Can I petition MFP users to use the terms "more ideal" and "less ideal" instead of good/bad foods?
Options
Replies
-
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.
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?
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 share a connection with my food. See my last post.
Yeah, I guess taste is a connection. Sort of. At least I can say it is to be nice.0 -
0
-
Capt_Apollo wrote: »
hey, I'm just trying to unite philosophies...0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »tincanonastring 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.0 -
no0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »tincanonastring 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.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.
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?
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 share a connection with my food. See my last post.
Yeah, I guess taste is a connection. Sort of. At least I can say it is to be nice.
I'm not sure what that means.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »tincanonastring 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.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »tincanonastring 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.
Someone is failing the Voight-Kampff test...
0 -
0
-
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.
And people do have relationships with objects, if you're suggesting otherwise. I can be sentimentally attached to couch.
0 -
The grammar police in my head screams, "No, no, no." The word "ideal" is a superlative and nothing can be more or less ideal. Either it is ideal or it is not ideal. That would be like saying "more best" or "less best".0
-
DrPepper000 wrote: »The grammar police in my head screams, "No, no, no." The word "ideal" is a superlative and nothing can be more or less ideal. Either it is ideal or it is not ideal. That would be like saying "more best" or "less best".
ah...someone finally caught on...2 internets for you0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »tincanonastring 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.
That's what I meant when I said you lack empathy. It's a common affliction.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »clipartghost wrote: »melimomTARDIS wrote: »no, because there are arguably no bad foods. There are no less ideal foods.
That's all I got.
And here's where it turns into a bad food thread. I've heard there's already one of those going on. Grass-fed dairy and meet products have trans fat. Are those bad foods? No, they are food that one either chooses to eat or chooses not to eat. There's no reason to place a judge the value of food outside of a contextual conversation.
0 -
Is there butter on your popcorn? Because I'd like to suggest plain popcorn, which is more ideal.
Or, you could switch to something more nutrient dense, like kale![/quote]
This cracked me up! Ty!0 -
Yeah. I'm raising two disabled kids, shepharding them through an uncaring world, clearly Empathy is what I lack...
:rolls eyes:
0 -
-
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »
They'd better not screw up the sequel....!!!!0 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions