do not temper their responses to include medical conditions and other factors that would be incongruent with the generalization that a calorie is a calorie. Yet here in this discussion, you've twice referenced paid food corp reps and questioned the intelligence of those who disagree with you, because you're assuming that everyone is approaching the issue from the same nutritional standpoint and not taking into account that each of our individual experiences and situations will play a role in how we view processed foods.

As Jonnythan said on page 1, no one says that processed foods and whole foods are exactly the same. But it's also not a good/bad dichotomy where whole foods are awesome and processed foods lead to poor nutrition and disease. For some of us, those foods people are preaching against as being bad were (or still are) the best possible choice. I hate threads like this because they serve no real purpose other than being another argument about diet superiority and making people feel like crap for not being able to meet some standard dictated by people who have more options when it comes to food.

If buying canned or frozen veggies gets someone who previously wasn't eating veggies to eat them, then it is a win. If it means a busy single parent will be able to hit the recommended 5 a day, it's a win. If it helps people get variety in their diets, it's a win. As you said earlier, this is a fitness site, and none of the healthy, fit, active people on this site got there overnight. It's a process, and for a lot of people, it's a slow one with a lot of baby steps in making changes. If people don't want to eat a certain food for whatever reason, don't eat it. The sweeping generalizations and good/bad labels are unnecessary, because what may be a bad food choice in your mind could actually be an improvement for someone else in making changes for their health.

Seriously OP, you haven't learned this yet?

It came about from another thread. I've found a shocking amount of people, on a fitness website nonetheless, who talk about how everything is fine. It's all the same. There are no differences with processed food, added sugar, chemicals, etc. Just eat in moderation.

Although I agree with the moderation approach as being a good rule of thumb for many, I've been just shocked by some folks that say it's all the same. I'm starting to agree with some other users that such people are not true MFP users, but paid food corp. reps as I can't imagine how such outlandish claims otherwise make any sense.

I don't think anyone at all says that everything is fine or that it's all the same. Literally no one says that.

Are you serious?? People say everything is fine a LOT. They even say that if you don't think everything is fine then you have an unhealthy relationship with food.

I haven't seen anyone say "it's all the same" but I have seen people say sugar and an apple are the same. I once had someone tell me that a McD hamburger was healthy becuase there studies showing carbs, protein and fat were healthy.

People say all kinds of crazy things on these forums.