There are 'BAD' foods

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...

Hornsby wrote: »

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)

__Wolf__ wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

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...

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?

Hornsby wrote: »

__Wolf__ wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

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.

SilverRose89 wrote: »

Nope. Considering food 'good' and 'bad' is what caused me to have issues with eating and feeling guilt when I'd eaten something 'bad'.

Food is food. Some has more nutritional value than others and making the decision about what to use your daily calories on is part of the challenge of weight loss (or gain, or maintenance). But I'm never gonna say any food is "bad" because it isn't.

Where's the 'Like' button?

I've been trying to undo decades of judging myself as 'good' or 'bad' based on the foods I ate. Last year, I started to eat mindfully, asking myself if I was really hungry, and if I really wanted that particular food. I lost some weight, but not enough, because my calorie intake was too high. Now with MFP, I try to eat mindfully within my chosen limits. One of these days, I'll probably have a slice of pizza (and a big salad) for dinner, when I really want it and can afford the calories. And I will enjoy the heck out of it.

Knowing that I can have any food prevents me from feeling restricted and defiant. I do keep certain foods out of the house. If I want ice cream, I'll go out and order a single scoop.

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.

the point is that context matters and you start the thread with this extreme notion of nothing but a junk food diet to make some point about foods being bad. this happens a lot on mfp and it's old.

Strange how throughout history curing and smoking meats has been the number one method of food preservation, yet someone has decided now with elevated cancer rates to focus on cured and smoked meats. Like the others said, follow the money. In 5 years someone will probably come out with a study saying we need more cured and smoked meats in our diet.

Think about the egg and coffee industries.

Anyway in my opinion, saying good or bad when talking about foods gives them an emotional quality that people trying to lose weight need to disassociate from. I try and look at all food as fuel, yes some is tastier than others, but I'm trying to weigh the cost/benefit of what I'm eating. Sure some days I'll have a dirty delicious hamburger, but I fit it in my calories and try watch the rest of my day to keep my macros from going too far out of whack.

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?

(snipping)

So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.

Why do we have expressions like "the sun rose at 7:15" when it didn't, in fact, rise at all, ever? There are lots of outdated, inaccurate or misleading concepts embodied in everyday speech.

Usually, that's not a problem.

On MFP, I think you have to read for nuance, sometimes, though: One sometimes encounters people who have a disordered relationship with food - mildly disordered, or severely. One will read that they ate a cookie (within calorie goal) so they think they'll gain weight because it had sugar, or that they ate some chips/french fries which are "bad" so clearly they're a bad person and a failure and might as well give up. (Yes, I have really read these things here.) One wants to convince these folks that foods are not "bad" in those ways.

Sometimes, you can't tell exactly how a person is thinking (in a nuanced sense) when they refer to food being "bad". YMMV, but I think it may be the careful response to think they may have those extreme thoughts in the back of their minds, and disabuse them of them if you can.

Lots of popular media pump up this nonsense as click-bait ("seven foods you should *never* eat!!!"), and supplement/"health" food purveyors sometimes do likewise. Why not provide a counterweight here? Most threads where people say "there are no bad food" contain plenty of "you can easily eat too much of certain low-nutrient-density foods, which is a bad plan". I don't typically see folks on the forum encouraging a diet full of low-nutrient-density foods without counterbalance (though I do see some eating that way).

But using everyday cliches - like "naughty but nice" - in everyday life? Not a problem (other than that non-cliches would be more fun).

I support the notion that some foods are unhealthy.

Hornsby wrote: »

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?

To be honest, my answer is yes. At my church, we pack food for kids at the local elementary school who have little to no food to eat on the weekends. Because of the nature of this undertaking (most of the food is processed and packaged), most of the food they're getting from us is low in nutrients. They're getting fed from a macronutrient standpoint, which is the most important thing, but that food is not doing much good from a micronutrient standpoint.