Eat junk or nothing?

ndj1979 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

TheVirgoddess wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

TheVirgoddess wrote: »

DawnieB1977 wrote: »

P.S if I asked people I know what the term 'junk food' refers to, I'm pretty sure they'd all say the same...burgers, chips, crisps, biscuits, chocolate, fast food etc. I'm not saying you can't eat it within a balanced diet, because of course you can, but this is what I assumed everyone would agree is classed as 'junk'. So why the constant questioning the op about her use of the word?
Or maybe it's just different in England....

Maybe it's that people are tired of the food they eat and enjoy being called junk?

Why does that even matter? Eat what you want, however you want. Let other people do the same. They don't need to agree with your choices...or validate them.

I don't know - I was just making a suggestion as to why someone would take exception to the word junk. That's why my post ended in a ? - because it was a question, not a statement.

I don't care about what other people think about my intake. Which is why my diary is public. If people want to call certain foods junk, and give the food some sort of moral or emotional value, they are the ones missing out, not me.

I don't notice the question mark, so thought you were speaking for yourself. My bad.

I asked because I have noticed a lot of people get really angry when people use words like junk. It is strange to me. If someone thought my diet was not healthy, I would view that no differently than if they thought a movie I liked was bad. I wouldn't care or be offended by it. Some people really do seem to identify with their food choices, and take it personally if you don't think their way of eating is "healthy" (however you define that).

because it is dumb to label foods "good" "bad" "junk" etc…food does not have a moralistic value…it is just energy that your body uses to function …

combine it in the right way and you get certain results.

no one gets "angry" ..they just ask the poster to define what they are defining as "junk"…

at the end of the day there is no junk food that is just a simplistic way to label food as bad and then avoid it because one believes it is bad.

It's irrelevant how they define it...the point is "junk" is any food that a particular person doesn't view as a good choice. If somebody wants to cut it out completely or just reduce it, that is not dumb. It's not just about weight loss. There are larger health issues as stake.

And nobody (at least not me) has claimed that food has moral value. But different foods certainly do affect the body in different ways...it is not all just energy. If it was all just energy, macros would be completely irrelevant. As you said...combine it in the right way and you get certain results. That's all people reducing "junk" are trying to do...get the results that THEY want.

then why assign any value to at all? By labeling it junk someone is assigning a value to it...

to clarify, by combine I mean hit your macro/micro/calorie goal and you get the results that you are looking for.

overall diet, not individual food type is what matters.

weight loss = straight calorie deficit
body composition = hit macros/micros/calorie targets

Of course different foods have different value when you are trying to achieve your goal. Not MORAL value, but practical value...as in "this food has what I need to achieve this goal and doesn't have too much of things that will make it harder to reach this goal or some other". To say otherwise is silly.

And individual food types are what make up the overall diet...so of course you have to evaluate each food in order to make sure you get the overall diet you want. An overall diet that fits your goals does not magically happen without making many decisions on the foods that comprise it.

If you are bulking and trying to add muscle a food high in protein has much more value than one with little or no protein. If you are trying to stabilize blood sugar, a food high in sugar has much less value than one without added sugar. If you are trying to make sure you get the vitamin c you need, fruits and vegetables are much more valuable than most other foods.

Labeling it junk is saying that the food does not support the goals of the person using the term. Nothing wrong with that.

I hate the term "junk food" too.

I much prefer the term "blacklisted."

My blacklist only has two items: Snyders Hot Buffalo Wing Pretzel Pieces and Cheetos Cheddar and Jalapeno.

Why those two? Because I have, and will, eat either of them until I literally make myself ill. Like, waking up in the middle of the night to vomit, ill.

Now, it's certainly possible that I could train myself to eat and enjoy these things in moderation? But why even make the effort? It's only two foods of iffy nutritional value and zero satiety. Plus, I think we all have a finite motivational bandwidth. I want to work hard at things like -- running a marathon, biking 2000 miles this summer, hitting my goal weight, revamping my business plan, etc. and so on. I don't want to waste any time or energy on learning how to eat two foods that I can't eat right now in moderation. It's just not that important, big picture wise. It's not "defeatist," it's prioritizing my resource allocation.

I don't feel some aching void in my life because I don't buy those two things anymore. I'm not pining for the Cheetos.

That being said, I can certainly understand if you've blacklisted vast swaths of the grocery store, that could be problematic.