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

Options
1161719212231

Replies

  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »
    Moving right along before this thread gets hit by a bolt of lightening - I actually, in my head, refer to food as "healthy" or "unhealthy."
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    That's the point--on what evidence is it bad for you, if not eaten in excess and as part of an overall balanced diet? People keep asserting that, but no one so far has come up with evidence. Why is a scoop of gelato or a slice of my homemade apple pie bad for me? Why was the donut I ate during my last century ride bad for me?

    I agree Lemurcat, no one will ever convince me that homemade apple pie is bad for me! I grew up eating my nanna's apple pie. :) A scoop of gelato or a hot donut straight off the machine will do me no harm in conjunction with a balanced diet.

    Before I eat something, I ask myself "will this food nourish me or give me a gut ache?" Will I get a headache after eating it or will it make me feel unwell. Generally, I find a small amount does me no harm but I normally stay away from highly processed, fake foods.

    There is apple pie, and there is apple pie. I saw a recipe on this site that called for 1 cup of sugar in a single apple pie. And, to keep the pie from being soggy 1 cup of flour! How would you have room for apples?!?

    My grandma's recipe calls for 2 Tbs. of each and she used cooking (crab) apples, not the ultra sweet store bought apples of today.

    IMO my grandma's pie is healthier.

    What about your grandma's pie makes it healthier? If I bake a pie using the extra flour and sugar, calculate the recipe and add the serving to my food diary while fitting it into my macro, micro, and calorie goals, why would a serving of your grandma's pie be healthier than the one I ate?

    Because apples are better than table sugar and flour IMO Also, it would taste a lot better and have a better texture.

    So, by no objective standard are they healthier and/or better. It's only a statement of your opinion?

    If I posted some medical or health sites that said apples were better than table sugar, would you change your opinion?

    I'd be interested in seeing how they determined the apples are "better" when I'm hitting my micro, macro, and calorie goals, sure. If you're just going to show me something that says apples are more nutritious than refined sugar, then duh.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »
    Moving right along before this thread gets hit by a bolt of lightening - I actually, in my head, refer to food as "healthy" or "unhealthy."
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    That's the point--on what evidence is it bad for you, if not eaten in excess and as part of an overall balanced diet? People keep asserting that, but no one so far has come up with evidence. Why is a scoop of gelato or a slice of my homemade apple pie bad for me? Why was the donut I ate during my last century ride bad for me?

    I agree Lemurcat, no one will ever convince me that homemade apple pie is bad for me! I grew up eating my nanna's apple pie. :) A scoop of gelato or a hot donut straight off the machine will do me no harm in conjunction with a balanced diet.

    Before I eat something, I ask myself "will this food nourish me or give me a gut ache?" Will I get a headache after eating it or will it make me feel unwell. Generally, I find a small amount does me no harm but I normally stay away from highly processed, fake foods.

    There is apple pie, and there is apple pie. I saw a recipe on this site that called for 1 cup of sugar in a single apple pie. And, to keep the pie from being soggy 1 cup of flour! How would you have room for apples?!?

    My grandma's recipe calls for 2 Tbs. of each and she used cooking (crab) apples, not the ultra sweet store bought apples of today.

    IMO my grandma's pie is healthier.

    What about your grandma's pie makes it healthier? If I bake a pie using the extra flour and sugar, calculate the recipe and add the serving to my food diary while fitting it into my macro, micro, and calorie goals, why would a serving of your grandma's pie be healthier than the one I ate?

    Because apples are better than table sugar and flour IMO Also, it would taste a lot better and have a better texture.

    So, by no objective standard are they healthier and/or better. It's only a statement of your opinion?

    If I posted some medical or health sites that said apples were better than table sugar, would you change your opinion?

    I'd be interested in seeing how they determined the apples are "better" when I'm hitting my micro, macro, and calorie goals, sure. If you're just going to show me something that says apples are more nutritious than refined sugar, then duh.

    Then, yeah, just my opinion.
  • LeenaGee
    LeenaGee Posts: 749 Member
    Options
    Too late at night for this discussion over nothing. My money is on the humble apple. I'm off to bed. Goodnight. :)
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    last time I checked I don't think paleolithic people were eating apple pie and donuts, so you are definitely not doing paleo.

    Nice deflection on my question about processed foods...why are they "fake"? Does processing make them not real?

    My nanna died close on 30 years ago. Just reminiscing. And the last time I ate a donut would be 10 years ago but I still remember the taste as I smell the donuts cooking at a donut shop. Even if I ate it, it would be a tiny percentage of my regular food.

    A good bakery can produce an amazing apple pie. To me, my first example is fake.

    Pretty much 99% of the ingredients of the "fake" one are also in some shape or form in your homemade pie, i.e. flour, water, apples sugar. Writing it in ALL CAPS does server to make it look more scary though.
  • _John_
    _John_ Posts: 8,642 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »

    You have to admit you can almost smell the homemade apple pie. The first one sounds horrible.

    raisins in an apple pie? there's nothing scary about the ingredient list on that first pie to me...Heck, they even used palm oil instead of partially hydrogenated oil.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    _John_ wrote: »
    LeenaGee wrote: »

    You have to admit you can almost smell the homemade apple pie. The first one sounds horrible.

    raisins in an apple pie? there's nothing scary about the ingredient list on that first pie to me...Heck, they even used palm oil instead of partially hydrogenated oil.

    But it's written in caps and sometimes they even used scary scientific words like ascorbic acid, so it must be horrible!
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    _John_ wrote: »
    LeenaGee wrote: »

    You have to admit you can almost smell the homemade apple pie. The first one sounds horrible.

    raisins in an apple pie? there's nothing scary about the ingredient list on that first pie to me...Heck, they even used palm oil instead of partially hydrogenated oil.

    Yeah, raisins sounds horrible. I do sometimes add cranberries at Christmas though. I also think ginger and no cinnamon is odd. My grandma would not approve.

    If you want to really kick it up a knotch, put melted butter, brown sugar and roughly chopped walnuts and/or pecans under a basic apple pie, then flip it over onto a platter as soon as it comes out of the oven. It works pretty well with peach too, but apple is best.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ....and with the exception of the transfat issue (and transfats aren't in much anymore), very little has been provided.

    No, see, you don't get to do that, that's a total logic fail.

    Five years ago, trans fats weren't on the FDAs "Bad Foods" list and were found in countless foods - now they are on the "Bad Foods" list and increasingly rare.

    So as recently as two years ago, you would have been arguing that trans fat foods are "Good Food"...? Really?

    Neither you nor I have any idea what foods might end up in the same place 2, 5, 10 years from now. As soon as you say "with the exception of" you are accepting "yes, there ARE "bad" foods".
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ....and with the exception of the transfat issue (and transfats aren't in much anymore), very little has been provided.

    No, see, you don't get to do that, that's a total logic fail.

    Five years ago, trans fats weren't on the FDAs "Bad Foods" list and were found in countless foods - now they are on the "Bad Foods" list and increasingly rare.

    Neither you nor I have any idea what foods might end up in the same place 2, 5, 10 years from now. As soon as you say "with the exception of" you are accepting "yes, there ARE "bad" foods".

    are these the same government geniuses who told us fat was bad for us in the 80's...
  • madslacker
    Options
    Thank goodness someone started this thread since the original was deleted...
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ....and with the exception of the transfat issue (and transfats aren't in much anymore), very little has been provided.

    No, see, you don't get to do that, that's a total logic fail.

    Five years ago, trans fats weren't on the FDAs "Bad Foods" list and were found in countless foods - now they are on the "Bad Foods" list and increasingly rare.

    Neither you nor I have any idea what foods might end up in the same place 2, 5, 10 years from now. As soon as you say "with the exception of" you are accepting "yes, there ARE "bad" foods".

    are these the same government geniuses who told us fat was bad for us in the 80's...

    No. Removal of a food ingredient from the GRAS list is fundamentally different than making dietary suggestions.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ....and with the exception of the transfat issue (and transfats aren't in much anymore), very little has been provided.

    No, see, you don't get to do that, that's a total logic fail.

    Five years ago, trans fats weren't on the FDAs "Bad Foods" list - now they are. Neither you nor I have any idea what foods might end up in the same place 2, 5, 10 years from now.

    As soon as you say "with the exception of" you are accepting "yes, there ARE "bad" foods".

    The post that you are excerpting from acknowledged that there can be foods with ingredients that are harmful (and that it's not wrong to call foods that actively cause harm in any dosage "bad," although I prefer to use more precise terms). It also mentioned that there are some other examples (in the past) and certainly could be others now (although I trust the FDA more than some, obviously, so am not freaked out about aspartame, etc.).

    If you'd like to discuss the actual point in the post--that it's wrong to use "bad" for foods that are not actively harmful unless in an excessive dose, but are simply non nutrient dense or problematic in excess--I'm interested.

    And, yes, I am not taking a hardcore "no foods that can possibly be considered "bad" position." I'm arguing against the primary rationale for considering foods "bad" that I've seen on MFP--one that gets applied inconsistently by almost everyone who uses it.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ....and with the exception of the transfat issue (and transfats aren't in much anymore), very little has been provided.

    No, see, you don't get to do that, that's a total logic fail.

    Five years ago, trans fats weren't on the FDAs "Bad Foods" list and were found in countless foods - now they are on the "Bad Foods" list and increasingly rare.

    So as recently as two years ago, you would have been arguing that trans fat foods are "Good Food"...? Really?

    Neither you nor I have any idea what foods might end up in the same place 2, 5, 10 years from now. As soon as you say "with the exception of" you are accepting "yes, there ARE "bad" foods".
    There's bad foods because fly amanitas can be eaten and are harmful to you. That's basically what what you're saying boils down to.
  • MaternalCopulator
    MaternalCopulator Posts: 125 Member
    Options
    No.
  • kaotik26
    kaotik26 Posts: 590 Member
    Options
    I like that idea. I drives me crazy when someone claims that they 'quit' a food because it was 'bad' for weight loss. There's this whole need for certain nutrients in your body thing that everybody forgets.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    If you'd like to discuss the actual point in the post--that it's wrong to use "bad" for foods that are not actively harmful in any dose, but are simply non nutrient dense or problematic in excess--I'm interested.

    "Not actively harmful in any dose" was never a part of the original claims. :smile:

    Nor will it ever be, because *every* food has a dose at which it will cause medical problems. There is nothing that can't be over-consumed.
  • Megatoine
    Megatoine Posts: 137 Member
    Options
    jazmin220 wrote: »
    Can i petition MFP users to be less sensitive about the way others describe food? And also let people have their opinions? 'Cause it's not that serious.

    HALLELUJAH.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    If you'd like to discuss the actual point in the post--that it's wrong to use "bad" for foods that are not actively harmful in any dose, but are simply non nutrient dense or problematic in excess--I'm interested.

    "Not actively harmful in any dose" was never a part of the original claims. :smile:

    Nor will it ever be, because *every* food has a dose at which it will cause medical problems. There is nothing that can't be over-consumed.

    I have already revised the post because I realized it was poorly written. (My revision was before your response, in fact.)

    I expect you knew that, but wasted your time arguing a point that wasn't in dispute because you thought you'd score a point or two? At least that seems to be how you approach this discussion. It's too bad, since I actually am interested in your thoughts and exploring the different ideas.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ....and with the exception of the transfat issue (and transfats aren't in much anymore), very little has been provided.

    No, see, you don't get to do that, that's a total logic fail.

    Five years ago, trans fats weren't on the FDAs "Bad Foods" list and were found in countless foods - now they are on the "Bad Foods" list and increasingly rare.

    Neither you nor I have any idea what foods might end up in the same place 2, 5, 10 years from now. As soon as you say "with the exception of" you are accepting "yes, there ARE "bad" foods".

    are these the same government geniuses who told us fat was bad for us in the 80's...

    No. Removal of a food ingredient from the GRAS list is fundamentally different than making dietary suggestions.

    well when the FDA said that terminally ill cancer patients could not be given exemptions to use experimental/trial drugs that might cure them, because using said drugs might cause death; when, hello, they are terminally ill cancer patients and they are going to die from...cancer, I lost all faith in that organization.

    and again, I am highly suspicious of anything the government recommends.

    so I could care less what the FDA does or does not do with trans fats.

    and I would say dosage of said trans fats is going to be what matters most.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    LeenaGee wrote: »
    Here is a comparison between a supermarket apple pie and a homemade one.

    SUPERMARKET APPLE PIE:
    FILLING: SLICED APPLES, CORN SYRUP, WATER, BROWN SUGAR, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, CONTAINS 2% OR LESS OF: SPICE, SALT, CITRIC ACID, ASCORBIC ACID, PRESERVED WITH SODIUM BENZOATE.

    CRUST: WHEAT FLOUR, VEGETABLE SHORTENING (PALM OIL AND SOYBEAN OIL WITH MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES), WATER, CONTAINS 2% OR LESS OF: DEXTROSE, SALT, CITRUS FIBER, WHEY, BAKING SODA, BLEACHED WHEAT FLOUR WITH MALTED BARLEY, PRESERVED WITH POTASSIUM SORBATE.

    RANDOM HOMEMADE APPLE PIE

    Ingredients
    for the pastry
    • 250g plain flour, plus extra for dusting
    • 50g icing sugar
    • sea salt
    • 1 lemon
    • 125g cold butter, plus extra for greasing
    • 1 large egg, preferably free-range or organic
    • a splash of milk


    for the filling
    • 1 large Bramley cooking apple
    • 4 eating apples
    • 3 tablespoons Demerara or muscovado sugar
    • ½ teaspoon ground ginger
    • a handful of sultanas or raisins
    • ½ a lemon

    You have to admit you can almost smell the homemade apple pie. The first one sounds horrible.

    if I get an apple pie from the bakery is it bad/fake because processed????

    No, you can tell that it's bad/fake because its ingredients are in ALL CAPS.

    /science