There are 'BAD' foods
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »susan100df wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »So come on, admit it folks, there are 'bad' foods.
I have no problem admitting it. I call foods good and bad all the time. Bad, crap, junk. I've never had anyone IRL ask we what I meant by those terms. They know. We all know.
Only on MFP have I encountered the militant phenomenon of "no food is bad". I think it's whacky thinking. Not determining that some foods are bad is how I got into this predicament to begin with. And if I have a prayer of maintaining my loss, I have to continue thinking that some foods are bad for me.
Are there obese people that gained their weight via vegetables? I've never met one.
Eating too much is how I got fat.
And I gained lots of weight eating foods most would not call bad (and which I continue to eat in better quantities). This includes by adding butter and/or olive oil to vegetables (I have always eaten lots of veg), but also just basically meat, starchy carbs (generally homemade), stuff like that. It's easy to made foods high cal.
I started gaining weight, in fact, when on a "all natural" food kick, where I didn't worry about how much I ate but was super picky about making everything from scratch. I probably bought into the "some foods are bad" the most at that time.
Now I think the issue isn't the food, but how much you eat, although I mostly eat in a similar way because I like cooking and eating lots of veg, etc. I don't understand why thinking ice cream is bad (or bad for me) is necessary or even helpful to not gaining weight. I don't overeat ice cream, but even if I did I'd simply have to understand that eating too much ice cream is bad for me.
(As is eating too much of anything. Some things just don't have that many calories, so are hard to overeat. Well, unless you load them up with higher cal ingredients.)
At my thinnest, I was subsisting on McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, pizza and Little Debbie snacks! Maybe I should cut out the fruits and veggies and go back to that ...
The very fact that you mention these foods in such a response suggests that you consider them bad.
No, It suggests these are the foods people generally label as "bad." Just because I don't think they are (I still eat them, just less often) doesn't mean I live in a cave.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 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.
I do agree with you. You're more specific. But you mean the same thing as everyone who says "there are no bad foods" since all they mean is that eating a little to some of it as part of an overall balanced and healthy diet is fine.
I still call them bad though because I differentiate between my main daily diet and my 'naughty' snacks.
Serious question, why do you have to label them naughty? Why not just "snacks"? And what is naughty about it if it fits in your day and doesn't keep you from eating your nutritious foods?
Valid question -Because if I didn't Steven I would eat too much of them too many times and my MFP plan would go flying out of the window - truthful answer.
So calling a food "naughty" is simply a way to keep yourself from over-eating it? It has no meaning beyond that?
I could easily over-eat pineapple if I didn't set goals for myself -- I find it so delicious. Does that mean you'd agree that it's accurate to call pineapple a "naughty" food?
If I felt I could over-eat pineapple [which I actually can take or leave] then yes to me it would be naughty.
If I called every food I could over-eat "naughty" then the only "nice" foods left would be completely unpalatable to me, and the "naughtiest" foods out there would be milk and cheese.
I'm the same way.
We started with the statement that everyone knows some foods are naughty, but it's okay to eat them occasionally.
Now anything you can overeat is naughty.
So my dinner last night -- roasted chicken breast, sweet potatoes, beets, cauliflower (with some olive oil) -- is all naughty, because I only choose to eat foods I think are tasty. (I also avoid overeating by choosing to be mindful as to how much I eat.)
The claim that "naughty"=anything you can overeat is inconsistent with the claim that we should only eat "naughty" foods occasionally. Unless the idea is that we should strive to eat mostly not palatable foods and if so, no thanks.
If the bolded is going to be the criteria, then raw salmon (sashimi) is one of the "naughtiest" foods on the face of the earth, despite being rich in protein and packed with Omega-3s. Because I could easily sit down and scarf two pounds of it without blinking an eye!
Good Lord, yes! I love salmon sashimi. Especially with pickled ginger.
It's a good thing it's so expensive because when I eat it, it's like it falls into another dimension. It never so much as takes the edge off of hunger for me.
Protip: All-you-can-eat sushi bar.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »sunandmoons 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?
Baddies??? The hot chocolate I am drinking has 30% calcium, and 90 calories. Again not bad or what you call (baddies) I think youve ran this thread to the point of begging for attention.
That must be some gritty hot chocolate.
??Do you find milk and yogurt and cheese gritty?0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
Let me lay this out a second time. When I was at my strictest with weight loss and foods, I was regularly breaking into tears in restaurants while I was out with my family. I was regularly having breakdowns in my friends' driveways because I didn't know what kind of snacks they had laid out or did and knew that I couldn't moderate myself well with them. I was not in a good place and dieting, good/bad foods, were seriously affecting my mental health.
Fortunately, my therapist saw it and insisted that I stop the diet for a while until we could work through what was going on. We also worked out some things so that I could continue losing weight without it becoming a full blown eating disorder (closing my diary at the time and accepting the foods that I eat as being neutral rather than good or bad).
I was completely convinced by the dieting industry and posts like this one that what I was going through was normal and I would just have to suffer through it until the end. If not for my therapist, I would have continued down that path. Knowing my history, I likely would have killed myself along the way.
Every time you put down or belittle people for not believing that foods are good or bad (and many people in this thread have made it a point to do so) this is what you believe is a healthy thing for me.
Stop it.
This, to me, is why *on MFP* some of us push back on the "bad foods" rhetoric. There are people here who have a disordered relationship with food, who feel their food inherently has some moral value, and is somehow a measure of their human worth. Even when they're not the ones posting, they can be the ones reading. This is a small segment of the MFP population, but a larger segment than we encounter in real life, and they deserve our attention.
. . . because this:lemurcat12 wrote: »
I really think that logical, unemotional thinking about food is something to be encouraged. From that perspective, I just don't understand what's wrong with eating some ice cream in appropriate portions, so the "bad" language for it makes no sense to me.
Yes. Language has power. Because I'm one of those icky relativists, I think it only has meaning when we *share* a meaning . . . which we rarely do, beyond the approximate. Therefore, it pays to be careful and thoughtful about audience and impact, not just what we mean when we think a word. I *do* think that trying to be helpful to as wide a range of people as possible *does* have a moral value, especially in a place like this.
For some people, the concept of "bad foods" is helpful. Popular culture gives them endless reinforcement for various loosely-common definitions of "bad foods". I'm happy for them to use those definitions in their heads as a help. For some other people, the concept of "bad foods" is *severely* destructive, and the pop-culture views are bashing their bruises. Here, I think it's helpful to provide some counterweight in the MFP forums.
Throughout this thread, Dianne's and many others' more-nuanced contributions are ignored, in favor of a cutsie-snarky back & forth, cartoon characterizations of others' views by people who probably know better, arguments about specific foods, etc. 'Cause, y'know, y'all are having fun. Swell.
0 -
ekahnicole wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Fair point. But it at least suggests the general understanding of what is meant by 'bad foods'.
Understanding what someone means when they use that terminology is not the same as agreeing with that mindset.
There are foods that are generally considered bad, but if you have a healthy relationship with food there's no reason to categorize them as such. Of course I understand some people need to or find it beneficial, but guilt and added stress because you feel bad every time you've eaten something "bad" sounds very counter productive. Life's too short to have such a negative view of tasty things that can still be a part of a healthy diet.
Not everyone feels bad when they eat 'bad food'.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »suziecue20 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.
I do agree with you. You're more specific. But you mean the same thing as everyone who says "there are no bad foods" since all they mean is that eating a little to some of it as part of an overall balanced and healthy diet is fine.
I still call them bad though because I differentiate between my main daily diet and my 'naughty' snacks.
Serious question, why do you have to label them naughty? Why not just "snacks"? And what is naughty about it if it fits in your day and doesn't keep you from eating your nutritious foods?
Valid question -Because if I didn't Steven I would eat too much of them too many times and my MFP plan would go flying out of the window - truthful answer.
So calling a food "naughty" is simply a way to keep yourself from over-eating it? It has no meaning beyond that?
I could easily over-eat pineapple if I didn't set goals for myself -- I find it so delicious. Does that mean you'd agree that it's accurate to call pineapple a "naughty" food?
If I felt I could over-eat pineapple [which I actually can take or leave] then yes to me it would be naughty.
If I called every food I could over-eat "naughty" then the only "nice" foods left would be completely unpalatable to me, and the "naughtiest" foods out there would be milk and cheese.
I'm the same way.
We started with the statement that everyone knows some foods are naughty, but it's okay to eat them occasionally.
Now anything you can overeat is naughty.
So my dinner last night -- roasted chicken breast, sweet potatoes, beets, cauliflower (with some olive oil) -- is all naughty, because I only choose to eat foods I think are tasty. (I also avoid overeating by choosing to be mindful as to how much I eat.)
The claim that "naughty"=anything you can overeat is inconsistent with the claim that we should only eat "naughty" foods occasionally. Unless the idea is that we should strive to eat mostly not palatable foods and if so, no thanks.
If the bolded is going to be the criteria, then raw salmon (sashimi) is one of the "naughtiest" foods on the face of the earth, despite being rich in protein and packed with Omega-3s. Because I could easily sit down and scarf two pounds of it without blinking an eye!
Good Lord, yes! I love salmon sashimi. Especially with pickled ginger.
It's a good thing it's so expensive because when I eat it, it's like it falls into another dimension. It never so much as takes the edge off of hunger for me.
Protip: All-you-can-eat sushi bar.
If I lived near one where I could trust the quality of the food ...
Sashimi loses its attraction when I can smell 'stanky fish' on opening the front door 0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Not everyone feels bad when they eat 'bad food'.
Well obviously, I'm not speaking in absolutes. But my point is that labeling it generally serves no purpose whether you feel bad or not, and if you DO feel bad, that's not helping.0 -
The problem with calling food "bad" is it's a subjective judgement. One person may say that milk is a bad food and another may say that it's a good food. You may try to define what makes a food good or bad. You might say that twinkies are bad for you because they are calorically high and have a lower nutritional value but if you were struggling from a dangerously low blood sugar and the only thing you had around was a twinkie, wouldn't the fact that it's high and sugar be a good thing? Also, nuts are really high in calories, does that mean that they are a bad food? It seems like the parameters we set on what makes food "bad" are too subjective and we're assigning a judgement to the food devoid of any kind of context. If I have eaten all the calories I'm supposed to eat for the day and decide to binge on a "good" food, wouldn't that make it bad in context?0
-
Next thread- foods which are actually black or white in colour.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
This 100%. I too don't think I know anyone IRL who would argue against the idea that bad foods exist.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are bad foods.
LOL And I feel the exact opposite.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are not bad foods.
So which foods are bad? Name them and there's a thousand people who don't feel that way and another thousand who will tell you some of the foods you think are "good" are bad.
The fact we can argue about this for so many pages, with a good dose of woo in here too to argue for "bad" foods, shows there is no such thing. It's just as arbitrary as clean and all that other stuff where ten people will have ten different ideas of what it means.
Did you see my post about people using two different meanings of "bad" and talking past each other.
I'm curious if you think everyone would agree that foods fall in the second meaning, which is what is being rejected. (I'd personally give you transfats, which I avoid.)
Obviously everyone agrees that some foods aren't that nutritious. To me, that doesn't make them bad. They might be very good in the right circumstances, in fact (if they are tasty).
Or my argument that most people just don't care enough to start an argument on the street about this kind of stuff.
This is me. When I hear people say things like"this is so good but it's probably not healthy at all" I cringe on the inside but I don't say anything. The break room at work or my sister's birthday dinner isn't the place to start a debate on whether foods are unhealthy or to lecture family members on the fact that we don't eat any one food in a vacuum and context and dosage matter. People are there for other reasons and don't want to have that conversation so I'm not going to go there.
On this thread, however, that debate is precisely why we're here so I'll talk about it.
Also, consider that most of the general population has never been presented with the idea that context and dosage matter and there is no "unhealthy" or "bad" food because none are consumed in a vacuum. So of course, you won't here them repeat it if they've never heard it.
Perhaps, if presented with the argument, many people would be accepting of the concept.
On that last note, it seems to me that as participation within the forum increases (more posts, longer memberships...), the ratio of "no bad foods" people to "there are bad foods" people also increases.
That'd be an interesting statistic to gather...0 -
-
ekahnicole wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Not everyone feels bad when they eat 'bad food'.
Well obviously, I'm not speaking in absolutes. But my point is that labeling it generally serves no purpose whether you feel bad or not, and if you DO feel bad, that's not helping.
Those are absolutes. I think it can serve a purpose. I also think that feeling bad when you eat bad food can be helpful to some. Guilt can be a powerful motivation.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
Let me lay this out a second time. When I was at my strictest with weight loss and foods, I was regularly breaking into tears in restaurants while I was out with my family. I was regularly having breakdowns in my friends' driveways because I didn't know what kind of snacks they had laid out or did and knew that I couldn't moderate myself well with them. I was not in a good place and dieting, good/bad foods, were seriously affecting my mental health.
Fortunately, my therapist saw it and insisted that I stop the diet for a while until we could work through what was going on. We also worked out some things so that I could continue losing weight without it becoming a full blown eating disorder (closing my diary at the time and accepting the foods that I eat as being neutral rather than good or bad).
I was completely convinced by the dieting industry and posts like this one that what I was going through was normal and I would just have to suffer through it until the end. If not for my therapist, I would have continued down that path. Knowing my history, I likely would have killed myself along the way.
Every time you put down or belittle people for not believing that foods are good or bad (and many people in this thread have made it a point to do so) this is what you believe is a healthy thing for me.
Stop it.
This, to me, is why *on MFP* some of us push back on the "bad foods" rhetoric. There are people here who have a disordered relationship with food, who feel their food inherently has some moral value, and is somehow a measure of their human worth. Even when they're not the ones posting, they can be the ones reading. This is a small segment of the MFP population, but a larger segment than we encounter in real life, and they deserve our attention.
. . . because this:lemurcat12 wrote: »
I really think that logical, unemotional thinking about food is something to be encouraged. From that perspective, I just don't understand what's wrong with eating some ice cream in appropriate portions, so the "bad" language for it makes no sense to me.
Yes. Language has power. Because I'm one of those icky relativists, I think it only has meaning when we *share* a meaning . . . which we rarely do, beyond the approximate. Therefore, it pays to be careful and thoughtful about audience and impact, not just what we mean when we think a word. I *do* think that trying to be helpful to as wide a range of people as possible *does* have a moral value, especially in a place like this.
For some people, the concept of "bad foods" is helpful. Popular culture gives them endless reinforcement for various loosely-common definitions of "bad foods". I'm happy for them to use those definitions in their heads as a help. For some other people, the concept of "bad foods" is *severely* destructive, and the pop-culture views are bashing their bruises. Here, I think it's helpful to provide some counterweight in the MFP forums.
Throughout this thread, Dianne's and many others' more-nuanced contributions are ignored, in favor of a cutsie-snarky back & forth, cartoon characterizations of others' views by people who probably know better, arguments about specific foods, etc. 'Cause, y'know, y'all are having fun. Swell.
As an added thought - there is a subconscious effect when words with positive or negative connotations are used even when the person using, hearing, or reading them does not think they are taking them that way. That is why things like affirmations (or criticisms) can have an effect even when the person initially is indifferent to or does not believe them.
Best to keep value judgements away from things that don't warrant them.0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »Weightloss businesses such as Weightwatchers and Slimming World have no problem defining some foods as 'bad' - Slimming World by categorising some calorie dense foods as 'syns' [sin = bad]. The new Weightwatchers plan by penalising the dieter by upping the points on foods they deem undesirable [bad]. I am sure both these organisations employ qualified nutritionists.
And want you to purchase their products.
Totally missed the point!
This is ironic. I think YOU are the one missing the point. You are taking your direction from both for profit businesses, like WW and Slimming World, as well as not for profit but certainly not totally unbiased organizations like the article you listed earlier stating that eating bacon every day causes cancer.
You seem to want to form all your opinions based on (compelling) statements from large organizations (which certainly have bias and ulterior motives to convince people to follow their direction) and hold those as absolute truths. Many people in this thread have pointed out to you that the subjectivity and variability in those opinions makes them largely unhelpful as clear, defining terms which can be objectively applied across a population.
It's fine if you want to call things "naughty" and use that as a means to help control your food intake. What is not fine is insisting that the rest of us are somehow deluded or dishonest if we don't also use that terminology to describe our own food choices.
Other people feel as I do, so it's not 'the rest of us' but OK you don't use my terminology and I wont use yours.
You are largely ignoring the majority of my post and fixating on one phrase in one sentence so that you can leave a sound bite response and move on. That seems to be a recurring theme throughout this thread, as @AnnPT77 points out...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ekahnicole wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Not everyone feels bad when they eat 'bad food'.
Well obviously, I'm not speaking in absolutes. But my point is that labeling it generally serves no purpose whether you feel bad or not, and if you DO feel bad, that's not helping.
Those are absolutes. I think it can serve a purpose. I also think that feeling bad when you eat bad food can be helpful to some. Guilt can be a powerful motivation.
Or an equally powerful demotivator.0 -
If your food is bad, just give it a spanking. Then sit it in timeout for 10 minutes. After that, it should be good. And you are free to eat it.0
-
There are bad foods. These are the foods that send you to the hospital due to being an allergen or giving you food poisoning. They were very bad foods indeed. For me, it's tomatoes. Tomatoes are a very bad food. I will die if I eat them raw. It will be a painful death. Tomatoes are a very bad food...for me.0
-
suziecue20 wrote: »I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?
The human capacity for guilt, perhaps?
I'm in the "no bad foods" camp. With a mainly healthy diet, everything can be enjoyed. Some things just need to be enjoyed in moderation.
0 -
The word "bad" doesn't belong in food vocabulary unless if you imported it from hell.
Unhealthy is the right word. Like it or not there are plenty of unhealthy foods on this planet. How you handle those foods is up to you. Some people on here don't believe you need to cut out unhealthy food. I believe in committing to healthy eating, but I'm not going to judge a person for their own preferences. There are a lot of different opinions on food and you are more than welcome to believe what you want.
Margarine and Splenda can burn in hell.0 -
shadowfax_c11 wrote: »Nope. Sorry. I don't agree.
There are no bad foods. There are foods that are calorie dense and dense in nutrients that we need only a little of. But the food in and of itself in not bad.
We can and do however make bad choices. Sometimes on purpose. And that's okay too, None of us is perfect.
I'm coming in late and have not read any responses other than the first, but the first is what I agree with. There are no "bad" foods. There are foods with less nutrition or more nutrition, there are foods that are very dense in calories, there are foods that we need very little off and there are foods that make us feel good both physically and/or mentally. However, there are no foods that are inherently "bad" or "good." Everyone must choose for themselves what they would like to include in their diet. However, what I deem to be 'good' for me will always be different than what anyone else deems to be 'good' for them and that is absolutely fine.0 -
I don't know why the right word wasn't coming to mind at the time I typed that. But obviously, I meant "fill". And either way, I agree that it's a good thing I'm not getting all that filled up on it in church anyway.Carlos_421 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »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).
Well, I should hope not...in church and all.
I saw that too but left it alone. lol
0 -
This is true, and personally it's exemplified for me in the example I gave of eating donuts. I think of it as being bad food, but that doesn't mean I experience guilt after eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ekahnicole wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Fair point. But it at least suggests the general understanding of what is meant by 'bad foods'.
Understanding what someone means when they use that terminology is not the same as agreeing with that mindset.
There are foods that are generally considered bad, but if you have a healthy relationship with food there's no reason to categorize them as such. Of course I understand some people need to or find it beneficial, but guilt and added stress because you feel bad every time you've eaten something "bad" sounds very counter productive. Life's too short to have such a negative view of tasty things that can still be a part of a healthy diet.
Not everyone feels bad when they eat 'bad food'.
0 -
Mischievous_Rascal 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?
The human capacity for guilt, perhaps?
I'm in the "no bad foods" camp. With a mainly healthy diet, everything can be enjoyed. Some things just need to be enjoyed in moderation.
You may be on to something.
It seems that humanity has a natural tendency for assuming guilt.
Consider that "naughty" is used not only in reference to sexual immorality but also commonly in reference to what goes on in the privacy of marriage, which even The Bible describes as "undefiled."0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ekahnicole wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Not everyone feels bad when they eat 'bad food'.
Well obviously, I'm not speaking in absolutes. But my point is that labeling it generally serves no purpose whether you feel bad or not, and if you DO feel bad, that's not helping.
Those are absolutes. I think it can serve a purpose. I also think that feeling bad when you eat bad food can be helpful to some. Guilt can be a powerful motivation.
Or an equally powerful demotivator.
I'd say unequally powerful. When do people give up? When they feel great or when they don't?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ekahnicole wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Not everyone feels bad when they eat 'bad food'.
Well obviously, I'm not speaking in absolutes. But my point is that labeling it generally serves no purpose whether you feel bad or not, and if you DO feel bad, that's not helping.
Those are absolutes. I think it can serve a purpose. I also think that feeling bad when you eat bad food can be helpful to some. Guilt can be a powerful motivation.
Or an equally powerful demotivator.
I'd say unequally powerful. When do people give up? When they feel great or when they don't?
Indeed.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, maybe not everyone I know would use the term "bad food". But I'm pretty sure people I know who buy mostly organic and non-GMO food would refer to foods such as pop tarts and other artificially colored foods as being "bad". And I'm also pretty sure I know a lot of people who would use the term "junk food" as well.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
This 100%. I too don't think I know anyone IRL who would argue against the idea that bad foods exist.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are bad foods.
LOL And I feel the exact opposite.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are not bad foods.
So which foods are bad? Name them and there's a thousand people who don't feel that way and another thousand who will tell you some of the foods you think are "good" are bad.
The fact we can argue about this for so many pages, with a good dose of woo in here too to argue for "bad" foods, shows there is no such thing. It's just as arbitrary as clean and all that other stuff where ten people will have ten different ideas of what it means.
Did you see my post about people using two different meanings of "bad" and talking past each other.
I'm curious if you think everyone would agree that foods fall in the second meaning, which is what is being rejected. (I'd personally give you transfats, which I avoid.)
Obviously everyone agrees that some foods aren't that nutritious. To me, that doesn't make them bad. They might be very good in the right circumstances, in fact (if they are tasty).
Or my argument that most people just don't care enough to start an argument on the street about this kind of stuff.
Google junk food and see how many hits you get from reputable sources.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ekahnicole wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Not everyone feels bad when they eat 'bad food'.
Well obviously, I'm not speaking in absolutes. But my point is that labeling it generally serves no purpose whether you feel bad or not, and if you DO feel bad, that's not helping.
Those are absolutes. I think it can serve a purpose. I also think that feeling bad when you eat bad food can be helpful to some. Guilt can be a powerful motivation.
Or an equally powerful demotivator.
I'd say unequally powerful. When do people give up? When they feel great or when they don't?
Being guilt free would feel pretty great, no?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »longlostyeti wrote: »lets stop labeling foods good or bad and lets just enjoy life YOLO..
I've lived long enough to know I can do both.
So I just haven't lived long enough is what you're saying. Holy dismissive posts, Batman.
IF you think no one can label foods good or bad and live a happy life, then yes.
So basically, you can't live a happy life if you fail to label foods good and bad? Or because I don't label foods good or bad and I am quite happy, I haven't lived long enough?
This mini-conversation has thoroughly confused me.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ekahnicole wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Not everyone feels bad when they eat 'bad food'.
Well obviously, I'm not speaking in absolutes. But my point is that labeling it generally serves no purpose whether you feel bad or not, and if you DO feel bad, that's not helping.
Those are absolutes. I think it can serve a purpose. I also think that feeling bad when you eat bad food can be helpful to some. Guilt can be a powerful motivation.
Or an equally powerful demotivator.
I'd say unequally powerful. When do people give up? When they feel great or when they don't?
Being guilt free would feel pretty great, no?
Is this what you get when you cross Ted Bundy with Donald Trump?
0 -
It depends on one's definition of a reputable source. If I was writing a college paper on this subject, I can find numerous sources that reference the term 'junk food' that would be appropriate to use. But on here the definition of a reputable source isn't like it is in an academic setting.Packerjohn wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, maybe not everyone I know would use the term "bad food". But I'm pretty sure people I know who buy mostly organic and non-GMO food would refer to foods such as pop tarts and other artificially colored foods as being "bad". And I'm also pretty sure I know a lot of people who would use the term "junk food" as well.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
This 100%. I too don't think I know anyone IRL who would argue against the idea that bad foods exist.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But as I also previously stated, I've never had anyone IRL argue with it or even question what it meant. Never.stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are bad foods.
LOL And I feel the exact opposite.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could be so naive as to say there are not bad foods.
So which foods are bad? Name them and there's a thousand people who don't feel that way and another thousand who will tell you some of the foods you think are "good" are bad.
The fact we can argue about this for so many pages, with a good dose of woo in here too to argue for "bad" foods, shows there is no such thing. It's just as arbitrary as clean and all that other stuff where ten people will have ten different ideas of what it means.
Did you see my post about people using two different meanings of "bad" and talking past each other.
I'm curious if you think everyone would agree that foods fall in the second meaning, which is what is being rejected. (I'd personally give you transfats, which I avoid.)
Obviously everyone agrees that some foods aren't that nutritious. To me, that doesn't make them bad. They might be very good in the right circumstances, in fact (if they are tasty).
Or my argument that most people just don't care enough to start an argument on the street about this kind of stuff.
Google junk food and see how many hits you get from reputable sources.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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