There are 'BAD' foods
Replies
-
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
Yay!!0 -
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
It puzzles me too why some people need to insist there are not bad foods. While I agree what might be bad for me, is fine for others, I think it's lying to myself to say no food is bad.
While eating at a deficit, you need the most nutrients you can getget with the calories you have available.0 -
In agreement with others saying that "bad" is subjective and not very helpful. We can certainly structure our overall diet poorly but I'm not going to die from the (very) occasional soda or strip of bacon. If I'm getting my overall nutritional needs met and I still have the calories left over, I'm going to have the pie if I want it.0
-
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
Foods have different nutrients, not just more or less. A piece of chicken is objectively better for getting in your protein than broccoli. That doesn't make chicken good and broccoli bad.
Context.
And.
Dosage.
0 -
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
I don't think anybody wouldn't admit this. Most people here who aren't into demonizing certain foods know and state that while there are no inherently bad foods there are definitely foods that are more nutritious than others. That's just common sense.0 -
Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »That would be an option, though right now we have specific food types and items to provide for them.
No. The way I see it, they're healthier with the food that they're being given (as opposed to no food), but the specific foods themselves are not all that healthy. In other words, it's like a continuum. No food is the worst, some food is better, but a solid foundation of mostly nutrient dense foods is what I call truly "healthy" for them.
0 -
Having a Keebler cookie or two a day doesn't make a bad diet, but it doesn't mean that a Keebler cookie is a healthy food. Some food are just better for you than others (more nutrients, vitamins, etc). Not too sure why some people don't want to admit that. *shrug*
But I don't feel like arguing about this for 100 pages, just wanted to tell OP that I agree with her.
0 -
bethclabburn wrote: »Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you
http://www.snopes.com/clear-foods-hot-dog-dna-study/0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I support the notion that some foods are unhealthy.
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.
How does that in any way demonstrate that any given food, in context of appropriate portions and balanced overall diet, is bad or unhealthy in and of itself?0 -
bethclabburn wrote: »Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you
I think you're confusing "gross to think about" and "bad for you."0 -
bethclabburn wrote: »Please go and YouTube how hot dogs are made and tell me how that's not bad for you
Didn't watch, already know how they're made, don't care. Hot dogs on an occasional basis, within the context of a balanced diet, aren't going to hurt anything. A diet consisting entirely of hot dogs is bad for you. Context and dosage.
Sorry for the people who believe that every single thing you put in your mouth all day, every day has to meet some certain standard of "healthiness" or "nutritiousness" or it's poisoning you. Does that also mean that you spend every waking hour in the gym or outside doing cardio because sitting on the couch watching TV is "bad"?stevencloser wrote: »
Foods have different nutrients, not just more or less. A piece of chicken is objectively better for getting in your protein than broccoli. That doesn't make chicken good and broccoli bad.
Context.
And.
Dosage.
Glad that some people get it.0 -
since im vegan i view dairy,eggs & animal parts to be bad and disgusting "foods"
anything vegan though is awesome ...some of it might not be nutritionally awesome for me but that does not mean i don't eat them or i demonize them
i eat candy,chocolate,ice cream,chips on a regular basis i find when i don't eat some i binge on them and binging is not healthy at all imo
most of my diet is veggies,fruit,grains,legumes,tofu...the rest of it is what you might consider "Bad" but i consider yummy and don't care0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »
This is a different issue from your OP. I don't consider food good or bad. I will sometimes make choices based on what my goals are, such as eating chicken breast because my protein is low, or a steak because protein and iron are low.
I feel that by labeling foods it's too easy to allow that to become personal. I ate a bad food, therefore I suck at dieting. It becomes a spiral of guilt and shame around food. This isn't the case for all people, but I have seen it often enough to know it happens.
I thought you were trying to get there in this life. Might improve your reincarnation statusnutmegoreo wrote: »
This is a different issue from your OP. I don't consider food good or bad. I will sometimes make choices based on what my goals are, such as eating chicken breast because my protein is low, or a steak because protein and iron are low.
I feel that by labeling foods it's too easy to allow that to become personal. I ate a bad food, therefore I suck at dieting. It becomes a spiral of guilt and shame around food. This isn't the case for all people, but I have seen it often enough to know it happens.
I thought you were trying to get there in this life. Might improve your reincarnation status
This I did not know.....hmmm....okay seems legit.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
So human DNA found in hot dogs and the meat in vegetarian ones are good for you? Probably not0 -
bethclabburn wrote: »
So human DNA found in hot dogs and the meat in vegetarian ones are good for you? Probably not
yep0 -
bethclabburn wrote: »
So human DNA found in hot dogs and the meat in vegetarian ones are good for you? Probably not
You might try actually reading the link.
Missing from the bevy of articles about human DNA in hot dogs (and meat in veggie dogs) was any explanation about how Clear Food determined those percentages, under which conditions testing occurred, whether any independent entities confirmed or duplicated the claims, and the methodology by which Clear Food arrived at their overall conclusions. Information on the site and Clear Food's Kickstarter provided no information about their testing methods, the credibility of their research, or (most important) what the company's specific objective might be.
...
Certain brands were deemed "problematic" at a rate of 14.4 percent, but again, no evidence was presented to substantiate that claim or establish the methodology as worthy of consideration. In short, while the results could bear out to some degree should testing be conducted in a scientific setting, Clear Food didn't appear to be an established laboratory presenting vetted data.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
You might try actually reading the link.
Missing from the bevy of articles about human DNA in hot dogs (and meat in veggie dogs) was any explanation about how Clear Food determined those percentages, under which conditions testing occurred, whether any independent entities confirmed or duplicated the claims, and the methodology by which Clear Food arrived at their overall conclusions. Information on the site and Clear Food's Kickstarter provided no information about their testing methods, the credibility of their research, or (most important) what the company's specific objective might be.
...
Certain brands were deemed "problematic" at a rate of 14.4 percent, but again, no evidence was presented to substantiate that claim or establish the methodology as worthy of consideration. In short, while the results could bear out to some degree should testing be conducted in a scientific setting, Clear Food didn't appear to be an established laboratory presenting vetted data.
Research quality/validity is usually considered irrelevant as long as the findings are consistent with a person's agenda.0 -
0
-
Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.0
-
I can't believe this conversation; I feel like people are being intentionally dense. Of course certain foods can be bad for you! Highly processed artificial foods, foods high in saturated fat, trans fat, HFCS can cause heart disease, type 2 diabetes, etc. Why do you think we have so much disease in our country? Now the whole of your diet is what influences your health--it may be okay to eat certain foods on occasion or in small amounts, but how you say that no foods are bad? If we take foods, strip away their nutrients, add all sorts of random artificial crap to make them look pretty and last forever, then these foods can cause health problems, i.e. they are 'bad'!0
-
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.0 -
The problem with terms like "good" and "bad" is that they're vague and ignore context and goals.
When I was underweight, pints of ice cream and cheese were good because I desperately needed calories. I still ate plenty of veggies and proteins, but I needed calorie dense foods to make up for what I couldn't eat if I relied on things that were more satiating. Now that I'm trying to drop a couple pounds, they aren't my go-to snacks.
I don't call shellfish a bad food just because I'm allergic to it. It's not inherently bad; it's deadly to me, but not a bad food in and of itself.
I'll concede that there are good and bad diets for particular goals, but I'm not going to go around demonizing foods. I can say that cupcake would be a bad choice for me right now without saying all cupcakes are always bad. And next week, when the cupcake fits in my goals, maybe, then the cupcake would be a good choice because it's yummy and satisfying and it is okay to enjoy food, even when that food is just helping me get my energy for the day and making me happy.0 -
susan100df wrote: »
It puzzles me too why some people need to insist there are not bad foods. While I agree what might be bad for me, is fine for others, I think it's lying to myself to say no food is bad.
While eating at a deficit, you need the most nutrients you can getget with the calories you have available.
Not really. You need sufficient nutrients. For many nutrients, as soon as you have enough, any additional is useless, and in a few cases, excess can be harmful.0 -
Mezzie1024 wrote: »The problem with terms like "good" and "bad" is that they're vague and ignore context and goals.
When I was underweight, pints of ice cream and cheese were good because I desperately needed calories. I still ate plenty of veggies and proteins, but I needed calorie dense foods to make up for what I couldn't eat if I relied on things that were more satiating. Now that I'm trying to drop a couple pounds, they aren't my go-to snacks.
I don't call shellfish a bad food just because I'm allergic to it. It's not inherently bad; it's deadly to me, but not a bad food in and of itself.
I'll concede that there are good and bad diets for particular goals, but I'm not going to go around demonizing foods. I can say that cupcake would be a bad choice for me right now without saying all cupcakes are always bad. And next week, when the cupcake fits in my goals, maybe, then the cupcake would be a good choice because it's yummy and satisfying and it is okay to enjoy food, even when that food is just helping me get my energy for the day and making me happy.
Boom.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
How does that in any way demonstrate that any given food, in context of appropriate portions and balanced overall diet, is bad or unhealthy in and of itself?0 -
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.
Absolutely true . This goes not only for medicine but science. To the degree that many "scientific" decisions are recognizably "science", not science, as in they're lobbyist wishes.0 -
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.
0 -
If it is the quantity and not the food itself, why is the food bad? Are exercises bad because enough leads to injury?0
-
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.
Was it even the government scaremongering our just stating facts? I saw a lot of horrible reporting on the IARC report. Reporting these days has a need to scare to draw views and clicks.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions