There are 'BAD' foods
Replies
-
I posted a thread when the bacon scare was made public, because I'd literally just bought it in bulk (Asda offer). I still ate it all though, and very yummy it was too :-)0
-
ClicquotBubbles wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
When did that happen? I must have totally missed it and I do read the Daily Fail. Surely it would have been a headline?
There is increasing scientific evidence that eating cured meats can significantly increase your risk for cancer.
Statistically significantly. Not necessarily significantly. The effect size is negligible, I believe.
Here is what I read: "50g portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk for colorectal cancer by about 18%, and that 100 g of red meat could increase the risk for colorectal cancer by 18%."
Now factor in the base rate of bowel cancer and math it out. For argument's sake, let's say you have an approximately 1% chance of getting bowel cancer. Eating 50g of processed meat or 100g of red meat EVERY DAY raises your risk to still less than a 2% chance.
I absolutely agree. A 1% increase in my risk of cancer is significant enough for me to not eat processed meats anymore. It may not be significant enough for you to take it out of your diet. We bring our values to our food. That was the point of my first post.
Did you look at how much you'd need to eat, and how frequently, and for how long? Two strips of bacon on Sunday with pancakes and syrup (real maple syrup, mind you, not that fake crap) is just not that bad.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »As comparison, smoking increases your risk of developing by 2500%. 2 pieces of bacon every day increases your risk by 18% (from 5 to 6%). Not that big of an increase
Well I totally agree but tell that to the UK Government - why scaremonger over a bacon butty? The Government has demonised processed meat, making it 'bad' though.
Because no government is governed by nutritional or medic experts. They get all their information through political filters and lobbiests. There is and always will be bias involved.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »As comparison, smoking increases your risk of developing by 2500%. 2 pieces of bacon every day increases your risk by 18% (from 5 to 6%). Not that big of an increase
Well I totally agree but tell that to the UK Government - why scaremonger over a bacon butty? The Government has demonised processed meat, making it 'bad' though.
Because no government is governed by nutritional or medic experts. They get all their information through political filters and lobbiests. There is and always will be bias involved.
My thoughts exactly, follow the money.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?
I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?
Those aren't bad foods, those are bad diets. Diets can be good or bad. Foods are not.
You could have a diet where all or most of your calories came from apples, pears, and oranges, and you would be extremely unhealthy. Not because those foods are "bad", but because the diet is horribly imbalanced - it would be extremely deficient in protein as well as essential fats and several vitamins.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »As comparison, smoking increases your risk of developing by 2500%. 2 pieces of bacon every day increases your risk by 18% (from 5 to 6%). Not that big of an increase
Well I totally agree but tell that to the UK Government - why scaremonger over a bacon butty? The Government has demonised processed meat, making it 'bad' though.
Because no government is governed by nutritional or medic experts. They get all their information through political filters and lobbiests. There is and always will be bias involved.
The pork lobbyists need to get their acts in gear, then.0 -
Hal Holbrook in All The President's Men?!? Gold Star?!?!?!?!?queenliz99 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »As comparison, smoking increases your risk of developing by 2500%. 2 pieces of bacon every day increases your risk by 18% (from 5 to 6%). Not that big of an increase
Well I totally agree but tell that to the UK Government - why scaremonger over a bacon butty? The Government has demonised processed meat, making it 'bad' though.
Because no government is governed by nutritional or medic experts. They get all their information through political filters and lobbiests. There is and always will be bias involved.
My thoughts exactly, follow the money.
0 -
Bacon scare happened not long after the revelations about Cameron #piggate0
-
no there are NOT bad foods. nor are the good foods.
there are foods with better and worse nutritional and satiety content, but that does not make them bad or good.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?
I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?
There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.
I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.
So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.
not everyone has expressions like "naughty but nice" because not everybody assigns a moral value to food. yes, eating nothing but "junk" would be bad as far as nutrition goes...but nobody is suggesting that...a lot of people like yourself seem to very black and white thinkers and small picture thinkers and unable to actually look at diet in the context of the whole.
there are no inherently "bad" foods...there are bad overall diets and good overall diets. yesterday i had some oats and eggs for breakfast, a homemade coconut curry with shrimp and loaded with vegetables for lunch some blueberries and an apple and a nice grilled salmon with brown rice and vegetables for dinner. i also had a couple of those small twix bars for a snack...in the context of my diet as a whole, those two little twixes are irrelevant.
also, a diet of nothing but vegetables and fruit would be pretty bad as well...obviously the foods are nutritious, but the diet itself would be incredibly unbalanced and missing a lot of other essential nutrition.0 -
If categorizing foods 'good' and 'bad' is something you need to do then you should totally do it.
But I have no intention of defering blame to the food, that's a personal perspective. A gun lying idle doesnt kill anyone; a shot of whiskey doesn't drive a car that rams into a tree and there is no singular food that will make you fat or dead.
Calories didn't make me fat; poor self control did and much like how another poster stated 'if there were no bad foods I'd never lose weight', if there were bad foods in my reality I'd never lose weight, because I'd just blame everything but my problem
0 -
ClicquotBubbles wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
When did that happen? I must have totally missed it and I do read the Daily Fail. Surely it would have been a headline?
There is increasing scientific evidence that eating cured meats can significantly increase your risk for cancer.
Statistically significantly. Not necessarily significantly. The effect size is negligible, I believe.
Here is what I read: "50g portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk for colorectal cancer by about 18%, and that 100 g of red meat could increase the risk for colorectal cancer by 18%."
Now factor in the base rate of bowel cancer and math it out. For argument's sake, let's say you have an approximately 1% chance of getting bowel cancer. Eating 50g of processed meat or 100g of red meat EVERY DAY raises your risk to still less than a 2% chance.
I absolutely agree. A 1% increase in my risk of cancer is significant enough for me to not eat processed meats anymore. It may not be significant enough for you to take it out of your diet. We bring our values to our food. That was the point of my first post.
Did you look at how much you'd need to eat, and how frequently, and for how long? Two strips of bacon on Sunday with pancakes and syrup (real maple syrup, mind you, not that fake crap) is just not that bad.
I did. Like I said, its not a guarantee that it will cause cancer but I dont enjoy bacon enough to increase my risk of cancer by consuming it.0 -
I also never speak or think of eating such foods as being naughty or being bad. I think of them as making choices. Sometimes I chose to eat more than I should. It is neither a good nor bad choice. It is just a choice.
0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »I'm on a medication that is on the same list as processed meat as a possible carcinogen (class1) which I take every day plus another med with a cancer risk and my chance of getting cancer is higher than if I wasn't but not significantly higher
I am on a medication that is known to be a trigger for T2Dm.0 -
Info for those who don't know about "naughty but nice": It was the strapline for an ad campaign for fresh cream cakes, written by Salman Rushdie (before Satanic Verses!), and it was very popular.0
-
Since these discussions always go to the extremes, let me ask this.
If there is a starving child that hasn't eaten in 3 days, are there any foods that are bad for them?0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?
I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?
There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.
I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.
So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.
not everyone has expressions like "naughty but nice" because not everybody assigns a moral value to food. yes, eating nothing but "junk" would be bad as far as nutrition goes...but nobody is suggesting that...a lot of people like yourself seem to very black and white thinkers and small picture thinkers and unable to actually look at diet in the context of the whole.
there are no inherently "bad" foods...there are bad overall diets and good overall diets. yesterday i had some oats and eggs for breakfast, a homemade coconut curry with shrimp and loaded with vegetables for lunch some blueberries and an apple and a nice grilled salmon with brown rice and vegetables for dinner. i also had a couple of those small twix bars for a snack...in the context of my diet as a whole, those two little twixes are irrelevant.
also, a diet of nothing but vegetables and fruit would be pretty bad as well...obviously the foods are nutritious, but the diet itself would be incredibly unbalanced and missing a lot of other essential nutrition.
As I have previously said 'naughty but nice' is a British saying that goes back eons so I suppose that means that the Brits have always put a moral value on food.
I eat a balanced diet but my point is that if I didn't severely restrict foods I know I don't need [which I refer to as 'bad] then I wouldn't get in the nutrients I need on my 1200 calories a day. Before anyone jumps on me about that - I am 5ft short and 67 years old so I can't eat more calories.
0 -
shadowfax_c11 wrote: »Nope. Sorry. I don't agree.
There are no bad foods. There are foods that are calorie dense and dense in nutrients that we need only a little of. But the food in and of itself in not bad.
We can and do however make bad choices. Sometimes on purpose. And that's okay too, None of us is perfect.
Couldn't have said it better myself.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?
I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?
There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.
I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.
So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.
not everyone has expressions like "naughty but nice" because not everybody assigns a moral value to food. yes, eating nothing but "junk" would be bad as far as nutrition goes...but nobody is suggesting that...a lot of people like yourself seem to very black and white thinkers and small picture thinkers and unable to actually look at diet in the context of the whole.
there are no inherently "bad" foods...there are bad overall diets and good overall diets. yesterday i had some oats and eggs for breakfast, a homemade coconut curry with shrimp and loaded with vegetables for lunch some blueberries and an apple and a nice grilled salmon with brown rice and vegetables for dinner. i also had a couple of those small twix bars for a snack...in the context of my diet as a whole, those two little twixes are irrelevant.
also, a diet of nothing but vegetables and fruit would be pretty bad as well...obviously the foods are nutritious, but the diet itself would be incredibly unbalanced and missing a lot of other essential nutrition.
As I have previously said 'naughty but nice' is a British saying that goes back eons so I suppose that means that the Brits have always put a moral value on food.
I eat a balanced diet but my point is that if I didn't severely restrict foods I know I don't need [which I refer to as 'bad] then I wouldn't get in the nutrients I need on my 1200 calories a day. Before anyone jumps on me about that - I am 5ft short and 67 years old so I can't eat more calories.
But those same foods might help someone else like me with a 3600 calorie goal hit their numbers...
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick. Food past their expiration date can be bad. Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
ETA: Fricken commas, I hate them.
If it dropped on the floor and I weighed it out I am eating it!0 -
Since these discussions always go to the extremes, let me ask this.
If there is a starving child that hasn't eaten in 3 days, are there any foods that are bad for them?
Your point is well taken. I apologize for being pedantic but there are actually foods you shouldn't feed someone who is malnourished (see: refeeding syndrome)0 -
-
Since these discussions always go to the extremes, let me ask this.
If there is a starving child that hasn't eaten in 3 days, are there any foods that are bad for them?
Your point is well taken. I apologize for being pedantic but there are actually foods you shouldn't feed someone who is malnourished (see: refeeding syndrome)
Does 3 days without eating guarantee malnourishment? Sorry, pedantic and all...
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?
I know that with CICO I could spend all or most of my daily calories on foods like full fat cheeses, cakes, pastries, biscuits [cookies], ice cream, deep fried chips [fries], sausages, fatty meat and still lose weight but at what cost to my health?
There are lots of foods that are 'bad' but obviously only when they are eaten in high volume and too frequently.
I eat 'bad' foods occasionally under the premise that 'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' and the fact that they stop me feeling deprived and becoming a self-righteous martyr.
So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.
not everyone has expressions like "naughty but nice" because not everybody assigns a moral value to food. yes, eating nothing but "junk" would be bad as far as nutrition goes...but nobody is suggesting that...a lot of people like yourself seem to very black and white thinkers and small picture thinkers and unable to actually look at diet in the context of the whole.
there are no inherently "bad" foods...there are bad overall diets and good overall diets. yesterday i had some oats and eggs for breakfast, a homemade coconut curry with shrimp and loaded with vegetables for lunch some blueberries and an apple and a nice grilled salmon with brown rice and vegetables for dinner. i also had a couple of those small twix bars for a snack...in the context of my diet as a whole, those two little twixes are irrelevant.
also, a diet of nothing but vegetables and fruit would be pretty bad as well...obviously the foods are nutritious, but the diet itself would be incredibly unbalanced and missing a lot of other essential nutrition.
As I have previously said 'naughty but nice' is a British saying that goes back eons so I suppose that means that the Brits have always put a moral value on food.
I eat a balanced diet but my point is that if I didn't severely restrict foods I know I don't need [which I refer to as 'bad] then I wouldn't get in the nutrients I need on my 1200 calories a day. Before anyone jumps on me about that - I am 5ft short and 67 years old so I can't eat more calories.
But those same foods might help someone else like me with a 3600 calorie goal hit their numbers...
You lucky so and so
0 -
Jokes aside the general consensus is moderation is the contributing factor for "good" or "Bad" not the food itself.
But to play the devil's advocate what of the foods, specifically ingredients and additives that are banned in certain countries and not in others? You could say that certain foods were actually considered "bad" enough to warrant being banned from entire nations. Maybe certain foods only behave negatively in the body based on its geographical status, or simply the way we perceive food is based upon the findings of the governing bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) USA, The Food Standards Agency (FSA) UK etc or simply it is the result of public sway.
Who can say? Hopefully someone more informed and patient than myself, as I don't have the energy or inclination to cite studies, link findings etc I just find it interesting that apparently there is absolutely no "Bad" food but are we not humans capable of error? has there never been a product removed from store shelves due to health risks discovered after said product was introduced to the population?
0 -
So you concur then, foods can only be judged in the context of the diet as a whole?suziecue20 wrote: »
0 -
Since these discussions always go to the extremes, let me ask this.
If there is a starving child that hasn't eaten in 3 days, are there any foods that are bad for them?
Your point is well taken. I apologize for being pedantic but there are actually foods you shouldn't feed someone who is malnourished (see: refeeding syndrome)
Does 3 days without eating guarantee malnourishment? Sorry, pedantic and all...
No but it is highly likely that someone who hasn't eaten for days is likely to see significant physiological issues with immediate refeeding at normal levels.0 -
I disagree that there are bad foods for everyone unless they are spoiled or poisoned.
I think there are poor dietary choices and that is mostly people restricting themselves to one food group/type instead of having a balanced moderate diet.
I think about foods in terms of nutritional benefit and how they fit with my diet as a whole. If I just eat one food it will not be as healthy as if I am eating foods from all the food groups. I keep it simple- eat enough calories but not too much, eat enough protein, get several servings of vegetables or fruits, try not to go too overboard with sodium, drink water with meals and when thirsty.
I've never said or heard naughty but nice referring to food in my life so that is a new one.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions