"Four terms that make dietitians cringe" - Why we say what we do on these boards

Perhaps a better idea instead of good or bad would be foods with a stop light attached. Foods in the green category, eat all you want. Unlikely you are going to eat so much kale and water to adversely impact your weight goals.

Chocolate donuts would be in the red category. Doesn't mean you don't eat them, it means you stop and consider where they fit into your eating plan. Maybe you have one instead of a package of 6 at one sitting.

Foods are not good or bad, but they bring too much of one thing and not enough of another.

As someone who has to limit carbs based on doctor's orders, if I'm eating a carb, it better come with some protein and fats as well. The fats are not that hard to get. Protein on the other hand...

I

AnnPT77 wrote: »

wannabeskinnycat wrote: »

MikePTY wrote: »

wannabeskinnycat wrote: »

Brilliant.

I'm often asked if I'm 'carbing down'? And do I feel guilty when I have a naughty snack?

Arrrgggghhhh

I'm eating clean in that I wash fruit and veggies before I eat them

I do also try to not eat food if I've dropped it on the floor, at least if it goes past the 5 seconds rule. So I guess I clean eat too

Haha I did the 5 second rule in work a few weeks ago and stood back up to see horrified faces. Mightn't have been so bad if I hadn't said it out loud. Errr I've got 5 seconds to put it in the bin ....

Nah, eat it (whether +/- 5 seconds) and tell the bystanders you're doing it to "increase the diversity of your gut microbiome".

Besides, immune systems with too little productive work to do tend to start doing counterproductive things . . . .

I'm not a fan of the "hey it is great to expose yourself to random germs and viruses" philosophy in eating things after they come into contact with surfaces where people walk - that residue left from someone's shoes after stepping in dog crap or standing in a puddle in front of the urinal actually don't qualify as vaccinations, lol.

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Love the first post.

On other matters, I didn't know anyone asserted the 5 second rule as if it were actually serious. I thought it was understood as a jokey way to defend still eating foods that fall on the floor (no, really, it's okay!). It's similar to how we used to joke (when I first started a job with lots of work-related food events) that if it's free it must not have calories. (No one actually believed that.) So I think it's amusing that it's been officially debunked.

I usually will eat it anyway, though, so long as it doesn't ruin the food (obv no on is eating stew that's been spilled on the floor), and it's my own floor.

Mythbusters debunked a lot of things that weren’t necessarily widely believed, and some things that were. It made for entertaining TV. I think there are people who put some faith in the five second rule, though. They seem to think the food can’t be *that* dirty if it only hit the floor for a second or two.

For what it’s worth, I’ll also generally eat something I dropped on my own floor. I have a cat; she inevitably graces every surface in my home, not just the floor

What I don't understand is why we need to get all triggered and attach morals and emotions to what is a fairly reasonable categorization of foods based on how they affect the body and health. And I know it's difficult because most foods fall in the grey zone where they're fine in moderation and balance. But some foods are still objectively better or worse for you than others. It's like saying that breathing clean air somewhere in the Swiss mountains is better than the polluted air in a factory town in China. There's no moral value to it, you're not a less worthy person for breathing the factory smoke, it is just worse for your health, that is all. Consuming food with substances that are shown to be endocrine disrupters, for instance, is worse than not consuming them, and there's a reason many of these are banned in other countries but not US. I'm not talking about broccoli vs donuts; but things like hydrogenated oils like someone brought up, transfats, artificial sweeteners, flavorings and colors, BPA from plastic packaging, are things that add absolutely no benefit to the body, and could potentially be harmful even if it's not proven yet. There's no need to attach moral weight to it. Nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol also don't need to be in your body for the same reasons. That's not to say I'll give up my wine or coffee, but I just accept this as a risk-benefit decision I'm making for myself. I'm not going to suffer from guilt and self-loathing while drowning my shame in cup after cup of coffee just because I'm aware that it's not the healthiest thing. I don't know if the good-bad obsession is some sort of puritanical thing or what. Maybe people should just stop being so sensitive about these concepts.

wannabeskinnycat wrote: »

I'm eating clean in that I wash fruit and veggies before I eat them

Brilliant!

nettiklive wrote: »

What I don't understand is why we need to get all triggered and attach morals and emotions to what is a fairly reasonable categorization of foods based on how they affect the body and health. And I know it's difficult because most foods fall in the grey zone where they're fine in moderation and balance. But some foods are still objectively better or worse for you than others. It's like saying that breathing clean air somewhere in the Swiss mountains is better than the polluted air in a factory town in China. There's no moral value to it, you're not a less worthy person for breathing the factory smoke, it is just worse for your health, that is all. Consuming food with substances that are shown to be endocrine disrupters, for instance, is worse than not consuming them, and there's a reason many of these are banned in other countries but not US. I'm not talking about broccoli vs donuts; but things like hydrogenated oils like someone brought up, transfats, artificial sweeteners, flavorings and colors, BPA from plastic packaging, are things that add absolutely no benefit to the body, and could potentially be harmful even if it's not proven yet. There's no need to attach moral weight to it. Nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol also don't need to be in your body for the same reasons. That's not to say I'll give up my wine or coffee, but I just accept this as a risk-benefit decision I'm making for myself. I'm not going to suffer from guilt and self-loathing while drowning my shame in cup after cup of coffee just because I'm aware that it's not the healthiest thing. I don't know if the good-bad obsession is some sort of puritanical thing or what. Maybe people should just stop being so sensitive about these concepts.

I'm not sure there is an objectively better or worse simplicitor. I think better and worse always categorical and can only be with respect to a goal.
Artificial flavors and sweeteners are both generally good for one's health if they replace higher calorie natural flavors and sweetners. They're also improving health if they make someone more satisfied.
Caffeine is actually associated with better health within a certain intake range. I don't care for coffee, but I drink a cup at work because of the evidence suggesting it has health effects.
Alcohol is the same - I almost never drink (I think it is years since my last one), but I'm aware that people that drink regularly at the rate of one drink or less per day are generally healthier than those that are non-drinkers.