Am I really committing a crime against humanity?
Replies
-
rheddmobile wrote: »Your parents sound similar to my mother - huge portions (my husband was shocked the first time he ate at their house), and socializes mainly through food. It doesn’t make life easy. I’m a type 2 diabetic so I have health reasons for not wanting to eat crap. And before I get a bunch of woos for “demonizing foods” I define crap as food that spikes my blood glucose. It may be fine for someone. It’s not fine for me. You don’t have to bend to the woo-givers. If you don’t want to eat certain foods, it is no one else’s business to force you to eat them, moderately, or otherwise.
Some remarks I have had to deal with: “So-and-so is diabetic and she eats all these things. She just takes more insulin.” (That’s not an option for me. My diabetes is controlled through diet and exercise. I don’t have a prescription for insulin. Also, So-and-So is literally dead now, from complications of diabetes.) “It’s your birthday, you can have high blood sugar for one day, it won’t kill you.” (Probably not - although if it’s high enough it might - but having very high blood sugar doesn’t feel nice. It’s my birthday. I don’t want to spend it feeling ill.)
My solution took a while, but I finally got the hang of it. I grew the heck up and stopped relating to my mom as a child. That means I don’t pretend to be polite and I don’t make excuses and I don’t let myself be bullied. No, “thanks for the cake, it looks delicious,” I just put it right into the trash. No going out to restaurants without diabetic friendly options, instead I say “If you’re going there I can’t come, would you rather go here or shall we do something another time?” I no longer eat at her house except on major holidays when I bring enough of my own food to get by. When the discussion turns to critiquing my eating habits and comments such as “You can’t keep this up,” or, “It sounds sad to live like that,” I say, “This is a decision I am making, I prefer my food and enjoy it, and being healthy means I am much happier today than when I was morbidly obese.” Then change the subject.
In order to maintain a relationship with my mother, I have made an effort to do new things with her that don’t involve food, such as seeing movies. We took a road trip to see the house where she grew up. We talk a lot on the phone instead of sitting at restaurants. I went with her to a dance contest and a horse show. It took a while, but I believe our relationship is actually bettter than it was when all we did was eat. And lately instead of insulting me she has been bragging about me and complimenting me.
Stand your ground. It will (probably) get better. But even if it doesn’t if you don’t eat the food they are trying to force on you, you will be happier and healthier.
Throwing out food on purpose when there are starving people out there? Disgusting. Couldn't you just have said no, I won't eating it and I'm not taking it? People are pathetic. I think people are just far too easily offended nowadays.
Would you have given the food you didn't eat to said starving people? Would the parents and/or other people offering the food have given it to starving people? If the answer to those questions is no, then why would throwing away the food be bad?13 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Processed and ultra processed are not the same. Frozen spinach is processed. Whole grain bread is processed, rolled oats are processed, canned tomatoes are processed, cottage cheese is processed, smoked salmon is processed, boneless, skinless chicken breast is processed.
Ironically, the link defines ultraprocessed as microwavable and ready to eat, so would not include the oh so evil homemade pie.
But again not the topic of this thread.
While you are correct that processed and ultra processed are not the same, everyone I know IRL, along with most new posters on MFP, say "processed" when they mean "ultra processed".
If you go back, that was kind of my point. As I understood it, OP was mad that someone thought a homemade pie was not processed and offered it to her when she had told them she doesn't eat processed foods. I pointed out that people use processed in different ways, so you have to realize they might not know you consider a homemade pie processed (even though I think it obviously is). Then some other poster (not OP) commented that it was reasonable to consider a pie processed, and I said I totally agree, it obviously is, but people use the term in different ways so expecting others to know what you mean by the term is hopeless. Then the other poster--who had expressed a definition of processed that is identical to my own (and different from ultraprocessed) posted a link re specific types of ultraprocessed foods to support a claim that all processed foods are supposedly bad and unhealthy. That's when I pointed out that the link was not referring to all processed foods as the poster had defined them. So please don't suggest that I was misunderstanding the poster's usage.
I should stop responding to this tangent, but you seemed to be misunderstanding the context and assuming the other poster did not share my definition of processed. IMO, the post about the evils of processed foods was off-topic and I was trying to bring it back to the focus on it being an issue of communication.
To add to that, focusing on processed or ultraprocessed or whatnot as categories is kind of hopeless since no one agrees on what they mean and they are so varied. Easier to just to tell people what you eat and don't using other terms or, as I said before, just say "no thanks" and don't assume anyone else will remember anything.
And again, you may think it's obvious that people mean ultraprocessed when they say processed, but that clearly was not the case with the poster I was responding to, and personally I was on a "nothing processed" kick myself for a period of time before I was on MFP, and I absolutely meant processed (however impossible that is) vs. ultraprocessed and avoided things like canned beans and canned tomatoes, among other things, and basically made my life difficult. That's why I think it is important to try to understand what people mean by the term and not to assume they mean whatever you think is colloquially meant. Even with "ultraprocessed" people have quite different understandings of what that means.
But we should probably be careful not to take this off-topic, as what processed/ultraprocessed is doesn't matter. OP can not eat whatever she prefers to not eat, that's the main point.
The OP clarified on page 3 "The pie I was referring to was shop bought, it was not homemade"
So that's the only thing you are going to respond to in my post?
But okay, so maybe someone thought a bakery pie made from whole ingredients was not processed?
My point is not to defend the usage, you know my own understanding of "processed" is a broad one (you just took me to task for that), but to point out that OBVIOUSLY people have different understandings of processed (I am amazed by how many people think protein powder is unprocessed), so getting mad that someone did not GET your own meaning and then complaining about that on the internet is rather hopeless. I'd say accept that lots of people think "processed" means "bad junk with lots of fishy additives" (as I said way upthread) and so will defend foods they think don't fit that category. (I think many of the so called fishy additives really are more about not being able to understand the terms on the label, but I also think packaged baked goods are rarely good and I'd not eat some mass produced store bought pie because I'm a snob and reserve my pie calories for only the best pies. I might well eat a piece from a good bakery, thinking it was basically like a homemade one. In that OP is in the UK, I think, I have no clue what the pie she is talking about might be like.
That aside, as I understand it, the REAL reason she's not eating the pie has 0 to do with it being processed or not, and all to do with her having issues with dessert-type foods (including not feeling good after she eats them). So why even introduce the "processed" thing unless to try to tell the person the food is obviously unfit for consumption by anyone? Or just to make things more confusing?
Instead: "No thank you!"
Maybe: "No thanks, I tend to feel bad after eating baked goods lately, so I'm taking a break." <--- only if you really don't feel comfortable just saying "no thanks" or "way too full after everything else I ate!" is another option.
Easy-peasy.6 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Processed and ultra processed are not the same. Frozen spinach is processed. Whole grain bread is processed, rolled oats are processed, canned tomatoes are processed, cottage cheese is processed, smoked salmon is processed, boneless, skinless chicken breast is processed.
Ironically, the link defines ultraprocessed as microwavable and ready to eat, so would not include the oh so evil homemade pie.
But again not the topic of this thread.
While you are correct that processed and ultra processed are not the same, everyone I know IRL, along with most new posters on MFP, say "processed" when they mean "ultra processed".
If you go back, that was kind of my point. As I understood it, OP was mad that someone thought a homemade pie was not processed and offered it to her when she had told them she doesn't eat processed foods. I pointed out that people use processed in different ways, so you have to realize they might not know you consider a homemade pie processed (even though I think it obviously is). Then some other poster (not OP) commented that it was reasonable to consider a pie processed, and I said I totally agree, it obviously is, but people use the term in different ways so expecting others to know what you mean by the term is hopeless. Then the other poster--who had expressed a definition of processed that is identical to my own (and different from ultraprocessed) posted a link re specific types of ultraprocessed foods to support a claim that all processed foods are supposedly bad and unhealthy. That's when I pointed out that the link was not referring to all processed foods as the poster had defined them. So please don't suggest that I was misunderstanding the poster's usage.
I should stop responding to this tangent, but you seemed to be misunderstanding the context and assuming the other poster did not share my definition of processed. IMO, the post about the evils of processed foods was off-topic and I was trying to bring it back to the focus on it being an issue of communication.
To add to that, focusing on processed or ultraprocessed or whatnot as categories is kind of hopeless since no one agrees on what they mean and they are so varied. Easier to just to tell people what you eat and don't using other terms or, as I said before, just say "no thanks" and don't assume anyone else will remember anything.
And again, you may think it's obvious that people mean ultraprocessed when they say processed, but that clearly was not the case with the poster I was responding to, and personally I was on a "nothing processed" kick myself for a period of time before I was on MFP, and I absolutely meant processed (however impossible that is) vs. ultraprocessed and avoided things like canned beans and canned tomatoes, among other things, and basically made my life difficult. That's why I think it is important to try to understand what people mean by the term and not to assume they mean whatever you think is colloquially meant. Even with "ultraprocessed" people have quite different understandings of what that means.
But we should probably be careful not to take this off-topic, as what processed/ultraprocessed is doesn't matter. OP can not eat whatever she prefers to not eat, that's the main point.
The OP clarified on page 3 "The pie I was referring to was shop bought, it was not homemade"
So that's the only thing you are going to respond to in my post?
But okay, so maybe someone thought a bakery pie made from whole ingredients was not processed?
My point is not to defend the usage, you know my own understanding of "processed" is a broad one (you just took me to task for that), but to point out that OBVIOUSLY people have different understandings of processed (I am amazed by how many people think protein powder is unprocessed), so getting mad that someone did not GET your own meaning and then complaining about that on the internet is rather hopeless. I'd say accept that lots of people think "processed" means "bad junk with lots of fishy additives" (as I said way upthread) and so will defend foods they think don't fit that category. (I think many of the so called fishy additives really are more about not being able to understand the terms on the label, but I also think packaged baked goods are rarely good and I'd not eat some mass produced store bought pie because I'm a snob and reserve my pie calories for only the best pies. I might well eat a piece from a good bakery, thinking it was basically like a homemade one. In that OP is in the UK, I think, I have no clue what the pie she is talking about might be like.
That aside, as I understand it, the REAL reason she's not eating the pie has 0 to do with it being processed or not, and all to do with her having issues with dessert-type foods (including not feeling good after she eats them). So why even introduce the "processed" thing unless to try to tell the person the food is obviously unfit for consumption by anyone? Or just to make things more confusing?
Instead: "No thank you!"
Maybe: "No thanks, I tend to feel bad after eating baked goods lately, so I'm taking a break." <--- only if you really don't feel comfortable just saying "no thanks" or "way too full after everything else I ate!" is another option.
Easy-peasy.
I was respecting what I thought was your desire to not take the thread off tangent
Plus, I am trying to leave the house.
But you make a good point above, which is indeed on topic - people do have different understandings of "processed" so it's best to just say "No thank you" or "No thanks, I tend to feel bad after eating baked goods lately, so I'm taking a break" rather than getting into it.9 -
Perhaps OP simply lacks the vocabulary to adequately differentiate those groups of foods she wishes to avoid for successful (for her) weight loss.
It's quite common on these forums to get jumped on for using terms like "junk food" or "unhealthy" food -- there is no "unhealthy" food blah blah -- yet I'm fairly certain we all have an equally common understanding of what sort of food is encompassed by those terms. And we'd all probably agree that higher-calorie, lower-nutrition foods should probably be the first things to eat less of on a calorie controlled diet.
I agree that to avoid a battle of semantics the OP should just politely refuse with a simple "no thank you" and not justify her choice by explaining it, since it's the explanation that is proving contentious.7 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Your parents sound similar to my mother - huge portions (my husband was shocked the first time he ate at their house), and socializes mainly through food. It doesn’t make life easy. I’m a type 2 diabetic so I have health reasons for not wanting to eat crap. And before I get a bunch of woos for “demonizing foods” I define crap as food that spikes my blood glucose. It may be fine for someone. It’s not fine for me. You don’t have to bend to the woo-givers. If you don’t want to eat certain foods, it is no one else’s business to force you to eat them, moderately, or otherwise.
Some remarks I have had to deal with: “So-and-so is diabetic and she eats all these things. She just takes more insulin.” (That’s not an option for me. My diabetes is controlled through diet and exercise. I don’t have a prescription for insulin. Also, So-and-So is literally dead now, from complications of diabetes.) “It’s your birthday, you can have high blood sugar for one day, it won’t kill you.” (Probably not - although if it’s high enough it might - but having very high blood sugar doesn’t feel nice. It’s my birthday. I don’t want to spend it feeling ill.)
My solution took a while, but I finally got the hang of it. I grew the heck up and stopped relating to my mom as a child. That means I don’t pretend to be polite and I don’t make excuses and I don’t let myself be bullied. No, “thanks for the cake, it looks delicious,” I just put it right into the trash. No going out to restaurants without diabetic friendly options, instead I say “If you’re going there I can’t come, would you rather go here or shall we do something another time?” I no longer eat at her house except on major holidays when I bring enough of my own food to get by. When the discussion turns to critiquing my eating habits and comments such as “You can’t keep this up,” or, “It sounds sad to live like that,” I say, “This is a decision I am making, I prefer my food and enjoy it, and being healthy means I am much happier today than when I was morbidly obese.” Then change the subject.
In order to maintain a relationship with my mother, I have made an effort to do new things with her that don’t involve food, such as seeing movies. We took a road trip to see the house where she grew up. We talk a lot on the phone instead of sitting at restaurants. I went with her to a dance contest and a horse show. It took a while, but I believe our relationship is actually bettter than it was when all we did was eat. And lately instead of insulting me she has been bragging about me and complimenting me.
Stand your ground. It will (probably) get better. But even if it doesn’t if you don’t eat the food they are trying to force on you, you will be happier and healthier.
Throwing out food on purpose when there are starving people out there? Disgusting. Couldn't you just have said no, I won't eating it and I'm not taking it? People are pathetic. I think people are just far too easily offended nowadays.
Would you have given the food you didn't eat to said starving people? Would the parents and/or other people offering the food have given it to starving people? If the answer to those questions is no, then why would throwing away the food be bad?
This reminds me of my mom getting me to eat stuff I hated when I was a kid. "Don't you know that there are starving kids in the world?" Always wanted to say, "Well, then mail this to them!" but I knew I would've gotten a smack or ten for that.
10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I have a legit question for the “abstainers”. And before I pose it I want to preface that I’m a “moderator” and I’m guilty of arguing that this is the best method for everyone, even with @kshama2001 in my early days I think (sorry!).
But for the abstainers, is my presumption correct that the foods that are hard to moderate are a smaller number of specific foods? Not just “junk food”? KShama mentioned Ben and Jerry’s as being problematic. I remember another poster talking about ribs, someone else about cheesecake, someone about peanut butter m&ms.
OP seems to be making these sweeping generalizations about anything that contains salt or sugar (and I think may be in the UK where I think NHS has done some campaigns about the evils of these ingredients and limiting them). This is the part that I feel may be problematic . Even those for whom abstinence is the best strategy usually understand the concept of trigger foods and don’t blame their overindulgence on “addiction”.
This is the part that while harder to admit, may be better for OP on the long run to accept that certain foods are challenging but still completely within her control to say yes or no to.
Thoughts from anyone?
I have to abstain. I do it with foods that usually for no rhyme or reason will have me eating my way through everything in the house. Some foods are just triggers for me to eat and eat and eat. So stay away from them.
I assume its just different for different people.
Perhaps OP finds it helpful to use the term junk food, to help her recognise that those foods are not good for her in terms of keeping her on track, so they literally are 'junk' and that might be different to what other people think 'junk food' is, thats ok, its her body and her mind that needs to work for her.
I wouldnt have thought it matters what words she uses for the reason for staying away from certain foods, such as addiction, she has to make it work for her. Its all very well advising the OP to accept this or that 'in the long run' but she is struggling now to ensure that she keeps her weight under control. I havent heard (although I must admit I didnt read the whole thread) that she is saying she isnt in control to saying yes or no, she is saying she is trying to say no but then gets pestered by people to say yes (she doesnt say I think whether she ends up saying yes).
The problem is, unless you do experience these triggers, its easy to feel the sense of control about food that us abstainers dont have. On paper of course I have the agency to say no to more cake/pizza/crisps etc etc if I were to have a little bit, in practice I dont have that power within me. I could spend years in therapy (Ive already had several period of therapy in my life which were helpful but havent changed this) learning how to do that but in the mean time I would still be overweight. Therefore my 'therapy' is abstaining (at present, who knows what the future might nold)4 -
Perhaps OP simply lacks the vocabulary to adequately differentiate those groups of foods she wishes to avoid for successful (for her) weight loss.
It's quite common on these forums to get jumped on for using terms like "junk food" or "unhealthy" food -- there is no "unhealthy" food blah blah -- yet I'm fairly certain we all have an equally common understanding of what sort of food is encompassed by those terms. And we'd all probably agree that higher-calorie, lower-nutrition foods should probably be the first things to eat less of on a calorie controlled diet.
I agree that to avoid a battle of semantics the OP should just politely refuse with a simple "no thank you" and not justify her choice by explaining it, since it's the explanation that is proving contentious.
This is a good point.
I dont think of foods as 'good or bad', or 'naughty' (which is my pet peeve), but I will say that I have eaten 'badly' since Thursday this week.
So why would I use a word like that to describe my intake? Because Ive eaten things that have made me feel physically 'bad'. Tired, lethargic, my joints are inflamed, Im headachy. I notice that I react fairly badly to bready things, pastry things, I overeat on them, find it difficult to control myself, then I feel ill, then I want some more. So from a buffet lunch on Thursday when I went mad with sausage rolls (marks and spencer, irresistible), Ive eaten similar in the days following. Ive gone over my calorie allowance but that doesnt make it 'bad' for me, its the fact that I feel sleepy, hungry, tired, heavy the whole thing. However those foods arent 'bad' foods, they're just foods, but that they are not good for me personally.
So Im not sure it matters what OP means by 'unhealthy' or bad or processed or junk or whatever, she knows what it means for her and thats whats important.8 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Your parents sound similar to my mother - huge portions (my husband was shocked the first time he ate at their house), and socializes mainly through food. It doesn’t make life easy. I’m a type 2 diabetic so I have health reasons for not wanting to eat crap. And before I get a bunch of woos for “demonizing foods” I define crap as food that spikes my blood glucose. It may be fine for someone. It’s not fine for me. You don’t have to bend to the woo-givers. If you don’t want to eat certain foods, it is no one else’s business to force you to eat them, moderately, or otherwise.
Some remarks I have had to deal with: “So-and-so is diabetic and she eats all these things. She just takes more insulin.” (That’s not an option for me. My diabetes is controlled through diet and exercise. I don’t have a prescription for insulin. Also, So-and-So is literally dead now, from complications of diabetes.) “It’s your birthday, you can have high blood sugar for one day, it won’t kill you.” (Probably not - although if it’s high enough it might - but having very high blood sugar doesn’t feel nice. It’s my birthday. I don’t want to spend it feeling ill.)
My solution took a while, but I finally got the hang of it. I grew the heck up and stopped relating to my mom as a child. That means I don’t pretend to be polite and I don’t make excuses and I don’t let myself be bullied. No, “thanks for the cake, it looks delicious,” I just put it right into the trash. No going out to restaurants without diabetic friendly options, instead I say “If you’re going there I can’t come, would you rather go here or shall we do something another time?” I no longer eat at her house except on major holidays when I bring enough of my own food to get by. When the discussion turns to critiquing my eating habits and comments such as “You can’t keep this up,” or, “It sounds sad to live like that,” I say, “This is a decision I am making, I prefer my food and enjoy it, and being healthy means I am much happier today than when I was morbidly obese.” Then change the subject.
In order to maintain a relationship with my mother, I have made an effort to do new things with her that don’t involve food, such as seeing movies. We took a road trip to see the house where she grew up. We talk a lot on the phone instead of sitting at restaurants. I went with her to a dance contest and a horse show. It took a while, but I believe our relationship is actually bettter than it was when all we did was eat. And lately instead of insulting me she has been bragging about me and complimenting me.
Stand your ground. It will (probably) get better. But even if it doesn’t if you don’t eat the food they are trying to force on you, you will be happier and healthier.
Throwing out food on purpose when there are starving people out there? Disgusting. Couldn't you just have said no, I won't eating it and I'm not taking it? People are pathetic. I think people are just far too easily offended nowadays.
I’m a diabetic. Cake isn’t food to me because my body lacks the ability to metabolize carbs properly. It’s literally poison to me and enough will kill me. Yes, it’s going in the trash before it goes in my body. If you would like to volunteer to come to my house and pick it up and carry it to a starving person, please feel free. But most needy people in my neighborhood (for example, there is a homeless encampment under the bridge over the Nonconnah) are not starving. They would like fresh water and phone cards, not cake.
I’m not all that easy to offend, by the way. For example, I’m not offended, despite you calling me, a stranger, pathetic.14 -
Personally I use the term junk food and consider it pretty neutral and know what I mean by it, but I don't assume others would know what I meant and I see no value in calling out what someone else is eating and I am not as "junk."
For me, eating badly is eating in a way that does not match my personal nutrition goals or exceeds my cals. It's 100% my responsibility and no one else's (and okay once in a while for me).
Again, I don't think people are criticizing OP's vocabulary, but pointing out that if you use vague terms you can't expect everyone get exactly what you mean.5 -
Perhaps OP simply lacks the vocabulary to adequately differentiate those groups of foods she wishes to avoid for successful (for her) weight loss.
It's quite common on these forums to get jumped on for using terms like "junk food" or "unhealthy" food -- there is no "unhealthy" food blah blah -- yet I'm fairly certain we all have an equally common understanding of what sort of food is encompassed by those terms. And we'd all probably agree that higher-calorie, lower-nutrition foods should probably be the first things to eat less of on a calorie controlled diet.
I agree that to avoid a battle of semantics the OP should just politely refuse with a simple "no thank you" and not justify her choice by explaining it, since it's the explanation that is proving contentious.
No the issue here wasnt OP or anyone using terms on the forums and getting jumped on - it was OP using terms in her real life and confusing other people and then getting mad when they offerred her food that she thinks is processed and they did not think was - so they offerred it to her thinking it would be ok because they had different ideas of what processed meant.
and OP getting into arguments with her MIL, among others, and 'having to correct' her MIL who thought something was healthy or unprocessed or ok for OP to eat when OP thought it was not.
But yea the main point is that OP should just nicely say No thank you and not launch onto her soap box of how/what/why things are unprocessed or unhealthy or addictive - because this behaviour of hers is feeding into the problem.
The problem being that other people offering food turns into an arguement/drama/difficulty/'sabotage'
That is the problem - not OP's food choices or her terminology in themselves.
8 -
Re the little tangent of not throwing out food because people are starving somewhere else.
My husband, who is over weight, has this thing about eating all the food on his plate, eating the last peice of cake etc so it doesnt get wasted because when he was a child they were hammered with this Eat it all, think of starving children in Africa/India/China/Somewhere
Although rationally, whether he eats the above or throws it out or gives it to the dog make zero difference to anyone else in the world.
If he wanted to do something planned, like not buy packets of biscuits or make some other cost saving change to his diet and donate that money to Savethechildren or similar, that would make sense.
Just not eating or not eating random excess food does not.12 -
paperpudding wrote: »Re the little tangent of not throwing out food because people are starving somewhere else.
My husband, who is over weight, has this thing about eating all the food on his plate, eating the last peice of cake etc so it doesnt get wasted because when he was a child they were hammered with this Eat it all, think of starving children in Africa/India/China/Somewhere
Although rationally, whether he eats the above or throws it out or gives it to the dog make zero difference to anyone else in the world.
If he wanted to do something planned, like not buy packets of biscuits or make some other cost saving change to his diet and donate that money to Savethechildren or similar, that would make sense.
Just not eating or not eating random excess food does not.
I had to break myself of that habit, too. Now I consciously tell myself it is no less wasteful to eat food beyond what I need just because it's there than it is to throw it away, and far more inconvenient and unhealthy in the long run.
Having 2 teenagers in the house also helps...4 -
as does having a dog
8 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Processed and ultra processed are not the same. Frozen spinach is processed. Whole grain bread is processed, rolled oats are processed, canned tomatoes are processed, cottage cheese is processed, smoked salmon is processed, boneless, skinless chicken breast is processed.
Ironically, the link defines ultraprocessed as microwavable and ready to eat, so would not include the oh so evil homemade pie.
But again not the topic of this thread.
While you are correct that processed and ultra processed are not the same, everyone I know IRL, along with most new posters on MFP, say "processed" when they mean "ultra processed".
This is the first I time I remember seeing the term ultra processed used. The subject was confusing as it was so adding this layer just makes my head hurt.
2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Processed and ultra processed are not the same. Frozen spinach is processed. Whole grain bread is processed, rolled oats are processed, canned tomatoes are processed, cottage cheese is processed, smoked salmon is processed, boneless, skinless chicken breast is processed.
Ironically, the link defines ultraprocessed as microwavable and ready to eat, so would not include the oh so evil homemade pie.
But again not the topic of this thread.
While you are correct that processed and ultra processed are not the same, everyone I know IRL, along with most new posters on MFP, say "processed" when they mean "ultra processed".
This is the first I time I remember seeing the term ultra processed used. The subject was confusing as it was so adding this layer just makes my head hurt.
Is that like, the super saiyan version of processed?
ULTRA PROCESSEDDDDDDDD IT'S OVER 9000 CALORIESSSSSSS
7 -
paperpudding wrote: »Re the little tangent of not throwing out food because people are starving somewhere else.
My husband, who is over weight, has this thing about eating all the food on his plate, eating the last peice of cake etc so it doesnt get wasted because when he was a child they were hammered with this Eat it all, think of starving children in Africa/India/China/Somewhere
Although rationally, whether he eats the above or throws it out or gives it to the dog make zero difference to anyone else in the world.
If he wanted to do something planned, like not buy packets of biscuits or make some other cost saving change to his diet and donate that money to Savethechildren or similar, that would make sense.
Just not eating or not eating random excess food does not.
Yeah the whole thing of eating food that is already made to not be "wasteful" is weird to me. The act of cooking more food than one needs to reasonably eat is the wasteful action. Once that is done, the food is already wasted. It is worse off to put the food in your body when it is not needed and will cause a calorie surplus than it is to put it in the trash IMO.
11 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
This reminds me of my mom getting me to eat stuff I hated when I was a kid. "Don't you know that there are starving kids in the world?" Always wanted to say, "Well, then mail this to them!" but I knew I would've gotten a smack or ten for that.
I used to get those comments too, when I didn't want to eat something. And I did use that response more than once! I rarely got a smack for it, but I often got told off for talking back to my mum. Didn't make any difference to my refusal to eat things I didn't like, though!1 -
paperpudding wrote: »Re the little tangent of not throwing out food because people are starving somewhere else.
My husband, who is over weight, has this thing about eating all the food on his plate, eating the last peice of cake etc so it doesnt get wasted because when he was a child they were hammered with this Eat it all, think of starving children in Africa/India/China/Somewhere
Although rationally, whether he eats the above or throws it out or gives it to the dog make zero difference to anyone else in the world.
If he wanted to do something planned, like not buy packets of biscuits or make some other cost saving change to his diet and donate that money to Savethechildren or similar, that would make sense.
Just not eating or not eating random excess food does not.
Just put less food on your plate. I never leave food, but even now, eating 1250 calories a day, I still manage to stick to my calories.
I lived in a little village in Kashmir for half a year and it really made me appreciate everything we're given. Whether that's food, water, clothes, anything. If everyone lived thinking, oh well, it won't make any difference to the poor starving people out there if I threw this out, then we would all be in trouble. I read an article not long ago about how our wasted food could feed 2 billion starving people. Doesn't that make you feel a little guilty? Maybe one day, who knows, that poor starving person could be us. Buy less, waste less.
The woman didn't have to eat it or give it to a starving person, that's not my point. She should have been firm with her mother and told her no, I'm not taking it. If she still somehow left it, she could have passed it on to the neighbours, or to the homeless, (even in high-income countries there are many homeless around). All those bits of food that are wasted every week, they all add up. Why live like that? It's so unnecessary.
7 -
Hmm I hope this doesn't come off rude or insensitive but unless your under 18 then honestly you are responsible for you. So if you are wanting to have a healthy life then cut anything and anyone who isn't supporting that. I know that seems rather rough and but as someone who is embarking an alternative lifestyle and moving back down in weight, I don't seek support as it's fickle. I really believe society pushes the unhealthy due to addiction mind and its away of escape. When you become better you then alter their reality and people will do anything to ensure that doesn't happen.
Focus on your goals and be very grounded in not needing people for support as support is a foreign concept to me and can cause a hindrance as everything you need is within.10 -
I also used to have that all or nothing mentality before. What has helped me through these last 35 pounds I've lost so far was accepting that I'm not going to always be perfect, I'm human! Overall, one cookie won't affect my weight loss in the end, if I don't beat myself up for it. Everyday is a new day and eventually I had to rewire my brain to understand this. I used to give up if I ate "bad" food and didn't workout. I would restart every Monday when I could just pick up the next day and brush off a bad day. Since December 1st, I've had a couple of eat everything in sight days, but at the end of it all, I've had more good days than bad and have lost 35.2 pounds. You can do it too OP!11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions