Good Food, Bad Food
HeyJudii
Posts: 264 Member
Bad food? I have seen the hotly contested debates about why there is no "bad food". That it is all about portion control. So, I will just say, non-nutritious foods. Foods, that while they may taste good, and/or bring fond memories, and/or be comforting, or whatever, these foods and I will have to from now on have a distant, but cordial relationship.
I had been using my exercise calories (in moderation), to just eat whatever I felt like eating from Friday through Sunday, as long as I had the calories to do so. I was moderating my intake (calories), but my intake (substances) were strictly candy, chips/crisps, pastries, dips, crackers, and whatever else was pre-made, easy to get, etc.
And after almost 5 months I realized that I had no energy on the weekends and generally felt like I had a low grade flu. It wasn't until Monday evening or Tuesday morning that I began to feel better. So, I compared what I ate during the week to my weekend fare, checked my macros and realized that while I got lots of starchy carbs and fats, I got almost no ( or very little) protein, vegetables, or fiber from Friday-Sunday.
I decided to change my weekend foods to match my weekday intake (with 300 calories/day set aside for an end of the day treat of my choice - as I did during the week) and wouldn't you know, my yucky feeling during the weekend faded to a memory.
In conclusion? While the argument roils about there being no such thing as "bad" foods, there are definitely foods that bring nothing long-term nutritious to the table. Wait for it...
Disclaimer: IMO
I had been using my exercise calories (in moderation), to just eat whatever I felt like eating from Friday through Sunday, as long as I had the calories to do so. I was moderating my intake (calories), but my intake (substances) were strictly candy, chips/crisps, pastries, dips, crackers, and whatever else was pre-made, easy to get, etc.
And after almost 5 months I realized that I had no energy on the weekends and generally felt like I had a low grade flu. It wasn't until Monday evening or Tuesday morning that I began to feel better. So, I compared what I ate during the week to my weekend fare, checked my macros and realized that while I got lots of starchy carbs and fats, I got almost no ( or very little) protein, vegetables, or fiber from Friday-Sunday.
I decided to change my weekend foods to match my weekday intake (with 300 calories/day set aside for an end of the day treat of my choice - as I did during the week) and wouldn't you know, my yucky feeling during the weekend faded to a memory.
In conclusion? While the argument roils about there being no such thing as "bad" foods, there are definitely foods that bring nothing long-term nutritious to the table. Wait for it...
Disclaimer: IMO
24
Replies
-
Eating nothing but candy and chips and whatnot all weekend isn't exactly how I'd define moderation. I'd think it pretty obvious that it wouldn't be very healthy and that your nutrition and thus everything else would suffer.
Eating a bunch of snacky "bad" food all weekend is way different than sitting down to a turkey sandwich with a side of chips for example...or eating a good healthful dinner and having some candy afterwards for desert.
When people talk about no "bad" foods, this is more or less what they're talking about...they're not talking about binging on a bunch of junk all weekend and ignoring your nutrition and calling that moderation.
ETA: There really aren't good foods or bad foods...but there are good diets and bad diets...I'd say completely ignoring your overall nutrition for 2-3 days would fall into the bad diet category.30 -
Context and dosage matter. And are often completely ignored in discussions of this nature.14
-
While the argument roils about there being no such thing as "bad" foods, there are definitely foods that bring nothing long-term nutritious to the table. Wait for it...
Yeah, obviously. I wouldn't have thought that was controversial.
I actually think your example supports the usual MFP point that foods aren't bad but diets can be. The problem you describe on weekends isn't that you had some treats that weren't that nutrient dense -- as you note you eat those regularly on other days. It's that you ate a poor DIET on those days lacking in other foods (and apparently not consuming a reasonable balance).
One can think that individual foods aren't bad, that it's just a matter of context and dosage, and still think that foods are DIFFERENT and that a good DIET requires sufficient vegetables and protein and healthy fats and fiber.7 -
I mean, I get your main point. And it's good that you now know what you need to do to feel right.
But "eat nothing but junk food, all weekend, every weekend" does not equal "moderation". Just the opposite, actually.
If anyone posted here that they were going to eat really well during the week and then eat nothing but junk every weekend, I think most veterans would respond that if that works for you, okay, but it doesn't sound like a sustainable plan. I personally think fitting reasonably portioned treats into most days of a well-balanced diet is healthy for most people. I think eating nothing but nutrient-deficient junk food every weekend is not healthy for most people. I think the situation you describe actually supports the "there are no bad foods, just bad diets" side of the arguments we often have here.11 -
Its not just about the foods either. I thought about how my parents and myself ate up until the 70's. We rarely had deep fried foods or any fast food for that matter. I don't know how dunking food in hot oil affects me but it can't be good. The bad foods also push out the good foods. I just can't remember the last time I had fresh veggies at a fast food joint. I don't stress over it. I eat good and bad but the good is far outpacing the bad right now....and that's good.4
-
Eating what you like in moderation in the context of an overall nutrient dense diet while creating a calorie deficit is what people recommend.
That's not what you did.
I'm not sure what you were trying to prove.21 -
"Bad foods" don't push out "good foods" unless you let them.
IMO, a sensible approach is to eat a healthy diet with sufficient protein, fiber, healthy fats, and lots of vegetables (plus some fruit) -- that's not only a healthy diet, but the kind of diet I think is enjoyable and would eat regardless. And then if you have room -- and people usually do -- eat whatever else you like.
If you don't do that, the problem isn't so much eating "bad" foods, but not focusing sufficiently on getting in sufficient nutrient dense foods.
My definition of moderation is the amount that fits in an overall healthful diet. That can mean saving some high cal treats (mmm, Indian food) for a rarer occasion or it can mean fitting in small amounts daily.3 -
I suppose I'll tell my story.
When I was in the heart of dieting, the really deep part where I had lost the easy weight and was chipping away at the harder stuff and having a hell of a time with it, I developed some control issues with food. I would panic at parties and restaurants because I couldn't log the food accurately. I broke into tears at a world-renowned burger place because they didn't have the quinoa burger I had prelogged and I didn't know how to adjust my plans without it. I was spiraling because I felt like I was surrounded by all of these bad, heavy foods and there was something wrong with me because I couldn't say no to them. Food became my enemy unless it was the right kind of food, the kind I had full control over.
Fortunately, my therapist caught it early and we worked hard to keep it from developing into a full-fledged eating disorder. But part of that work was to stop seeing foods in terms of good and bad. I believe in balanced diets and unbalanced diets, foods that fit into your goals and foods that don't, foods that make me feel better and foods that make me feel worse. I believe in looking at the big picture of a diet, concentrating on what I want to include instead of what I feel like I have to remove, and having chill food guidelines that I can stick to without stressing. I don't believe in good foods vs. bad ones.
But everyone approaches food differently. I just refuse to travel back down that particular rabbit hole.30 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I suppose I'll tell my story.
When I was in the heart of dieting, the really deep part where I had lost the easy weight and was chipping away at the harder stuff and having a hell of a time with it, I developed some control issues with food. I would panic at parties and restaurants because I couldn't log the food accurately. I broke into tears at a world-renowned burger place because they didn't have the quinoa burger I had prelogged and I didn't know how to adjust my plans without it. I was spiraling because I felt like I was surrounded by all of these bad, heavy foods and there was something wrong with me because I couldn't say no to them. Food became my enemy unless it was the right kind of food, the kind I had full control over.
Fortunately, my therapist caught it early and we worked hard to keep it from developing into a full-fledged eating disorder. But part of that work was to stop seeing foods in terms of good and bad. I believe in balanced diets and unbalanced diets, foods that fit into your goals and foods that don't, foods that make me feel better and foods that make me feel worse. I believe in looking at the big picture of a diet, concentrating on what I want to include instead of what I feel like I have to remove, and having chill food guidelines that I can stick to without stressing. I don't believe in good foods vs. bad ones.
But everyone approaches food differently. I just refuse to travel back down that particular rabbit hole.
Excellent bullet points^^^^0 -
Again I keep it very simple... healthy eating is mostly about variety and unhealthy is mostly about a lack of moderation. The exceptions are specific medical conditions.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that eating like a teenager at home by themselves for the weekend is going to cut it though. There is the lack of variety and the lack of moderation that forces itself outside my personal definition.1 -
I want all the food.2
-
So you went from a diet of extremes - healthy during the week and nothing but low nutrient foods on the weekend - to an approach that is primarily nutrient dense and calorie appropriate but still allows treats in moderation?
Congrats on implementing what most veteran posters and moderation advocates recommend! What took you so long?16 -
Were you eating that way on the weekends because you thought that was the prevailing message on the boards here that only calories matter?
I have always taken away the message that calories are what matters for weight loss but it is fairly important to get enough protein and other nutrients as well as exercise being good for your health.
Glad you figured out that you'll feel better eating mostly nutritious foods every day.
6 -
I don't buy the 'there is no bad food' theory (I eat plenty of it, I'm just not in denial that I could make much healthier choices), and you're not going to prove anything by having a diet mostly consisting of junk food.9
-
If you're interpreting "There is no bad food" to mean "Humans don't have nutritional needs," I think you're misunderstanding the concept. Even people who don't consider "bad food" to be a useful category still understand we have nutritional needs that we have to meet to have good energy and maintain our health.
I would probably feel ill and weak if I ate nothing but broccoli and kale all weekend. This doesn't mean broccoli and kale are bad foods. It means we need a variety of macro- and micronutrients to feel our best.14 -
Context and dosage matter. And are often completely ignored in discussions of this nature.
This applies to almost everything. Whether in MFP our any other issue. That's why here when someone claims "I'm doing everything right, but not losing - I must be different" without giving age, gender, current weight, or other details - like time window, context is asked for.
In my case, I've never thought of "good" or "bad". It's just calorie target, enough protein, and let the carbs/fat fall where they fall. And I eat 3-4 chocolate chip cookies (or more) almost every day. Even while steadily losing.
If I chase protein, while limiting targeting calories, everything else works.4 -
maybe im lucky in that the majority of the food i like, especially for MEALS, are generally high in nutritional value. but i got fat eating that way too, so .... theres your take away- quantity matters I've never liked fast foods, or prepackaged frozen meals. do i have them ON OCCASION, sure. but pretty rarely.
how i eat on wednesday is no different than how i eat on saturday, in any given week.
if i want a drink, i have a drink and make room for it (whether through conscious planning or making up for it elsewhere- cut back on cals another day, an extra workout, whatever). Same goes for chips or chocolate. i make it fit. neither constitute the bulk of my overall diet. As i said, i got fat eating healthy foods. ive gotten healthy (and healthy sized) but eating the correct AMOUNTS of food - no mater the item.4 -
I don't buy the 'there is no bad food' theory (I eat plenty of it, I'm just not in denial that I could make much healthier choices), and you're not going to prove anything by having a diet mostly consisting of junk food.
I suppose "good" food supposedly extends our lives while "bad" food shortens them? What food is so bad that in moderation is going to kill me sooner? How much sooner?4 -
I guess bad = does not help me meet nutritional needs other than calories, but I don't see why that makes something bad. That's like defining activities that help me make money as good and all others as bad and then saying that spending the day working in my flower garden or reading a novel = bad, since I could have been doing other activities that would have been more profitable.
But I don't really care. I do think there are good and bad diets, of course.10 -
Bad food? I have seen the hotly contested debates about why there is no "bad food". That it is all about portion control. So, I will just say, non-nutritious foods. Foods, that while they may taste good, and/or bring fond memories, and/or be comforting, or whatever, these foods and I will have to from now on have a distant, but cordial relationship.
I had been using my exercise calories (in moderation), to just eat whatever I felt like eating from Friday through Sunday, as long as I had the calories to do so. I was moderating my intake (calories), but my intake (substances) were strictly candy, chips/crisps, pastries, dips, crackers, and whatever else was pre-made, easy to get, etc.
And after almost 5 months I realized that I had no energy on the weekends and generally felt like I had a low grade flu. It wasn't until Monday evening or Tuesday morning that I began to feel better. So, I compared what I ate during the week to my weekend fare, checked my macros and realized that while I got lots of starchy carbs and fats, I got almost no ( or very little) protein, vegetables, or fiber from Friday-Sunday.
I decided to change my weekend foods to match my weekday intake (with 300 calories/day set aside for an end of the day treat of my choice - as I did during the week) and wouldn't you know, my yucky feeling during the weekend faded to a memory.
In conclusion? While the argument roils about there being no such thing as "bad" foods, there are definitely foods that bring nothing long-term nutritious to the table. Wait for it...
Disclaimer: IMO
I most certainly agree with you. the entire argument is simply "silly" and I went through the same learning curve until on the weekends I too began doing what I did all week.
4 -
I don't buy the 'there is no bad food' theory (I eat plenty of it, I'm just not in denial that I could make much healthier choices), and you're not going to prove anything by having a diet mostly consisting of junk food.
I'm not sure I would call it a theory so much as an experience or mindset. That you believe someone like myself is in denial after discussing my issues is certainly your choice, but this is why I don't jump into these posts with my story very often.
Except for man-made trans fats. I'll accept that those are objectively a bad food.9 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I don't buy the 'there is no bad food' theory (I eat plenty of it, I'm just not in denial that I could make much healthier choices), and you're not going to prove anything by having a diet mostly consisting of junk food.
I'm not sure I would call it a theory so much as an experience or mindset. That you believe someone like myself is in denial after discussing my issues is certainly your choice, but this is why I don't jump into these posts with my story very often.
Except for man-made trans fats. I'll accept that those are objectively a bad food.
Experience or mindset maybe. I just believe that an apple would be healthier for my body than 80 calories of candy... and would fill me up better as well. Of course you can still have a healthy diet with 100 calories of candy here and there though... But nobody can deny that there are food that have way more nutrition value than others.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I don't buy the 'there is no bad food' theory (I eat plenty of it, I'm just not in denial that I could make much healthier choices), and you're not going to prove anything by having a diet mostly consisting of junk food.
I'm not sure I would call it a theory so much as an experience or mindset. That you believe someone like myself is in denial after discussing my issues is certainly your choice, but this is why I don't jump into these posts with my story very often.
Except for man-made trans fats. I'll accept that those are objectively a bad food.
Experience or mindset maybe. I just believe that an apple would be healthier for my body than 80 calories of candy... and would fill me up better as well. Of course you can still have a healthy diet with 100 calories of candy here and there though... But nobody can deny that there are food that have way more nutrition value than others.
I don't think anybody denies that different foods will impact satiety in different ways. This seems a separate discussion than "Are there good or bad foods?"
When I eat just fruit, I get ravenous. I don't think this has any relevance on whether or not fruit is "good" or "bad," it's just something I personally should consider when choosing foods.
Does an apple have some nutrients that candy doesn't? Yeah. But candy sometimes has nutrients that apples don't have (the chocolate bar I had this weekend had 25% of my RDA for iron, something you don't see in apples).
So I think we're back to the overall context of the diet being the thing that's really relevant.12 -
Experience or mindset maybe. I just believe that an apple would be healthier for my body than 80 calories of candy... and would fill me up better as well. Of course you can still have a healthy diet with 100 calories of candy here and there though... But nobody can deny that there are food that have way more nutrition value than others.
That is not what you said though. You said there was "bad" food. I guess here the candy is "bad" because an apple is better. So then maybe if 80 calories of blueberries are better than an apple... the apple is "bad"?
8 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I don't buy the 'there is no bad food' theory (I eat plenty of it, I'm just not in denial that I could make much healthier choices), and you're not going to prove anything by having a diet mostly consisting of junk food.
I'm not sure I would call it a theory so much as an experience or mindset. That you believe someone like myself is in denial after discussing my issues is certainly your choice, but this is why I don't jump into these posts with my story very often.
Except for man-made trans fats. I'll accept that those are objectively a bad food.
Experience or mindset maybe. I just believe that an apple would be healthier for my body than 80 calories of candy... and would fill me up better as well. Of course you can still have a healthy diet with 100 calories of candy here and there though... But nobody can deny that there are food that have way more nutrition value than others.
That is based on your goals though. You may want a filling, nutrient dense carb. Some people have goals where they want a non-filling calorie dense carb. Something quick.. easy.. fast energy.9 -
when i think of food as fuel, not good or bad, i just ask when i want to fuel myself with. donuts are fun but i'll get more out of an oatmeal with nut butter
and sometimes, i choose the donut. that's ok too.
if it fits my calorie allotment1 -
Experience or mindset maybe. I just believe that an apple would be healthier for my body than 80 calories of candy... and would fill me up better as well. Of course you can still have a healthy diet with 100 calories of candy here and there though... But nobody can deny that there are food that have way more nutrition value than others.
That is not what you said though. You said there was "bad" food. I guess here the candy is "bad" because an apple is better. So then maybe if 80 calories of blueberries are better than an apple... the apple is "bad"?
Meh, I feel like we're arguing semantics here. Is a diet of pure apples going to provide adequate nutrition? No. Is a diet of pure Skittles going to provide adequate nutrition? No. Can someone eat Skittles as part of a healthy lifestyle? Sure.
That doesn't make them equivalents. I don't think it's unreasonable for some people to classify foods that offer nothing but calories and tooth decay as falling below a point on the nutritional spectrum that can be considered "good". I also understand why some people are resistant to classifying food as "good" or "bad" just as some people are resistant to the use of "cheat" day. Not everyone's diet has to be the same, so why does what constitutes a healthy mindset about food have to be exactly the same for everyone?3 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I don't buy the 'there is no bad food' theory (I eat plenty of it, I'm just not in denial that I could make much healthier choices), and you're not going to prove anything by having a diet mostly consisting of junk food.
I'm not sure I would call it a theory so much as an experience or mindset. That you believe someone like myself is in denial after discussing my issues is certainly your choice, but this is why I don't jump into these posts with my story very often.
Except for man-made trans fats. I'll accept that those are objectively a bad food.
Experience or mindset maybe. I just believe that an apple would be healthier for my body than 80 calories of candy... and would fill me up better as well. Of course you can still have a healthy diet with 100 calories of candy here and there though... But nobody can deny that there are food that have way more nutrition value than others.
Sure, I'll agree that there's a sliding scale of nutrition where some foods rank higher than others depending on ones needs and goals. And that scale is going to be partially objective and partially subjective based on individual preferences. I just don't agree that there are more than a handful of foods that rank so low as to be labeled "bad."
I choose not to drink regular soda. It doesn't have a lot of redeeming qualities, imo. But, again in my experience, labeling it as a "bad food" doesn't work out well for me. Every once in a while I'll drink a regular soda if that's what's available or I'm really craving one. I know when I drink it that I'm making a choice that's low on the sliding scale of nutrition. But labeling it a "bad" choice or a "bad" food just backfires, for me personally. If it's not actively harming me, then I prefer to consider it a neutral choice for all of the reasons I explained above.
You can call my food issues denial. You can call them bad. You can call them unhealthy. That's your choice. But I, personally, needed therapy to deal with them when I was calling foods good and bad. I choose not to go back to that.10 -
nickssweetheart wrote: »Experience or mindset maybe. I just believe that an apple would be healthier for my body than 80 calories of candy... and would fill me up better as well. Of course you can still have a healthy diet with 100 calories of candy here and there though... But nobody can deny that there are food that have way more nutrition value than others.
That is not what you said though. You said there was "bad" food. I guess here the candy is "bad" because an apple is better. So then maybe if 80 calories of blueberries are better than an apple... the apple is "bad"?
Meh, I feel like we're arguing semantics here. Is a diet of pure apples going to provide adequate nutrition? No. Is a diet of pure Skittles going to provide adequate nutrition? No. Can someone eat Skittles as part of a healthy lifestyle? Sure.
That doesn't make them equivalents. I don't think it's unreasonable for some people to classify foods that offer nothing but calories and tooth decay as falling below a point on the nutritional spectrum that can be considered "good". I also understand why some people are resistant to classifying food as "good" or "bad" just as some people are resistant to the use of "cheat" day. Not everyone's diet has to be the same, so why does what constitutes a healthy mindset about food have to be exactly the same for everyone?
If someone has categories of "good" and "bad" foods for their personal preferences and goals, I don't have any more concerns with that than I do with other subjective categories (people have lists of foods they personally consider "delicious," "gross," "not worth the money," "comforting," etc).
But I think OP is arguing for a non-subjective set of categories, that things like pastries and dip are "bad" for everyone. To question this doesn't require arguing that two different foods are "equivalents" (I don't think anyone is arguing that Skittles and apples are the same).9 -
I once read in a book, called Mindless Eating, that humans don't actually consume calories . . . we consume volume. And in my experience, both with my own weight loss struggles and friends who are on the latest "fad" diet, conventionally "bad" foods tend to be foods that offer large amounts of calories for the volume our brains deem to be adequate for us.
To lose weight, we all need to eat less than we burn . . . that science is really, very simple. However some foods offer us more calories per volume than others. Foods that offer "more bang for our buck", like leafy greens, fibrous crunchy veggies and whole wheat, unprocessed (or minimally processed) grains, etc tend to give our brains the volume we believe we need while keeping our calories at a minimum. These foods have been deemed to be "good" foods. While foods with low volume for high calories may or may not be nutritionally sound - depending on your goals - they can still be part of a balanced diet. For examples, runners or endurance cyclists will benefit greatly from a decent amount of pasta and breads in their diets but those who are sedentary may find themselves starving and VERY grouchy on that kind of diet; they will need more volume to feel full so they should fill their diet with crunchy veggies and leafy greens. Foods that are hard to digest will keep your stomach feeling full. Veggies take more time to break down in your stomach, so your tummy isn't asking for more food because they are still breaking down the veggies for quite some time. Foods that are already partially processed (read: digested) like bread are easier to pass through your system so your tummy is empty and asking for more food sooner.
It's really, in the end, a big mind game.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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