There are 'BAD' foods
Replies
-
suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
My point is that is a completely different thing than a *nutritional* position that eating something is bad. A vegan doesn't think chicken is a "bad food." They think that eating a chicken is doing wrong to the chicken as an individual. It's completely different.
Please don't loop in an ethical position on animal exploitation to support your argument that some foods are "bad" and evil.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I eat things quite often that I know I shouldn't (anything that has too much sodium). I have never called those foods bad. What I do recognize is that I didn't adhere to my allowed sodium level...my ankles swell...I put on 3lbs of water weight...then try to adhere the next day.
There are many foods that I shouldn't eat...doesn't make the food "bad"...just means that I can't eat it.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
In the red corner - 67 year old woman from Wales - in the blue corner lots of bodybuilders from America lol
You are from Wales and I am 55 and from the U.S., same difference. The good, the bad and the ugly. I eat all foods in moderation. I am at my goal weight and holding. Let go of the thought that there is bad food. Food that has spoiled or way past expiration and foods that cause anphalaxic death are bad foods. Live a little, life's too short.[/quote
Yes I know life's too short lol. I also eat ALL foods in moderation but I realise that some of them are not good for me - no big deal in my eyes. I admire your maintenance by the way and I hope you take that at face value.
,0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.0 -
Um, sorry no.
There are no bad foods. "Bad" in the context of food is just arbitrary value judgement.
I just ate 6 pot stickers and had sugar in my coffee today, I met my macros and am under my calories for the day. My health is no worse off had I skipped those things and had the calories in carrots.
I feel no guilt because eating never causes me to feel guilt, even if I am 1,000-2,000 calories over for the day. I'm not trying to cope with anything by lying to myself.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I eat things quite often that I know I shouldn't (anything that has too much sodium). I have never called those foods bad. What I do recognize is that I didn't adhere to my allowed sodium level...my ankles swell...I put on 3lbs of water weight...then try to adhere the next day.
There are many foods that I shouldn't eat...doesn't make the food "bad"...just means that I can't eat it.
Exactly, you RECOGNISE something isn't good for you. You don't call it bad but it certainly isn't good [for you] and you act accordingly - this is what I'm saying.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I used to consider foods as good and bad at some point in the past. In my experience, when I consumed a bad food I would feel bad about the choice and then bad about myself. Often leading to feelings of failure and then giving up. I hate for anyone to have to experience these emotions with regards to food. I have come to accept that for me, it makes no sense to assign values to foods. If you are able to assign labels to your food without having those feelings tied to it, then that is great. The reality is that for many people, they experience guilt and shame around their food choices. This is not a good mind frame to be approaching life from. So no, I eat my ice cream and I don't consider it a bad food. I enjoy a beer and I don't consider it a bad food.
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolutehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
In the red corner - 67 year old woman from Wales - in the blue corner lots of bodybuilders from America lol
You are from Wales and I am 55 and from the U.S., same difference. The good, the bad and the ugly. I eat all foods in moderation. I am at my goal weight and holding. Let go of the thought that there is bad food. Food that has spoiled or way past expiration and foods that cause anphalaxic death are bad foods. Live a little, life's too short.[/quote
Yes I know life's too short lol. I also eat ALL foods in moderation but I realise that some of them are not good for me - no big deal in my eyes. I admire your maintenance by the way and I hope you take that at face value.
,
What do you mean at face value? I am proud of the fact that I am finally at my goal weight. It took me many years to figure out how to do this. I used to eat low fat because the "experts" said fats were bad. Thinking fast foods were bad. Eating carbs were bad. I have found that eating too many calories are bad. I now have perfect blood tests and have finally lost that last 20 pounds that have taken me 30 years to lose. Nope, no bad food just too many calories.0 -
The 4-second rule is a myth.queenliz wrote:Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
but they'll both have ick.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/
The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.
0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.
this^^^^^.
If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.
Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.
For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?
0 -
The 4-second rule is a myth.queenliz wrote:Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
but they'll both have ick.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/
The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.
I use the 4 second rule a lot but I have definitely pushed this limit on this. Microbes do not scare me with exception of the ebola type germs and SARS. Ask me how I know that microbes do not scare me. I am living proof.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.
this^^^^^.
If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.
Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.
For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?
How is it hurting you?0 -
The 4-second rule is a myth.queenliz wrote:Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
but they'll both have ick.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/
The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.
In my own home, I'd eat pretty much anything off the floor. I might rinse it first, depending on if it's appropriate for washing and how many cat hairs are on it. At work, I wouldn't eat anything that hit the floor. Not even a jellybean if it was the only thing I would have to eat for the next 6 hours.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.
this^^^^^.
If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.
Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.
For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?
Yes, very hard to understand. Chocolate and sugar and powdered milk.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.
this^^^^^.
If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.
Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.
For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?
I have ice cream every night. It fits my calories and my macros, gives me protein and calcium and makes me happy. It is in no way 'bad'.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.
this^^^^^.
If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.
Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.
For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?
To paraphrase Shakespeare .... a food is neither good nor bad, the mind just makes it so. Explain in logical terms how that hot chocolate "is not good for" you. Does it give you macro and micro nutrients? Can you fit it into your caloric goals for the day? If so, how is it "bad"?0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.
this^^^^^.
If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.
Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.
For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?
I have ice cream every night. It fits my calories and my macros, gives me protein and calcium and makes me happy. It is in no way 'bad'.
Yeah.0 -
I don't normally eat donuts, but I do sometimes when they're provided as refreshments at my church. I don't necessarily feel bad about eating it, but even still I don't think of them as being "good" for me. They're a source of calories that doesn't feel me up much (which is good since a lot of the foods I eat are fairly filling and I'm trying to maintain on the higher end of my calorie maintenance). But otherwise, nutritionally I don't think they're any good for me (well, I'd say anyone but I guess that's a whole different point).0
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I used to consider foods as good and bad at some point in the past. In my experience, when I consumed a bad food I would feel bad about the choice and then bad about myself. Often leading to feelings of failure and then giving up. I hate for anyone to have to experience these emotions with regards to food. I have come to accept that for me, it makes no sense to assign values to foods. If you are able to assign labels to your food without having those feelings tied to it, then that is great. The reality is that for many people, they experience guilt and shame around their food choices. This is not a good mind frame to be approaching life from. So no, I eat my ice cream and I don't consider it a bad food. I enjoy a beer and I don't consider it a bad food.janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.
this^^^^^.
If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.
Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.
For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?
How is it hurting you?
How is what hurting me?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.
this^^^^^.
If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.
Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.
For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?
To paraphrase Shakespeare .... a food is neither good nor bad, the mind just makes it so. Explain in logical terms how that hot chocolate "is not good for" you. Does it give you macro and micro nutrients? Can you fit it into your caloric goals for the day? If so, how is it "bad"?
I love hot chocolate. It helps me feel sleepy. Getting a good nights sleep helps with reducing stress, which helps with weight loss and feeling more functional and coherent. By those standards, hot chocolate is good.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I used to consider foods as good and bad at some point in the past. In my experience, when I consumed a bad food I would feel bad about the choice and then bad about myself. Often leading to feelings of failure and then giving up. I hate for anyone to have to experience these emotions with regards to food. I have come to accept that for me, it makes no sense to assign values to foods. If you are able to assign labels to your food without having those feelings tied to it, then that is great. The reality is that for many people, they experience guilt and shame around their food choices. This is not a good mind frame to be approaching life from. So no, I eat my ice cream and I don't consider it a bad food. I enjoy a beer and I don't consider it a bad food.janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.
this^^^^^.
If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.
Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.
For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?
How is it hurting you?
How is what hurting me?
The hot chocolate. What is bad about it if it fits in your day?0 -
I don't think there are bad foods... but I think there are foods I must restrict if I am going to ever re-loose this weight. I'm one of those people who can't eat just one when it comes to pastries, candy, chips, etc. They are all empty calories and if I could have enough self control to not eat more than one piece I would have a piece... but for me, that just doesn't seem possible. So I stay away from those all together - or only have them when we are dining out (since you can't eat "more" of a meal unless you are willing to pay for it - and I'm not willing). So I don't think the foods are bad, but it is my inability to deal with my cravings for it that is bad.0
-
suziecue20 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I used to consider foods as good and bad at some point in the past. In my experience, when I consumed a bad food I would feel bad about the choice and then bad about myself. Often leading to feelings of failure and then giving up. I hate for anyone to have to experience these emotions with regards to food. I have come to accept that for me, it makes no sense to assign values to foods. If you are able to assign labels to your food without having those feelings tied to it, then that is great. The reality is that for many people, they experience guilt and shame around their food choices. This is not a good mind frame to be approaching life from. So no, I eat my ice cream and I don't consider it a bad food. I enjoy a beer and I don't consider it a bad food.janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.
this^^^^^.
If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.
Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.
For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?
How is it hurting you?
How is what hurting me?
The hot chocolate. You said it wasn't good for you. How is it harming you?0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
.nutmegoreo wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolute
But a lot of omnivores have no such ethical reservations and absolutely consider chicken breast a very "good" food. So whose definition is right?
Both but both are absolute and not vague in their stance.
So there is no absolute overall definition of good and bad foods because each individual chooses to assign good or bad to their foods. Is it really inconceivable that some people would choose to not assign value to their food choices?
No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
I don't approach it as I occasionally eat cookies but know I really shouldn't. I tend to be kind of rigid, so if I decided I shouldn't eat cookies I just wouldn't and if I ever did I'd feel bad about it.
Plus, I don't understand why I shouldn't ever eat a cookie, so I'd go mad trying to justify the rule to myself.
I do genuinely believe that it's better not to eat so many cookies that I gain weight or fail to eat a balanced, nutrient rich diet, so would concede that if I eat a lunch of cookies I probably shouldn't have. I don't think of a planned dessert that fits into a sensible, calorie-appropriate day as something I shouldn't eat or a "cheat" or the like.
You seem to be arguing that calling it "bad" and acknowledging we "shouldn't" eat them is more honest. I don't understand that way of thinking. If it works for you, whatever, but it doesn't work for me, and I think it actually makes things harder for many people, so why not say what I believe: nothing wrong with an occasional cookie. Just eat an overall nutritious diet and don't overeat.
this^^^^^.
If I felt I shouldn't eat something, I just wouldn't eat it. Why would you ever eat something that would make you feel bad about yourself? That seems like a path to self-loathing to me. Just don't eat it if you feel that way. There. Problem solved.
Plan your treats and enjoy them. Nothing wrong with that at all.
For goodness sake I have no self-loathing. If I can fit the baddies into my calories I do but I know darn well that the options hot chocolate I like before bed [full of artificial this and that] is not good for me - is that so hard to understand?
I understand it, but I disagree with it. I don't think it IS "not good" for you, as long as the rest of your diet is sufficient.
Unless something in the food is actively harmful to you, the only other risk from eating the food would be malnutrition. Malnutrition would encompass overnutrition (e.g. caloric surplus or vitamin overdose) or undernutrition (e.g. vitamin or macronutrient deficiency).
If your overall diet is still meeting your nutritional and caloric needs without malnourishment, and nothing in the hot chocolate is toxic or allergenic to you, it's neither good nor bad. You won't be any less healthy because you had the hot chocolate instead of, say, a salad, nor will you be any more healthy. It was simply one of a million choices you made that had no bearing on your health.0 -
I don't think there are bad foods... but I think there are foods I must restrict if I am going to ever re-loose this weight. I'm one of those people who can't eat just one when it comes to pastries, candy, chips, etc. They are all empty calories and if I could have enough self control to not eat more than one piece I would have a piece... but for me, that just doesn't seem possible. So I stay away from those all together - or only have them when we are dining out (since you can't eat "more" of a meal unless you are willing to pay for it - and I'm not willing). So I don't think the foods are bad, but it is my inability to deal with my cravings for it that is bad.
It has taken me two years to be able to have ice cream in the house without consuming the whole tub. Self control gets better with time and practice.
0 -
The 4-second rule is a myth.queenliz wrote:Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
but they'll both have ick.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/
The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.
I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years.rankinsect wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.
Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »
;suziecue20 wrote: »Good and bad are not vague terms, they are absolute. You can never have good without bad.
Then go ask a vegan and a keto dieter if they consider an all-natural, free-range organic chicken breast as good or bad. See how absolute your absolute is.
One man's meat is another man's poison - but a vegan's 'bad' is absolute to them
Vegans don't avoid chicken breast for nutritional reasons. This is kinda comparing apples and oranges. If I offered chocolate of an unknown origin to someone who was strongly opposed to slave labor (the kind involved in harvesting chocolate), they would turn it down. But they aren't saying chocolate is bad -- they're simply taking an ethical position on the chocolate.
Oh please I do know that. Their ethical position is that eating chicken is bad = absolutehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
In the red corner - 67 year old woman from Wales - in the blue corner lots of bodybuilders from America lol
You are from Wales and I am 55 and from the U.S., same difference. The good, the bad and the ugly. I eat all foods in moderation. I am at my goal weight and holding. Let go of the thought that there is bad food. Food that has spoiled or way past expiration and foods that cause anphalaxic death are bad foods. Live a little, life's too short.[/quote
Yes I know life's too short lol. I also eat ALL foods in moderation but I realise that some of them are not good for me - no big deal in my eyes. I admire your maintenance by the way and I hope you take that at face value.
,
What do you mean at face value? I am proud of the fact that I am finally at my goal weight. It took me many years to figure out how to do this. I used to eat low fat because the "experts" said fats were bad. Thinking fast foods were bad. Eating carbs were bad. I have found that eating too many calories are bad. I now have perfect blood tests and have finally lost that last 20 pounds that have taken me 30 years to lose. Nope, no bad food just too many calories.
Sorry, 'lost in translation' -by at face value I mean in the spirit it is meant, i.e. with sincerity.0 -
The 4-second rule is a myth.queenliz wrote:Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
but they'll both have ick.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/
The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.
I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years.rankinsect wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.
Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.
Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
The 4-second rule is a myth.queenliz wrote:Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
but they'll both have ick.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/
The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.
I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years.rankinsect wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.
Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.
Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!
It weirded me out when I was in the USA and there were warnings on cookie dough and the like not to eat it raw because of eggs. Here, no one even bothers to warn you about that and families go to war over who gets to lick the beaters after making cake batter.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
The 4-second rule is a myth.queenliz wrote:Unrefrigerated foods left out on the counter are bad and may make you sick.
Foods past their expiration date can be bad.
Food dropped on the floor not so bad, if you use the 4 second rule.
Hard food (crackers) pick up fewer microbes & less dirt than wet food (lunchmeat),
but they'll both have ick.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule-minimyth/
The good news is that in the vast panoply of microbes, there aren't many that can hurt us.
And of those, there aren't many that can survive the extreme acid environment of our stomachs.
But the ones that survive can be pretty nasty.
I've picked up a pill or hard candy off the floor & eaten it. Wouldn't do it with eggs.
I like to live dangerously. I lick the fork clean after I've beaten raw eggs every single time. Have done it for years.rankinsect wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »No it isn't inconceivable that 'some' people would choose to not assign value to their food choices but deep down they know when they've eaten something they shouldn't, they just won't admit it, but hey if it works for them fine.
The only foods I really shouldn't ever eat are things that are spoiled or toxic. Anything else is a matter of context. A food I shouldn't eat today (because it can't fit into my nutritional goals for today) may be perfectly fine tomorrow when it can. The food is neither bad nor good - it merely fits or doesn't fit my specific goals on a particular day.
Peanut butter is a perfect example for me. I absolutely love the stuff, could easily sit down with a jar and a spoon and wreck a day's calories (and blow up my fat macros) pretty quickly. That doesn't mean peanut butter is "bad". I recognize it as what it is - a very calorie-dense food which I need to enjoy judiciously and in moderation if I want to meet my calorie goals. If I've had a heavy calorie day, I skip it; if I've got room for it, I go for it and enjoy every delicious bite. Some days it fits, some days it don't - but I never consider that in terms of peanut butter being a good or bad food.
Ooooh! I eat raw cookie dough, that is bad!!
I LOVE cookie dough. It's the main reason I make cookies.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
- 427 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