Good Food, Bad Food
Options
Replies
-
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 -
nickssweetheart wrote: »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?
That is a convenient internet way of dismissing an argument by claiming it is only semantics. Semantics are sometimes well worth arguing especially when dealing with the concept of good vs bad. We are only supposed to do good and we are supposed to regret doing bad or cheating. So when I eat candy I am to be remorseful?
Not everyone has to have the same mindset or use the same terms but in an open forum where obviously some very impressionable people visit I see no harm in pushing back if, for no other reason, than to provide a different perspective and then they can choose.6 -
Well, I'm sitting down to lunch...having some leftover flank steak, quinoa, and peas. My wife made chocolate chip cookies over the weekend and I'm having one for desert...I hope I'll be ok...fingers crossed.6
-
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?
I don't think it's just semantics.
No one disagrees that some food is more nutrient dense than others, and that the nutrition in foods differ (so that depending on the rest of the diet one might be a better choice than another). So that's not the discussion.
The question is whether the fact that another food has more of certain kinds of nutrients makes a specific food inherently "bad." I know some call it that without it being an issue, and I don't really care (to me "junk food" is a neutral term and I use it descriptively without feeling bad about eating something I class as such). But some find that calling a food "bad food" is a negative thing for them, and can be quite damaging (given how common it is to associate shame with food and eating this is not surprising) and so will explain why it might be something to beware of, and that it was harmful for them.
Personally, I don't think the "bad food" term is especially harmful for me, as I don't take it that seriously, but I also don't think it's helpful, and I DO find that trying to think about food logically, and not in moral terms, is very helpful. Rather than feel bad because I ate something not nutrient dense for breakfast and overreact to it (and tell myself I am now starving -- which would be in my head -- and have to have a bad day), it works better to think "yeah, if I want to meet my goals now, important to eat lots of vegetables and protein for lunch and dinner and maybe keep added calories from things like starchy carbs and fat a bit lighter than usual."
I think it's fine to decide that you are different and find the terms bad and good for food useful. I don't think it's cool to dismiss someone else's strongly felt reasons for explaining that the terms are important for them to avoid as not caring about nutrition (which no one did here, but I've seen it before) or denial or some such.
IMO, discussions about what we call things and how that affects thoughts are relevant and interesting.
Also, OP seemed to think that not using the term "bad food" means you don't pay attention to nutrition, which is just odd.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Also, OP seemed to think that not using the term "bad food" means you don't pay attention to nutrition, which is just odd.
Just my personal experience: since letting go of the good/bad food distinctions, I find I think about nutrition more and more thoughtfully because instead of just eating things because they are "good" or avoiding them because they're "bad," I'm actually planning meals based on my overall needs.
(Not saying this is the only way to think about nutrition, but it's certainly worked for me).6 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »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.
This is conventional thought, and for many of us it's true.
I think it only goes so far, though. For example, many who do keto or low carb and find it helpful are replacing higher volume with smaller, more caloric volume (high fat) and yet finding it more satisfying.
I'm more of a volume eater, but I found eating a bit higher fat to be really helpful for me, since I don't have much problem feeling sated, but I get unsatisfied on a low fat diet over time, and am far less likely to want to say "screw it" and go off my own plan when I have more fat on average, even though that decreases volume some. I will find a dinner more satisfying with a smaller portion of pasta or potatoes and a bit more fat (lots of veg and sufficient protein in either case).
Also, it doesn't seem that people DO use "bad food" consistently for foods that are high cal/low volume. Olive oil is one good example that usually doesn't get classed as such.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Also, OP seemed to think that not using the term "bad food" means you don't pay attention to nutrition, which is just odd.
Just my personal experience: since letting go of the good/bad food distinctions, I find I think about nutrition more and more thoughtfully because instead of just eating things because they are "good" or avoiding them because they're "bad," I'm actually planning meals based on my overall needs.
(Not saying this is the only way to think about nutrition, but it's certainly worked for me).
This is exactly the experience I had too.0 -
Tbh I feel like this entire argument is just semantics. I once made a post a couple years ago asking for low calorie junk food and I got torn apart for using that term. Which I think is silly. I agree with the general concept that there isn’t “good” food or “bad” food. It’s about having a “good” or balanced diet overall and getting your nutrition requirements. If I ate all broccoli I’m sure I would have unpleasant side effects too. However skittles are certainly not very nutritious.2
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Well, I'm sitting down to lunch...having some leftover flank steak, quinoa, and peas. My wife made chocolate chip cookies over the weekend and I'm having one for desert...I hope I'll be ok...fingers crossed.
Enjoy your diabeetus.
6 -
I guess the good food bad food terminology doesn’t affect me at all but I recognize that it can be harmful for people new to weight loss. When someone asks for advice on how to lose weight or what to eat, you always hear the same things. Don’t eat white foods, don’t eat processed foods, don’t drink soda, etc etc. I think those suggestions are very UNhelpful because these people get burnt out eliminating all of these things from their diet and then fall off the wagon. It doesn’t teach them moderation.2
-
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Also, OP seemed to think that not using the term "bad food" means you don't pay attention to nutrition, which is just odd.
Just my personal experience: since letting go of the good/bad food distinctions, I find I think about nutrition more and more thoughtfully because instead of just eating things because they are "good" or avoiding them because they're "bad," I'm actually planning meals based on my overall needs.
(Not saying this is the only way to think about nutrition, but it's certainly worked for me).
But you still make choices and pick some foods instead of others, because, as you say, you're more thoughtful about it.
For me, distinguishing between what will fill me up for the calories and what won't (which I put in the 'good' or 'bad' category) is definitely a tool that is necessary for meal planning (which is a skill that OP seems to be lacking lol). I mean, technically, eating 3 cookies will never be 'good' for my diet because I'll be hungry later.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions