Can I petition MFP users to use the terms "more ideal" and "less ideal" instead of good/bad foods?

I would like to suggest a substitution for "good" and "bad" foods. On a Sesame Street video my daughter has, they use the terms "sometimes food" and "anytime food." Those are the terms we use in our household. She is 7 years old and doesn't have an ED. Consequently, we can see that these are better than all other possible options. You're welcome.

sgthaggard wrote: »

Newspeak. Food is either good or ungood, never bad.

But then there's the stuff that's plus ungood, or even double plus ungood. How do you think that food feels under this new categorization?

_John_ wrote: »

HardcoreP0rk wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

HardcoreP0rk wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

HardcoreP0rk wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

Can we just call it food and leave the value statements out of it?

Can you just release yourself of the need to feel in any way impacted by someone else's value statements about food?

Because a value statement about a food that I eat is a value statement about my diet, even if that's not the intent of the person making the statement. I, personally, don't give a flying *kitten* because I'm gonna eat whatever I want and anyone who has something to say about it can kindly *kitten* right off, but for a lurker with an eating disorder, they don't need to be constantly reading that something they have successfully incorporated into their diet to aid in their recovery is "bad."

The idea that MFP is going to push someone back onto the ED train because someone said Oreos are "bad" is not evidence-based.

It may not be; I haven't looked. Being sensitive to others, especially on forums about food where we know there are people coping with disordered eating, isn't something I feel the need to scientifically support. I do know that food shame is often a major factor in triggering events for people with ED, and I can easily see how seeing a discussion that refers to food as being good or bad can lead to feelings of shame.

I think that encouraging people to emotionally release themselves from the value judgments of strangers on the internet is a pretty sympathetic and sensitive position...

I didn't say it wasn't. I don't think any of us are qualified to do that, though, and even if some of us are, this is certainly not the venue.

How can you not be qualified to provide encouragement?

reinforcement of destructive behavior often masquerades as encouragement.

Perhaps, but that has no bearing on what I said or what he countered with. Generically, sure...but not in the context of the discussion we were having.

clipartghost wrote: »

I think just changing the wording to something more specific would work much better. "In the context of the rest of your diet, [food1] would be a better choice than [food2]."

I like this. I also have no problem with more or less nutrient dense food. And, full disclosure, I don't mind junk food and would use it more happily than fun food (I hate the "fun size" terminology and can't shake the association, just me being weird). But I don't think of it literally and calling it "junk food" doesn't make me less likely to happily eat something. It is vague, though, in that there are numerous foods that I might consider junk food that others wouldn't and vice versa, so I get why it seems bothersome or unhelpful to people.

clipartghost wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

I suppose that's true, but it's not a given. Everyone I know I uses good and bad when talking about food. I don't know anyone with an eating disorder. Unless we are calling overeating a disorder.

And as a contrast, I am very familiar with EDs, as I am a vegan athlete (both of these categories have higher rates of EDs). Nearly everyone with an ED I have known was harmed by the ideas of food restriction, good and bad foods, etc.

I don't know if obesity is considered a disorder in the same sense that anorexia is, and I'm not sure if I think it should be, but it's at least an unhealthy food relationship.

Oh man, if I could petition for word usage it would be to stop "food relationship".

_John_ wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

clipartghost wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

I suppose that's true, but it's not a given. Everyone I know I uses good and bad when talking about food. I don't know anyone with an eating disorder. Unless we are calling overeating a disorder.

And as a contrast, I am very familiar with EDs, as I am a vegan athlete (both of these categories have higher rates of EDs). Nearly everyone with an ED I have known was harmed by the ideas of food restriction, good and bad foods, etc.

I don't know if obesity is considered a disorder in the same sense that anorexia is, and I'm not sure if I think it should be, but it's at least an unhealthy food relationship.

Oh man, if I could petition for word usage it would be to stop "food relationship".

but it's so descriptive of the process...

What process?

_John_ wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

_John_ wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

clipartghost wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

I suppose that's true, but it's not a given. Everyone I know I uses good and bad when talking about food. I don't know anyone with an eating disorder. Unless we are calling overeating a disorder.

And as a contrast, I am very familiar with EDs, as I am a vegan athlete (both of these categories have higher rates of EDs). Nearly everyone with an ED I have known was harmed by the ideas of food restriction, good and bad foods, etc.

I don't know if obesity is considered a disorder in the same sense that anorexia is, and I'm not sure if I think it should be, but it's at least an unhealthy food relationship.

Oh man, if I could petition for word usage it would be to stop "food relationship".

but it's so descriptive of the process...

What process?

deciding what to eat on a daily basis.

Seems an odd choice of words.

re·la·tion·ship
/rəˈlāSH(ə)nˌSHip/

noun
noun: relationship; plural noun: relationships
the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected.

I would suggest talking about quality foods and what that means for the average person. In Italy there is a constant discussion at meals, in restaurants, on television,etc. about where food comes from, how it arrives to the consumer, etc. Quality is part of the culture and directly influences taste. There are constant programs going out to the farms and producers showing step by step how products arrive at markets and stores. The name brands are proud to show off their quality, and how it all begins. Many products have DOP or IGP on their labels, meaning that they are high quality, controlled from their origins. I haven't lived in the USA for almost 30 yrs now. Do you have this information available to consumers? I am always searching for the best quality I can afford. The bad vs good food debate goes round and round, let's discuss quality and taste once in a while--for a change.

tincanonastring wrote: »

HardcoreP0rk wrote: »

_John_ wrote: »

HardcoreP0rk wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

HardcoreP0rk wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

HardcoreP0rk wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

Can we just call it food and leave the value statements out of it?

Can you just release yourself of the need to feel in any way impacted by someone else's value statements about food?

Because a value statement about a food that I eat is a value statement about my diet, even if that's not the intent of the person making the statement. I, personally, don't give a flying *kitten* because I'm gonna eat whatever I want and anyone who has something to say about it can kindly *kitten* right off, but for a lurker with an eating disorder, they don't need to be constantly reading that something they have successfully incorporated into their diet to aid in their recovery is "bad."

The idea that MFP is going to push someone back onto the ED train because someone said Oreos are "bad" is not evidence-based.

It may not be; I haven't looked. Being sensitive to others, especially on forums about food where we know there are people coping with disordered eating, isn't something I feel the need to scientifically support. I do know that food shame is often a major factor in triggering events for people with ED, and I can easily see how seeing a discussion that refers to food as being good or bad can lead to feelings of shame.

I think that encouraging people to emotionally release themselves from the value judgments of strangers on the internet is a pretty sympathetic and sensitive position...

I didn't say it wasn't. I don't think any of us are qualified to do that, though, and even if some of us are, this is certainly not the venue.

How can you not be qualified to provide encouragement?

reinforcement of destructive behavior often masquerades as encouragement.

Perhaps, but that has no bearing on what I said or what he countered with. Generically, sure...but not in the context of the discussion we were having.

In rereading your statement, you're right. I read encouragement as helping, and I think there's a distinction to be made there. There's nothing wrong with encouragement. The mere act of encouragement can come from anyone, I suppose, but if someone is that emotionally invested, they should probably be dealing with that in some way that involves help from someone trained to do so. It's a bit moot, though, isn't it? If you don't make the value judgement in the first place, there's no need to provide encouragement to overcome the feelings associated with that judgement.

Here, let me give you a papercut. Here's a band-aid to help you heal from the papercut.

In either case, there's this expectation that people will modify their behavior. You want them to moderate their usage of certain words. I'd like people be less emotionally invested in the opinion of strangers. And there's futility in both those things, as we have no control over what other people will do... but I would say that I think it's maybe more realistic to encourage people to moderate their reaction to what they cannot control than to expect people to censor their speech.

tincanonastring wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

HardcoreP0rk wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

HardcoreP0rk wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

Can we just call it food and leave the value statements out of it?

Can you just release yourself of the need to feel in any way impacted by someone else's value statements about food?

Because a value statement about a food that I eat is a value statement about my diet, even if that's not the intent of the person making the statement. I, personally, don't give a flying *kitten* because I'm gonna eat whatever I want and anyone who has something to say about it can kindly *kitten* right off, but for a lurker with an eating disorder, they don't need to be constantly reading that something they have successfully incorporated into their diet to aid in their recovery is "bad."

The idea that MFP is going to push someone back onto the ED train because someone said Oreos are "bad" is not evidence-based.

It may not be; I haven't looked. Being sensitive to others, especially on forums about food where we know there are people coping with disordered eating, isn't something I feel the need to scientifically support. I do know that food shame is often a major factor in triggering events for people with ED, and I can easily see how seeing a discussion that refers to food as being good or bad can lead to feelings of shame.

I think that encouraging people to emotionally release themselves from the value judgments of strangers on the internet is a pretty sympathetic and sensitive position...

I didn't say it wasn't. I don't think any of us are qualified to do that, though, and even if some of us are, this is certainly not the venue.

This also isn't a venue where those sensitive to getting "disordered" should be, either.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but the reality is that they are here and we know that.

I can't be responsible for that. If someone saying Oreos are "bad" or "unhealthy" is enough to cause people to fall off a metaphysical cliff, the primary responsibility lies with the person choosing to stand on the edge of that cliff.

I'm not trying to be harsh, but at some point people do need to take responsibility for the situations they choose to put themselves in.

And wandering the chat boards at MFP is definitely a choice.

You're not harsh. You lack empathy and, I suspect, a general understanding of ED. It's cool. I'm not telling you that you have to change the way you speak. I was giving my own reasons for not making those positive/negative relationship with food. You're obviously free to do whatever you want.

Again, I don't think it's beyond the realm of understanding to see why a person with ED would find value in forums like these. I try to respect that. You don't have to.

That's not the point.

Yes, there may be value for them here. But there is also risk - and it's not my responsibility to manage their risk. That's *their* responsibility.

Now, if you'll excuse me, there's a serving of unhealthy Oreos over here I have to go avoid.

PS Having a relationship with food is like having a relationship with a couch.