We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

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

1246721

Replies

  • Posts: 32 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »

    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.
    Sure, there is a risk. That doesn't mean you can't be empathetic with them and refrain from using these words.

    And people do have relationships with objects, if you're suggesting otherwise. I can be sentimentally attached to couch.

  • Posts: 48 Member
    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".
  • Posts: 8,646 Member
    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 you
  • Posts: 3,944 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »

    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.
  • Posts: 10,528 Member

    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.
    There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.

  • Posts: 343 Member

    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!
  • Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    Yeah. I'm raising two disabled kids, shepharding them through an uncaring world, clearly Empathy is what I lack...

    :rolls eyes:
  • Posts: 936 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Yeah. I'm raising two disabled kids, shepharding them through the world, clearly Empathy is what I lack...

    :rolls eyes:

    I was only teasing about the Voight-Kampff test, btw. And trolling for Dick fans.

  • Posts: 9,532 Member

    I was only teasing about the Voight-Kampff test, btw. And trolling for Dick fans.

    They'd better not screw up the sequel....!!!!
  • Posts: 32 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Yeah. I'm raising two disabled kids, shepharding them through the world, clearly Empathy is what I lack...

    :rolls eyes:
    Humility too.

  • Posts: 960 Member
    Who cares about any of this?
  • Posts: 3,944 Member
    edited March 2015

    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.

    You may be right about realistic expectations.

    Also, I'm sorry. I may have misrepresented my viewpoint. I don't actually expect anyone to change their behavior unless they want to. I, personally, don't view food as good or bad, so it doesn't really cross my mind unless I'm in a conversation about food. When I do find myself in those conversations, I try to maintain awareness of those sensitivities and phrase my statements in a way that both reflects my own views and helps others. It's a self censoring thing, but that's a standard I impose on myself, not others.

    Would it be easier to just say "bad" food so people know what I'm talking about? Sure. But I don't think it's that much harder to just say "I really like Oreo's, but right now I don't eat them often because they have too many calories for the scant nutritional value I get. When I get to maintenance, I'll be figuring out how to work them into my diet on a regular basis." I like to be specific anyway.
  • Posts: 3,944 Member
    There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.

    I understand that, but how does the statement "trans fats are bad" make that distinction?
  • Posts: 3,944 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Yeah. I'm raising two disabled kids, shepharding them through an uncaring world, clearly Empathy is what I lack...

    :rolls eyes:

    I, um, I'm not sure what one has to do with the other.
  • Posts: 48 Member
    _John_ wrote: »

    ah...someone finally caught on...2 internets for you

    LOL!
  • Posts: 10,330 Member
    I usually use "more/less nutrient dense" when talking about how foods fit into an overall healthy diet, and "more/less calorie dense" when talking about how foods fit into a calorie budget. No one seems to object to these terms so I guess I'm in the argument-safe zone.
  • Posts: 3,944 Member
    I usually use "more/less nutrient dense" when talking about how foods fit into an overall healthy diet, and "more/less calorie dense" when talking about how foods fit into a calorie budget. No one seems to object to these terms so I guess I'm in the argument-safe zone.

    I've been moving towards this model myself.
  • Posts: 8,029 Member
    _John_ wrote: »

    dunno. but I'm running out of popcorn for watching that other thread.

    It's all a philosophical battle over whether "we'd" like someone to think exclusionary about food or inclusionary...

    What fascinates me most about that point is that the exclusionists quite often include the very things that they say are awful in their diets. For them, it's all about how they position themselves.

    I suppose the same is true for the inclusionists (regarding the positioning), but being one myself, I can't be objective about any of this.

    I don't know if there's some deeper psychology behind the two types of thinking, or if it just boils down to people being different. It really interests me on some level, though.

  • Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015

    I, um, I'm not sure what one has to do with the other.

    You'd see the connection if you had more empathy.

    :drinker:
  • Posts: 8,646 Member
    edited March 2015

    What fascinates me most about that point is that the exclusionists quite often include the very things that they say are awful in their diets. For them, it's all about how they position themselves.

    I suppose the same is true for the inclusionists (regarding the positioning), but being one myself, I can't be objective about any of this.

    I don't know if there's some deeper psychology behind the two types of thinking, or if it just boils down to people being different. It really interests me on some level, though.

    your post about how you thought out your day was awesome. that's how I like to think about my food.
  • Posts: 8,029 Member

    *kitten*, I'd eat the *kitten* outta some dirt cake right now!

    c247fed2775edb83a9ad0af32096963d.jpg


  • Posts: 8,029 Member
    _John_ wrote: »

    your post about how you thought out your day was awesome. that's how I like to think about my food.

    Thanks. Discovering pre-logging was a revelation for me.

  • Posts: 3,944 Member
    edited March 2015
    Mr_Knight wrote: »

    You'd see the connection if you had more empathy.

    :drinker:

    More likely there's not a connection and you didn't think I'd call you on it. Anyway, like I've been saying all along in this thread, these are the reasons I choose not to talk about food in terms of good and bad. You manage yourself however you're most comfortable.
  • Posts: 6,666 Member

    c247fed2775edb83a9ad0af32096963d.jpg


    This will go well with the Peeps cleanse...
  • Posts: 10,330 Member

    I understand that, but how does the statement "trans fats are bad" make that distinction?

    To be honest, I would shy away from calling foods that have trans fats bad too, even the manufactured stuff. Trans fats are not a food, they're in some foods. I may be swimming against the current here when I [GASP] don't mind eating trans fat containing foods every once in a long while. In the grand scheme of things I don't believe they're the scary closet monster who would devour you as soon as they pass your lips. Heck, rice, apple juice, and green veggies have arsenic in them, rhubarb has oxalic acid, almonds have cyanide, some beans have lectin, and brazil nuts are radioactive - but those are less trendy than trans fats so you don't see them turned into boogie men as often. Key is in the amount and frequency, so yeah...
  • Posts: 3,944 Member
    edited March 2015
    Ninkyou wrote: »

    This will go well with the Peeps cleanse...

    I cover Advanced Cleansing Techniques in Chapter 42 of my upcoming book, The 10 Day Master Peep Cleanse(TM):The Story Of A Man, A Mallow, And A Dream.
  • Posts: 10,528 Member

    I understand that, but how does the statement "trans fats are bad" make that distinction?
    Good point. There is a Country that distinguishes between the two but I can't remember which one, it may have been a Scandinavian Country. The Cows that graze above 4000 ft in altitude apparently have extremely high levels of CLA and Scandinavia would meet that criteria, but I'm not sure if that's the reason, or their basic philosophy regarding milk production and the associated health benefits from CLA.

  • Posts: 32 Member

    I cover Advanced Cleansing Techniques in Chapter 42 of my upcoming book, The 10 Day Master Peep Cleanse(TM):The Story Of A Man, A Mallow, And A Dream.
    Sounds like a good read, mind if I take a peep before it's released?

  • Posts: 6,666 Member

    I cover Advanced Cleansing Techniques in Chapter 42 of my upcoming book, The 10 Day Master Peep Cleanse(TM):The Story Of A Man, A Mallow, And A Dream.

    giphy.gif
  • Posts: 3,944 Member

    To be honest, I would shy away from calling foods that have trans fats bad too, even the manufactured stuff. Trans fats are not a food, they're in some foods. I may be swimming against the current here when I [GASP] don't mind eating trans fat containing foods every once in a long while. In the grand scheme of things I don't believe they're the scary closet monster who would devour you as soon as they pass your lips. Heck, rice, apple juice, and green veggies have arsenic in them, rhubarb has oxalic acid, almonds have cyanide, some beans have lectin, and brazil nuts are radioactive - but those are less trendy than trans fats so you don't see them turned into boogie men as often. Key is in the amount and frequency, so yeah...

    I concur. I probably don't eat a lot trans fat because of the foods I choose to eat, but I wouldn't call it bad, either. I was trying to point out how the act of labeling something like that discourages any conversation around nuance.
This discussion has been closed.