Can I petition MFP users to use the terms "more ideal" and "less ideal" instead of good/bad foods?
Options
Replies
-
Who cares about any of this?0
-
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »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.
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.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.tincanonastring wrote: »clipartghost wrote: »
Trans fats are pretty unarguably bad.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.
I understand that, but how does the statement "trans fats are bad" make that distinction?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 you
LOL!0 -
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.0
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »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.0 -
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.
0 -
0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »
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.0 -
0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »
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.
Thanks. Discovering pre-logging was a revelation for me.
0 -
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.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
This will go well with the Peeps cleanse...0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.tincanonastring wrote: »clipartghost wrote: »
Trans fats are pretty unarguably bad.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.
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...0 -
mamapeach910 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.0 -
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.tincanonastring wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.tincanonastring wrote: »clipartghost wrote: »
Trans fats are pretty unarguably bad.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.
I understand that, but how does the statement "trans fats are bad" make that distinction?
0 -
Sounds like a good read, mind if I take a peep before it's released?tincanonastring wrote: »
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.
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »mamapeach910 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.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
There is a difference between naturally occurring trans fats and partially hydrogenated pufa's.tincanonastring wrote: »clipartghost wrote: »
Trans fats are pretty unarguably bad.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.
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...
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 976 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions