Can I petition MFP users to use the terms "more ideal" and "less ideal" instead of good/bad foods?
Replies
-
Hairy or non-hairy. . .foods hit the floor. . . hairy. Or yummy more yummy. . . . .I could subscribe to this.0
-
Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.
Well, we are telling it like it is. Very rarely are foods "crappy for you" because they come as a part of an overall diet. If you eat nothing but celery, which is supposed to be "good for you" it becomes "crappy for you". Unless the food is mouldy or you have some kind of allergy the "crappy" label rarely applies.0 -
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."
Just this last comment..
I don't care about the previous quotes and I have my opinion on the original post, but I'm not going to share it. I will, however, say that this last comment by tincanonstring sums a lot of my feelings.
Dang it...Here I go, getting involved...
I wonder about the "good food vs bad food" idea all the time. My friends will so often say "ugh, I'm dieting I can't eat ____ " but the reality is they CAN eat whatever and they're depriving themselves completely which often sends them into a binge of it as soon as their water gets rough. They just haven't mastered self control or they have never really looked at their relationship with food (self control- which we all fail to have from time to time).0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.
Well, we are telling it like it is. Very rarely are foods "crappy for you" because they come as a part of an overall diet. If you eat nothing but celery, which is supposed to be "good for you" it becomes "crappy for you". Unless the food is mouldy or you have some kind of allergy the "crappy" label rarely applies.
So cookies, chips, pop, etc aren't crappy?
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.
Well, we are telling it like it is. Very rarely are foods "crappy for you" because they come as a part of an overall diet. If you eat nothing but celery, which is supposed to be "good for you" it becomes "crappy for you". Unless the food is mouldy or you have some kind of allergy the "crappy" label rarely applies.
So cookies, chips, pop, etc aren't crappy?
The only thing those foods have in common (assuming non diet soda) are relatively high calories and relatively low micronutrients (although some of the ingredients, like potatoes, oatmeal, etc., would never be called "crappy" by most who use the term in others contexts).
Some versions of them also have added ingredients that people might have reservations about, like HFCS, or are prepared in a way that is not the healthiest (deep fat fried), but obviously not all do, so that can't be the commonality. If you want to argue that foods with some ingredient are inherently crappy, fine, but you'd have to be more specific.
So really the argument becomes "are foods that don't contribute lots of micronutrients and have lots of calories bad or 'crappy' always?" I don't see why, as there are certainly circumstances where micros are reasonably met and people might actually have a need for more calories or be able to fit in more calories of enjoyable food. Thinking of all food that's not strictly utilitarian for micros or as low calorie as possible seems screwed up to me. So when we have pie on Thanksgiving that's not a celebration of your blessings and family and a time for love and togetherness and all that, but simply indulging in "crap"? It really seems like a messed up and unhelpful way to think of food to me. Why are some so wedded to such terminology?0 -
I think using terms "nutritionally dense" and "nutritionally sparse" conveys a better idea of what is more mindful to eat or not eat, since it's more objective.
At what level does a food change from sparse to dense? You see the problem here it's all objective. These things need to be taken as a whole and in context. There is no point at looking at one element when you should be looking at the diet as a whole.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
That is the whole point.isulo_kura wrote: »I think using terms "nutritionally dense" and "nutritionally sparse" conveys a better idea of what is more mindful to eat or not eat, since it's more objective.
At what level does a food change from sparse to dense? You see the problem here it's all objective. These things need to be taken as a whole and in context. There is no point at looking at one element when you should be looking at the diet as a whole.
0 -
-
-
Can we not just go with highly nutritious food and less nutritious food? Or food that's good for your insides/food that's good for your mind?0
-
-
0
-
@Macstraw
L O L, see what she did there? The food has feelings and says it won't get hurt. Sounds like a co-dependent relationship in which the food is seeking validation and is giving control of it's destiny to another to avoid feeling irrelevant. Anthropomorphism can be fun.0 -
I think people are just being overly sensitive. If just seeing the word bad causes them such angst, then they need to get a little perspective. We all have our own opinions and should feel free to express those in the words that feel natural to us. Others are free to disagree using their own word choices...and they do. Not using the words bad and good because somebody might get offended by it is taking PC just a little too far.0
-
isulo_kura wrote: »I think using terms "nutritionally dense" and "nutritionally sparse" conveys a better idea of what is more mindful to eat or not eat, since it's more objective.
At what level does a food change from sparse to dense? You see the problem here it's all objective. These things need to be taken as a whole and in context. There is no point at looking at one element when you should be looking at the diet as a whole.
It's a spectrum not a binary definition, but it's simplified into a binary definition because people seem to have issues with with the farther extremes of the spectrum not the middle.
Nutrient density, by definition, is the amount of micronutrients per calorie. Some food items like spinach are clearly to the far right of the spectrum, so can be called nutrient dense. Other food items like sugar are clearly to the far left of the spectrum and can be called nutrient poor. The ones that are somewhere in the middle are rarely the center of controversy when it comes to nutrients.
Focusing on including various nutrient dense foods in ones diet allows them to get as much nutrition as the body needs in as few calories as possible, which leaves room for less nutrient dense but equally important (psychologically, socially, fuel-wise..etc) foods.
Issues arise when people isolate foods with the intention of labeling instead of looking at them as pieces in a bigger puzzle. It's better to judge the full picture rather than individual pieces.
Yesterday, for example, I was chasing a very stressful deadline and I did not have time to prepare food, and grabbing something like an apple would not provide me with enough energy to perform my job efficiently. My whole day was made of nuts and chocolate because you can get a good amount of energy in small amounts of these. If someone looked at yesterday they would judge my diet as horrible right away, but a more observant person would go through my whole week, or even month, to see that in the grand scheme of things I'm getting a respectable amount of nutrients.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I think people are just being overly sensitive. If just seeing the word bad causes them such angst, then they need to get a little perspective. We all have our own opinions and should feel free to express those in the words that feel natural to us. Others are free to disagree using their own word choices...and they do. Not using the words bad and good because somebody might get offended by it is taking PC just a little too far.
Agree.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »We do "sometimes" foods and "always" foods in our house. Seems to work.
we do this too!0 -
-
Even that would depend. Because each choice doesn't happen in a vacuum when it comes to your overall diet. It's the sum of your choices that matters. You're still qualifying the nature of something using this language.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I think people are just being overly sensitive. If just seeing the word bad causes them such angst, then they need to get a little perspective. We all have our own opinions and should feel free to express those in the words that feel natural to us. Others are free to disagree using their own word choices...and they do. Not using the words bad and good because somebody might get offended by it is taking PC just a little too far.
LOL
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Also? For people who have poor eyesight FIDK does not look like a description of food.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Also? For people who have poor eyesight FIDK does not look like a description of food.
very true; full disclosure in the 'bad food' thread I used 'more ideal'. . . . .LAWDY help me.
0 -
Instead, how about an online party where we focus on acceptance and love? We can ZEN OUT. 0
-
GoPerfectHealth wrote: »Instead, how about an online party where we focus on acceptance and love? We can ZEN OUT.
Please go to the LAME jokes thread. I left a few Buddhist jokes for the Zen in all of us.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Also? For people who have poor eyesight FIDK does not look like a description of food.
very true; full disclosure in the 'bad food' thread I used 'more ideal'. . . . .LAWDY help me.
It's the idealiest ideal that ever idealed!!!!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.
Well, we are telling it like it is. Very rarely are foods "crappy for you" because they come as a part of an overall diet. If you eat nothing but celery, which is supposed to be "good for you" it becomes "crappy for you". Unless the food is mouldy or you have some kind of allergy the "crappy" label rarely applies.
So cookies, chips, pop, etc aren't crappy?
So really the argument becomes "are foods that don't contribute lots of micronutrients and have lots of calories bad or 'crappy' always?" I don't see why, as there are certainly circumstances where micros are reasonably met and people might actually have a need for more calories or be able to fit in more calories of enjoyable food. Thinking of all food that's not strictly utilitarian for micros or as low calorie as possible seems screwed up to me. So when we have pie on Thanksgiving that's not a celebration of your blessings and family and a time for love and togetherness and all that, but simply indulging in "crap"? It really seems like a messed up and unhelpful way to think of food to me. Why are some so wedded to such terminology?
Why not eat the extra calories in food that is good for you instead of crap? Don't go dragging up the food as celebration garbage. Sure there is nothing wrong with having a piece of pie on Thanksgiving, just as there is nothing wrong with skipping it. You can still spend time with family and celebrate your blessings.
Acknowledge that nutritionally sparse foods are crappy for you and if they are used, they should be seldom used, not as a way to fill in daily calorie needs.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Tell it like it is. Good for you or crappy for you.
Well, we are telling it like it is. Very rarely are foods "crappy for you" because they come as a part of an overall diet. If you eat nothing but celery, which is supposed to be "good for you" it becomes "crappy for you". Unless the food is mouldy or you have some kind of allergy the "crappy" label rarely applies.
So cookies, chips, pop, etc aren't crappy?
So really the argument becomes "are foods that don't contribute lots of micronutrients and have lots of calories bad or 'crappy' always?" I don't see why, as there are certainly circumstances where micros are reasonably met and people might actually have a need for more calories or be able to fit in more calories of enjoyable food. Thinking of all food that's not strictly utilitarian for micros or as low calorie as possible seems screwed up to me. So when we have pie on Thanksgiving that's not a celebration of your blessings and family and a time for love and togetherness and all that, but simply indulging in "crap"? It really seems like a messed up and unhelpful way to think of food to me. Why are some so wedded to such terminology?
Why not eat the extra calories in food that is good for you instead of crap? Don't go dragging up the food as celebration garbage. Sure there is nothing wrong with having a piece of pie on Thanksgiving, just as there is nothing wrong with skipping it. You can still spend time with family and celebrate your blessings.
Acknowledge that nutritionally sparse foods are crappy for you and if they are used, they should be seldom used, not as a way to fill in daily calorie needs.
This is a great idea. 2,700 calories of non-crap. . . .yes I need to do this. Or, I can have a few EACH day and eat non-crap food too.
Please do not define crap and non-crap. . .honestly I do not give a *kitten*.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions