For Some of Us there ARE Bad Foods
Replies
-
I find myself regretting using the term "bad food" in my initial post as it seems to have tons of baggage attached to it. But I do have a couple questions for my various attackers attackers and insulters?
Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
Self discipline is actually something of a strength of mine. But sometimes I exercise this by avoiding foods that impact me in a way I don't like. I don't see this as a sign of weakness-quite the contrary. Yet there were several times in this discussion where I basically received the message "Cheetos are fine; YOU suck."
Oh please, who has attacked or insulted you personally? Trying to get someone to understand that they are responsible for what they choose to put in their own mouths does not equal a personal attack such as "you suck."0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I don't think they always have some moral connotation. I think it's really common for them to have such a connotation when used with foods, and that people bring moral judgments like that into foods all the time. I believe you that you don't, and don't see any problem with how you use the terms for yourself. I'm sure I've used the terms for foods casually as well, although it's not my preference. But the linking of foods and morality and idea that if you eat bad foods you are a bad person is something I've seen too many people struggle with (and have a tendency toward myself), so prefer to avoid things that play into that kind of thinking. Not saying what you should do.I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Yes, I agree with you that that's also not accurate for everyone, or even lots of people.
Like I said above, I think you and I (and various others in the conversation) just understand what "bad" means when applied to foods differently. To me it means will actively harm your health, so should not be eaten in any amount, in an ideal world. To you it just seems to mean "junk food" or foods that are high cal or not nutrient dense. I am comfortable that I understand what you mean and see no need to have a semantic argument with you about the meaning of "bad food," but to me just being lower nutrient or high cal doesn't make a food "bad" and I don't understand why it would, since any diet is going to include a variety of foods, some with more (and different) nutrients per calorie than others.
I was really low on calories yesterday, so ended the day eating a bunch of chevre (which is a food I used to have trouble eating in moderation, but I only had a little of the cheese left anyway). Cheese is high cal for the nutrients, high in sat fat, blah, blah, so I suppose I could think of it as bad, but I don't. It just doesn't fit for me, and if I did I would be trying to convince myself not to eat it (which I think is a messed up way to go about that). I understand it might fit under your view of the term and so work for you.0 -
I don't think it has much to do with self discipline.
In the original post the options A and B are less processed foods with more moderate tastes and would take more time to be digested so are less likely to cause cravings for more or energy spikes and troughs, whereas the option C is a leisure food deliberately engineered to cause the consumer to want more by causing a roller coaster ride of sugar and/or salt spikes and mouth-feel - all deliberately designed to create false hunger.
- it is not a lack of self discipline here but the body's various mechanisms struggling to cope with designer imbalances.
So - yeah - Cheetos suck!
edit: grammar check0 -
Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
I don't think I have enough of a scientific background to say for sure, but I do not agree with this statement based on the information I've reviewed. I think there can be psychological cravings attached to certain foods that decrease their ability to control the eating impulse. I also think it is difficult for some people to tell the difference between a physiological response and a psychological craving.Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
Acknowledging a person's shortcomings is not blaming them. I also find it quite helpful when people (rightfully) remind me that I am the one in control of what goes in my facehole.
It's empowering, not shaming.I also think there are people who think that my statement "X is bad for me" logically means "anyone who eats X is bad." This is quite a stretch in logic; and is NOT something that I believe.
The whole point of the responses in here is that X isn't bad for you (or anyone else that doesn't have a medical reason to avoid X) but that overconsumption of X could be a problem. It's important to recognize that difference. Again, it's empowering.
0 -
I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.0 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.0 -
I find myself regretting using the term "bad food" in my initial post as it seems to have tons of baggage attached to it. But I do have a couple questions for my various attackers attackers and insulters?
Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
Not denying that at all. That does not make the food bad. That does not even make the food bad for that person.Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
I call it taking responsibility for one's actions.Self discipline is actually something of a strength of mine. But sometimes I exercise this by avoiding foods that impact me in a way I don't like. I don't see this as a sign of weakness-quite the contrary. Yet there were several times in this discussion where I basically received the message "Cheetos are fine; YOU suck."
I don't see at as a sign of weakness, either. Like you, I also have certain foods I do not keep in the house, because I have poor self-control when it comes to them (i.e, brownies, cheesecake). That still does not make those foods bad. That does not even make those foods bad for me. I'll admit that the problem is with me, not the foods.I also think there are people who think that my statement "X is bad for me" logically means "anyone who eats X is bad." This is quite a stretch in logic; and is NOT something that I believe.
See the Coke Zero thread, among others; that is one of several where those of us who do choose to drink soda are accused of not caring what we put into our bodies.
0 -
0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Actually, having a toe stubbed or shirt stained could be morally bad if the ethics system doesn't regard intent and blame. In such ethics, the world where your toe is stubbed is morally worse compared to an identical world where it isn't. Saying you believe morals requires intent doesn't even fix the comparison because almost all adults eating involves the intent of the adults.
For me personally, my biggest problem is that categorical statements are usually wrong (though to avoid the trap myself, I won't say they are always wrong!). A Twinkie is a bad food - well unless you're starving to death, or you're about to go into hypoglycemic shock, or you've been eating some odd diet that has left you thiamine deficient and now that oh-so-unclean food's B vitamin enrichment will fill in the deficiency - suddenly it is a good food because the food can't be judged outside of the context of use. It is like saying a tool like a hammer is bad - well sure, if you try to recreate the 3 Stooges with it, it is very bad, but most people use it for something good like building birdhouses or whatnot.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
OP, I completely agree with you!
Any chance you will bother responding to the other posts?
Somehow I think not, although I do regret that.
I think it's rude not to address counterarguments, even to express disagreement. I'd be interested in reasoned disagreement, and would consider it (just as I've come to understand that Need2 simply means something different from "bad food" than I would and so calling it "bad food" works for her). So many seem to refuse to understand the arguments and pretend, instead, that others are ignoring nutrition, which is 180 degrees from the reality. (I think I am much more concerned with nutrition than someone who oversimplifies it to not eating a few "bad" foods.)
I'd particularly be interested in any response to how (a) not eating foods you don't want to eat or care about isn't cutting them out; and (b) the posts about how one fits "bad foods" (like my pork example) into a healthy diet (if you claim it can't be done or can't be healthy or pork shoulder is still BAD).
1. There's no rule that if one replies to OP they also must rehash every response in the thread! I simply wanted to support OP because this view is so often trashed on MFP. I think one of the general netiquette rules on most discussion boards is that you shouldn't tell other people how to post. But I guess I should be flattered that, for whatever reason, you seem to value my opinion so much!
I thought your post read as passive aggressive, and since you made a huge point of agreeing with one poster you seemed to be disagreeing with the responses which were -- contrary to your and OP's implication -- not at all anti nutrition. I find it very rude that many ignore posts saying that nutrition matters to distort the "no bad foods" position into one that suggests we should eat only Cheetos or whatever. (I have never once in my life wanted to eat Cheetos, so thinking of it as a "bad food" seems pointless to me. If you like it, eat it; if you don't, don't, but don't pretend it's because you are too good for it, it's because you don't like it.)4. For me, bad foods are those that have a bad effect on my energy, cravings, digestion, well being etc. I don't know why anyone would criticize that.
I wouldn't. I object to claiming those are BAD for everyone vs. poor choices for you at a particular time. My example is that basically pure sugar (a gel) can be a good choice when running a marathon. Also, that I am allergic to penicillin doesn't make it bad, it makes it bad for me.5. Re (a) I agree and I never said that.
Great, but OP did, and you made a huge point of agreeing with him. No one eats everything -- we all have foods that typically aren't tasty or worth it to us. Most of us don't consider that cutting out foods or requires that we label them "bad."7. Re (b) you can have all the pork shoulder you want to! I have no rules about pork shoulder, especially for you.
Cool. But the side of the argument you supported (and made a huge point of supporting) did. So it seemed like an implicit agreement.
I also don't care what you eat or don't eat. When I say (contrary to OP's argument that Cheetos are BAD), that I don't believe in bad foods, I don't mean that nutrition doesn't matter (the offensive claim that you and others have made) and I certainly don't mean you should eat Cheetos (like I said, a food that it would never cross my mind to eat). I mean that if you happen to like Cheetos, you shouldn't feel bad about that.
I suspect that we don't really disagree, but I feel like you and OP want to pretend we do, and that anyone who says "I don't believe in bad foods" is saying "eat candy constantly" and that's why I feel frustrated at the lack of engagement.
And yes, I do wish there was more actual communication on MFP. If that makes you feel good, great. Maybe you will bother communicating. That would be cool. (I don't seek your approval -- I wish that you'd reject my actual arguments vs, some made-up idea of what I'm claiming which, again, seems rude when it happens.)
I'm sorry for you that you see my agreeing with OP as passive aggressive. You are just plain aggressive for calling someone out like that, criticizing HOW I post and howblongnof a post I have time to write, and arguing with me about things I never said. Have s great day and enjoy your pork shoulder!
I'm just frustrated with the lack of communication. People assert that others don't care about nutrition or write "good post!" on someone else saying that, but refuse to address the actual points that are made (which demonstrate that absolutely no one is saying not to think about nutrition). If you really and truly think someone else is saying that eating candy all day is a great choice, why not address that post directly? You might discover you are misunderstanding.0 -
Not an attacker or insulter, but throwing in my two cents....
Not at all. In fact, I suspect that when someone says they're 'addicted' to sugar or something, they are really talking about a psychological craving rather that true addiction. Which requires a different mind-set to overcome.Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
Yes and no. It's important to get across the fact that food is just food, neither good or bad in a general context. Everyone has different dietary needs, so some foods will be better choices than others for certain people, but so many people tend to put something in a catagory and assume it's that way for EVERYONE. That's a part of the problem right there, so telling people that no food is bad hopefully dispells some of that.Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
If you don't like a certain food and don't want to eat it or don't think it's worth the calories, that doesn't strike me as a food that's 'bad' for you, but you making an informed choice on what foods to eat based on your reactions.Self discipline is actually something of a strength of mine. But sometimes I exercise this by avoiding foods that impact me in a way I don't like. I don't see this as a sign of weakness-quite the contrary. Yet there were several times in this discussion where I basically received the message "Cheetos are fine; YOU suck."
Yeah, there seems to be an all-or-nothing attitude towards ANYTHING, not just on these forums but everywhere. All you can do is state that something is bad FOR YOU and not FOR OTHERS, but some people skip the qualifier. I'm not sure what the solution is to that.I also think there are people who think that my statement "X is bad for me" logically means "anyone who eats X is bad." This is quite a stretch in logic; and is NOT something that I believe.
Honestly, it seems that a large part of this discussion comes back to "Food isn't bad or good, it's just food," which is more of a way of thinking about food. People's knee-jerk reaction is to avoid things that are bad. Saying X food is 'bad' for people means that people start to define it that way for themselves and others, despite the fact that it's a perfectly fine choice in moderation for a majority of people. I mean, Cheetos are great, but I can't eat them because they put MSG in them again. Which sucks. So for me, Cheetos are a bad choice. That doesn't make them a 'bad' food, but they're bad FOR ME. Which I believe is the point you were trying to make. But by putting foods in a 'bad' category just because someone else said it was bad is not a healthy way of viewing food. A large part of doing this for me has been how I see food. I had to get over the fact that cake and cookies are 'bad' foods. They're high-calorie/low-nutrient foods, which means I have to choose them carefully, but they're not bad.0 -
MommyMeggo wrote: »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.
You should have had the deep fried pecan pie. It was amazing.
Im going again next Sat. Ill try it!!!0 -
I miss Cheetos. A favorite of mine; but sadly, there are no good gluten-free Cheeto alternatives, and I can no longer eat gluten due to Celiac disease.
Cheetos aren't bad. They aren't satiating alone, but a 160 calorie snack isn't meant to be satiating; it's just a pleasing taste of something you enjoy.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »@lemurcat12
Sorry I meant lard laden pork. Whatever.
But isn't it common knowledge that lard is very high in cholesterol?
Lots of food are high in cholesterol, including many that have been part of traditional diets for years. Do you think people need to eliminate high cholesterol foods from their diet?
Yes, if it's important for them to live a long life.
It sounds like you may be working from out-dated information. Even when experts thought there was a connection between cholesterol and disease, they still didn't recommend completely eliminating high cholesterol foods -- just limiting consumption.
But even that isn't generally accepted any more.
So I was right. It was a trick question.
I try to eliminate high cholesterol foods but still get a high number in the blood work report. Imagine if I only tried to "limit"...
It wasn't a trick question -- I wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying before I responded.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
I agree. I have not seen a post where someone refers to food as "bad" meaning anything other than "unhealthy" or opposite of good.
Oh I had a bad burger last night (substandard)
I was bad yesterday and ate a burger.
Some people just want to argue.0 -
Labeling food as "bad" would be completely detrimental to me (and many others from what we see posted on the forums daily) because:
eating "bad" food --> guilt --> shame --> closet eating --> more shame --> unhealthy relationships with food.
Understanding that I can fit those foods into my diet while trying to hit my nutritional goals helps me find the right balance. Moderation for life!0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.0 -
I equate the word bad when describing many foods with my inability to exercise moderation and common sense. It's all in the eye of the beholder.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
I was attempting to provide some context as to why so many people consider "bad" to be an unhelpful description of a food. By your own point, if it can mean so many different things, it may not be the best choice to describe a food.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Labeling food as "bad" would be completely detrimental to me (and many others from what we see posted on the forums daily) because:
eating "bad" food --> guilt --> shame --> closet eating --> more shame --> unhealthy relationships with food.
Understanding that I can fit those foods into my diet while trying to hit my nutritional goals helps me find the right balance. Moderation for life!
+1 so much.0 -
As I have said before, good and bad are value laden words. We can apply them (inappropriately in my view) to food, to people (again, inappropriately in my view), to situations - there are so many applications.
The psychologist R. Ellis made a point of telling his students that they would be better at communicating if they eliminated value words from their conversations, instead using more accurate descriptors to describe what they actually were trying to say. So I had a bad day today REALLY means I didnt get enough sleep, I was late for work, I got blamed for a mistake that wasnt mine etc. When you say to a child you were bad today, what you REALLY are saying is that they didnt meet your expectations of them that day, or they behaved in a manner that was not acceptable to you. So again, saying a food is bad is REALLY saying - what? You dont like it? It makes you sick? It doesnt meet your nutritional needs? It doesnt meet your caloric needs? WHATEVER it is, it is that way only for YOU, because you are the only person who CLEARLY understands the meaning of the word "bad" in that context.
Try going through a day without using the words good or bad, and you will see how carelessly it is tossed around, and you may then realize how many times you are leaving yourself open for misinterpretation.0 -
cross2bear wrote: »As I have said before, good and bad are value laden words. We can apply them (inappropriately in my view) to food, to people (again, inappropriately in my view), to situations - there are so many applications.
The psychologist R. Ellis made a point of telling his students that they would be better at communicating if they eliminated value words from their conversations, instead using more accurate descriptors to describe what they actually were trying to say. So I had a bad day today REALLY means I didnt get enough sleep, I was late for work, I got blamed for a mistake that wasnt mine etc. When you say to a child you were bad today, what you REALLY are saying is that they didnt meet your expectations of them that day, or they behaved in a manner that was not acceptable to you. So again, saying a food is bad is REALLY saying - what? You dont like it? It makes you sick? It doesnt meet your nutritional needs? It doesnt meet your caloric needs? WHATEVER it is, it is that way only for YOU, because you are the only person who CLEARLY understands the meaning of the word "bad" in that context.
Try going through a day without using the words good or bad, and you will see how carelessly it is tossed around, and you may then realize how many times you are leaving yourself open for misinterpretation.
Wow, what an interesting point. I'm really prone to using value words. I think I'm going to try being more mindful and using more accurate descriptors to communicate.0 -
I miss Cheetos. A favorite of mine; but sadly, there are no good gluten-free Cheeto alternatives, and I can no longer eat gluten due to Celiac disease.
Cheetos aren't bad. They aren't satiating alone, but a 160 calorie snack isn't meant to be satiating; it's just a pleasing taste of something you enjoy.
@mccindy72 I thought you might appreciate this:
http://www.fritolay.com/nutrition/special-dietary-needs/us-gluten-free-products-and-products-not-containing-gluten-ingredients.htm0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Actually, having a toe stubbed or shirt stained could be morally bad if the ethics system doesn't regard intent and blame. In such ethics, the world where your toe is stubbed is morally worse compared to an identical world where it isn't. Saying you believe morals requires intent doesn't even fix the comparison because almost all adults eating involves the intent of the adults.
For me personally, my biggest problem is that categorical statements are usually wrong (though to avoid the trap myself, I won't say they are always wrong!). A Twinkie is a bad food - well unless you're starving to death, or you're about to go into hypoglycemic shock, or you've been eating some odd diet that has left you thiamine deficient and now that oh-so-unclean food's B vitamin enrichment will fill in the deficiency - suddenly it is a good food because the food can't be judged outside of the context of use. It is like saying a tool like a hammer is bad - well sure, if you try to recreate the 3 Stooges with it, it is very bad, but most people use it for something good like building birdhouses or whatnot.
For someone that is starving would you say that a Twinkie, while maybe lifesaving, is not the best food for that person? That there would a better food if it were available?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
I agree with this. I had "bad" food last night. It was a bite of a 100% Cacao Chocolate bar that looked like it would be a yummy candy bar, but tasted like ... just, it was gross. Bluk. Bad.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
I was attempting to provide some context as to why so many people consider "bad" to be an unhelpful description of a food. By your own point, if it can mean so many different things, it may not be the best choice to describe a food.
Perhaps not, though I've never had anyone question what I meant by "bad food" IRL. I'm sure a lot of phrases I use aren't the best, especially to those not from my area.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
But the multiple posts I've seen here from people talking about the guilt they feel for making "bad" choices indicate that, for many people, "bad" is used in a moral sense.
Especially for many women, choosing "good" foods (and denying oneself "bad" ones) has a heavy component of moralism. Self-control is seen as moral, indulgence is seen as bad.
Yes, some people may be using "bad" to mean "substandard." But many people clearly are not.
Well sure, people are different. I don't think anyone has said that everyone needs to call foods bad, have they? To each his own.
I was attempting to provide some context as to why so many people consider "bad" to be an unhelpful description of a food. By your own point, if it can mean so many different things, it may not be the best choice to describe a food.
Perhaps not, though I've never had anyone question what I meant by "bad food" IRL. I'm sure a lot of phrases I use aren't the best, especially to those not from my area.
My guess is that most people "in real life" don't spend as much time thinking about food as we tend to do here.
When I think back to the last few times I've heard the term used (outside of this forum), people were using it to mean "something that I shouldn't have eaten." The very last time I heard it, the person followed it up by saying "I'm terrible."0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
I agree with this. I had "bad" food last night. It was a bite of a 100% Cacao Chocolate bar that looked like it would be a yummy candy bar, but tasted like ... just, it was gross. Bluk. Bad.
100% cacao? Wouldn't that be unsweetened, like baking chocolate? Yeah, tried that as a child and learned my lesson.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
It's the word "bad" people tend to object to. You're attaching morals to food.
Bad has many meaning that have nothing to do with morals. Substandard, poor, inferior, faulty, etc.
I agree with this. I had "bad" food last night. It was a bite of a 100% Cacao Chocolate bar that looked like it would be a yummy candy bar, but tasted like ... just, it was gross. Bluk. Bad.
100% cacao? Wouldn't that be unsweetened, like baking chocolate? Yeah, tried that as a child and learned my lesson.
Yes for some reason I didn't make the connection. It was packaged like a regular candy bar so I was expecting something else. Bluk. I can still taste it. lol0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions