For Some of Us there ARE Bad Foods
Options
Replies
-
biggsterjackster wrote: »Of course there are bad foods. Some of the stuff sold in the US is not even legal in the EU like Olestra or rBST etc. also some foods still contain transfats, which are health risky. Any processed food with a ton of E Nr. are IMO bad but we all eat it.
In some countries apostasy and homosexuality are punishable by death, but I'd hope you don't consider that proof those things are worthy of a death sentence (hopefully not even bad).
.
Stupid comparison
0 -
-
biggsterjackster wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Of course there are bad foods. Some of the stuff sold in the US is not even legal in the EU like Olestra or rBST etc. also some foods still contain transfats, which are health risky. Any processed food with a ton of E Nr. are IMO bad but we all eat it.
In some countries apostasy and homosexuality are punishable by death, but I'd hope you don't consider that proof those things are worthy of a death sentence (hopefully not even bad).
.
Stupid comparison
Kinder Eggs aren't allowed in the USA but perfectly fine in the EU.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Of course there are bad foods. Some of the stuff sold in the US is not even legal in the EU like Olestra or rBST etc. also some foods still contain transfats, which are health risky. Any processed food with a ton of E Nr. are IMO bad but we all eat it.
In some countries apostasy and homosexuality are punishable by death, but I'd hope you don't consider that proof those things are worthy of a death sentence (hopefully not even bad).
.
Stupid comparison
Kinder Eggs aren't allowed in the USA but perfectly fine in the EU.
Those things are EVIL!
/s0 -
stevencloser wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Of course there are bad foods. Some of the stuff sold in the US is not even legal in the EU like Olestra or rBST etc. also some foods still contain transfats, which are health risky. Any processed food with a ton of E Nr. are IMO bad but we all eat it.
In some countries apostasy and homosexuality are punishable by death, but I'd hope you don't consider that proof those things are worthy of a death sentence (hopefully not even bad).
.
Stupid comparison
Kinder Eggs aren't allowed in the USA but perfectly fine in the EU.
True, but not because of the chocolate.0 -
I whole heartedly agree with you OP. I have realized that it's just not realistic for me to have certain foods around or eat them on a regular basis because for me they are triggers for binging. So I don't keep icecream in the house, definitely no "itso" of any kind. Because when I do, one portion becomes 20.0
-
When people say "you can eat whatever you want," what they mean is that calories from cookies and calories from salad will have the exact same effect on your weight loss, which is true for everyone.
Whether some foods make you hungrier or less hungry is a separate issue. In the end, eating more of the calories gains more weight and eating less of the calories loses weight, regardless of what you're eating.0 -
Magenta529 wrote: »I whole heartedly agree with you OP. I have realized that it's just not realistic for me to have certain foods around or eat them on a regular basis because for me they are triggers for binging. So I don't keep icecream in the house, definitely no "itso" of any kind. Because when I do, one portion becomes 20.
Your comment underscores something that is important. We INDIVIDUALIZE our decisions based upon how OUR bodies/minds respond to the food. I like ice cream, but NEVER have a desire to overeat it. But that's just me. I think the implication that we are somehow weak because we avoid foods that don't work for us is just ridiculous.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »My understanding is that the whole no bad food thing is about weight loss and only weight loss.
As in 1000 calories of deep fried mars bars is the same as 1000 calories of assorted vegetables, for weight loss.
I don't think I have ever seen someone say there are no bad foods, eat all the deep fried mars bars you like, you will fill all your macros perfectly and live in perfect health.
It's about context. They'd say you can include even a deep fried Mars bar in your diet every once in a while and still have an overall healthful, balanced diet that is calorie-appropriate and meets your goals. Occasionally eating a deep fried Mars bar doesn't harm your health and isn't something to feel bad or shameful about.
Of course, not being Scottish I have not tried a deep-fried Mars bar and feel deeply skeptical about it being worth eating.
I had a fried oreo and a fried snickers on saturday (along with a ton of other carnival food) - 48hrs later was weigh in Monday I had lost 3.1lbs since the previous monday. Bad tasted so good.
YOU NEED A DEEP FRIED SOMETHING!
You know what a funnel cake is? Its those delicious goodies smothered in funnel cake batter and fried.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »If by bad foods you mean ones that inhibit you from losing 'weight' ? Then yes, there absolutely are foods that will do this.
Diet is not just a numbers game, theres so much more science to it. CICO may be the foundation to it all, but there are still many variables involved (if there weren't then everyone would be in perfect shape)
For starters, the term 'weight loss' is misleading. The focus should be fat loss.
You don't want to lose muscle (go ahead and eat 1200cal/day of mars bars if you do though).
Depending on an individuals insulin sensitivity, thyroid levels, vitamin deficencies, testosterone, estrogen (the list goes on) a bag of cheetos could be mildly counter-productive or wreak havoc, and this is strictly chemical (inducing cravings is a whole other story)
Truth is, if option C is chosen...the individual will then go to bed with his/her blood sugar spiked ....the liver (your main fat burning organ) will then be so consumed with insulin production that it will shut down HSL production, causing fat burning to come to a halt. This does happen...
The extremety of this depends on your insulin sensitivity, but nonetheless it will happen. And that's only one of the ways it's affecting your body.
I don't know how you can view these cheeto's as anything but bad.
Why, just why do people always go back to the 1200 cals of PopTarts/ice cream/Mars Bars/cake strawman? Who tells people to eat like that? Seriously?
It's about context; 160 calories of Cheetos aren't inherently bad. It's the diet as a whole that matters. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that?
Also, did you not read the thread? There is a whole thread of information here that debunks everything in your post.
All or nothing thinking. People can't seem to get past it.0 -
Magenta529 wrote: »I whole heartedly agree with you OP. I have realized that it's just not realistic for me to have certain foods around or eat them on a regular basis because for me they are triggers for binging. So I don't keep icecream in the house, definitely no "itso" of any kind. Because when I do, one portion becomes 20.
Your comment underscores something that is important. We INDIVIDUALIZE our decisions based upon how OUR bodies/minds respond to the food. I like ice cream, but NEVER have a desire to overeat it. But that's just me. I think the implication that we are somehow weak because we avoid foods that don't work for us is just ridiculous.
That's why it doesn't make sense to claim the food itself is bad.
Saying it doesn't fit into my goals doesn't = bad. At least not to me.
I do think telling myself I cannot manage to eat a food in moderation is a self-fulfilling thing so best to avoid. Saying I'm not interested in spending calories on a particular food is something I do all the time.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »If by bad foods you mean ones that inhibit you from losing 'weight' ? Then yes, there absolutely are foods that will do this.
Diet is not just a numbers game, theres so much more science to it. CICO may be the foundation to it all, but there are still many variables involved (if there weren't then everyone would be in perfect shape)
For starters, the term 'weight loss' is misleading. The focus should be fat loss.
You don't want to lose muscle (go ahead and eat 1200cal/day of mars bars if you do though).
Depending on an individuals insulin sensitivity, thyroid levels, vitamin deficencies, testosterone, estrogen (the list goes on) a bag of cheetos could be mildly counter-productive or wreak havoc, and this is strictly chemical (inducing cravings is a whole other story)
Truth is, if option C is chosen...the individual will then go to bed with his/her blood sugar spiked ....the liver (your main fat burning organ) will then be so consumed with insulin production that it will shut down HSL production, causing fat burning to come to a halt. This does happen...
The extremety of this depends on your insulin sensitivity, but nonetheless it will happen. And that's only one of the ways it's affecting your body.
I don't know how you can view these cheeto's as anything but bad.
Why, just why do people always go back to the 1200 cals of PopTarts/ice cream/Mars Bars/cake strawman? Who tells people to eat like that? Seriously?
It's about context;
But that's exactly the guy that "diets" on only McD for months told people. This sounds like taking things very out of context, everyday practicality.
Deadlift's post sounds very practical and is within the context of a decent diet, people's actual consumption of foods.
0 -
Uh, Deadlift seems to be arguing that if you eat carbs at night you won't lose fat, even in a calorie deficit, and that's simply false.0
-
Magenta529 wrote: »I whole heartedly agree with you OP. I have realized that it's just not realistic for me to have certain foods around or eat them on a regular basis because for me they are triggers for binging. So I don't keep icecream in the house, definitely no "itso" of any kind. Because when I do, one portion becomes 20.
I used to be like this. Having children makes learning how to moderate a requirement. Like, I so want to eat a whole box of their fruity pebbles sometimes but I refrain. When you have to log it and you see the calories add up it makes it easier to refrain. Logging the calories before consumption makes it possible for me to stop at 2 servings. I also eat treats slower than normal when dieting to savor it longer, lol!
0 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Of course there are bad foods. Some of the stuff sold in the US is not even legal in the EU like Olestra or rBST etc. also some foods still contain transfats, which are health risky. Any processed food with a ton of E Nr. are IMO bad but we all eat it.
In some countries apostasy and homosexuality are punishable by death, but I'd hope you don't consider that proof those things are worthy of a death sentence (hopefully not even bad).
.
Stupid comparison
If you find it stupid, don't use it as a method of argument because while your issue is different, your reasoning is the same - something is banned in another country, therefore it must be bad. It is an argument from popularity fallacy.
And the haggis one is a rather apt comparison, being food and what not. Is haggis a bad food, or do you only accept what the EU bans as being a basis for labeling foods bad?0 -
The only nuts I could find that would be 160 calories for 1/4 cup would be peanuts in the shell. And that amount would be the very saddest thing EVER. I would definitely choose the Cheetos. (puffy, not crunchy - sorry @zyxst )0
-
vivmom2014 wrote: »The only nuts I could find that would be 160 calories for 1/4 cup would be peanuts in the shell. And that amount would be the very saddest thing EVER. I would definitely choose the Cheetos. (puffy, not crunchy - sorry @zyxst )
Unshelled peanuts are 160/quarter cup. Unshelled pistachios are approximately the same.
0 -
makingmark wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
I would say more nutritious foods help us to met daily needs easier than foods that are less nutritious. That doesn't mean one can't meet their nutritional (macro and micro) needs while eating "bad food". Once the needs are met, then health shouldn't be an issue if one isn't over/underweight.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Wait, so if someone lost a significant amount of weight on a "junk food" diet and their health improved significantly (lower body fat, lower cholesterol, better sleep patterns) then couldn't that be labeled as "good food" for that person?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I have no medical reason not to eat any food, I still maintain that there are bad and good foods. I have never seen anything on this site or elsewhere to make me think otherwise.
Examples and rationale?
I think "itos" food group is a good enough example, along with other junk food, of bad foods. Good foods would be those associated with improved health - vegetables, fruits, nuts, lean meats, fish/seafood, etc.
Obviously almost all foods have a nutritional value, some much much higher than others, but just eating healthy food DOESN'T ensure improved health.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You or they can label it whatever you/they want, but no, I would not label it good food. And yes, though it seems off point, health is about more than just food. That doesn't change the fact that some foods improve our odds of being healthy and some do not. To me those that do are good and those that do not are bad.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But in most cases to meet one's nutritional needs with"bad foods" won't that person most likely be well over their caloric needs?
He didn't say meeting your needs with "bad foods" alone, but meeting your needs and having "bad foods" as a part of your diet is very possible. No one is advocating against eating nutritious foods, but they are saying that there is some room in almost anyone's diet for some foods that are less than perfect.
There is definitely room in diets for "bad foods". However, as someone gets closer to the minimum recommended daily calories (1200/1500 M/F) the ability to add less nutritionally dense foods to the diet and still get adequate nutrition lessens to the point it probably should not be done.0 -
Okay - here's my 2 cents.
It's easier to eat well when dieting, because you can tell yourself it's just temporary. When we get to goal we relax. Knowing the calories and the tiny portion sizes, of "bad" foods makes it harder to lie to myself.
I am running into this problem too. I find that junk food and sweets are an "all or nothing" situation for me. If I cut out chips, pop tarts and cake, I will crave them badly in the first few days of dieting, but then I will completely stop craving them after about a week if I stick to my natural foods diet. But if i go to a party and have some cake, all of those cravings come back with a vengence. I am starting to realize that i simply cannot have those foods at all, probably forever, but that is ok! Once you get those foods out of your life, you will stop missing them. Now almond butter and ancient grains crackers are my junk food.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 977 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions