Good or Bad Food?
Options
luigi76
Posts: 1 Member
Hello, I am new to the app and was wondering how can I see easily if a good is good or bad for you?
In other apps, it is visible by placing foods in a green/yellow/red zone for example.
Thanks
In other apps, it is visible by placing foods in a green/yellow/red zone for example.
Thanks
2
Replies
-
Hello, I am new to the app and was wondering how can I see easily if a good is good or bad for you?
In other apps, it is visible by placing foods in a green/yellow/red zone for example.
Thanks
Almost all food has the potential to be in a good, fair, or bad category depending on the person, context, and dosage.21 -
This site focuses primarily on the calorie content and the macros for the day. Sometimes the counter will tell you "this food is high in vitamin c" or "this food is high in saturated fat". But the overall focus around here is not so much how much "good" vs "bad" food you eat, but weather or not those foods fit into your caloric goal overall.
You can focus on meeting other goals in addition to your calorie goal, like making sure you get enough protien and fiber for satiety, and trying not to exceed your sugar and fat goals. But at the end of the day, so long as the calorie goal is met you'll see progress. This way no particular food is seen as "good" or "bad". It's just weather or not you can fit it into your day is the question.8 -
You will do yourself a service to change your thinking about food from good/bad to calories and nutrients. With the possible exception of trans fats, no food is inherently good or bad. They contain different amounts of energy (calories) and nutrients.
Whether they are good or bad for you depends on your goals and the context.19 -
Not sure if it's a MFP Premium feature only, but you can at least take a look at the nutrients view on your diary to see if you are hitting goals for macros, and which foods in your diary are highest in carbs, protein, or fat.
Agree with others that the classification of "good" and "bad" foods is not ideal. I like to look at foods in terms of how well they will fuel me, so a good that is just low calorie might not be great for me if it doesn't have the nutrients I need. Alternatively, making a place in my diet for nutritious high fat or high calorie foods is also important.3 -
For weight loss, calories are the key issue.
But that's not to deprecate nutrition. That's really important for health, energy level, and more.
Some of us here, like me, think that individual foods are not inherently "good" or "bad", it's really more about whether they help our personal nutritional needs at a particular point, or don't (unless they're actively poisonous or something!).
So, it's about dosage and context.
For example, sometimes I like peanut sauce on my veggie/soy noodle dinner. If I have lots of calories available, and haven't hit my daily fat minimum, I might make the peanut sauce with peanut butter straight from the jar. OTOH, if I'm short on calories, don't really need more fats, but still want the flavor and protein, I'd make the sauce with defatted peanut powder. Context.
To be more graphic, let's say it's a good workout day here at my place, so I have plenty of calories to hit my nutritional goals easily. However, because of rowing in the morning and doing home chores, my energy is flagging a little, and it's time for a strength training workout. In that scenario, I want some fast carbs (and maybe a cup of coffee!
) for a quick energy boost. I might grab one of the Tootsie Roll brand caramel green apple suckers-on-a-stick (60 calories) I have in a bag in the cupboard: Just right for the context, even though those with a "good/bad food" orientation would say it's bad because it's all sugar. Again, context.
Once all the nutritional boxes are checked, and well, there isn't really extra credit for more broccoli. Occasionally, it's also fine to eat a calorie-dense but not nutrition-dense special-treat food, within calories.
Frankly, I think most of us have a general idea which foods are more nutrient-dense and lower calorie, vs. calorie dense with minimal nutrition. Food logging experience fills in the details, over time, with practice.
For me personally, thinking of foods as "good" and "bad" feeds into a sort of "sin and expiation" model of eating, where my options are to "be good" or "fall off the wagon", the latter of which is a "failure", and requires some kind of compensatory behavior like cutting way back on eating, or exercising a bunch, . . . or giving up altogether. For me, that's unproductive (and waaaay too much drama ).
For me, it was more helpful to set a calorie goal, then gradually work at remodeling my eating to meet nutritional and other goals, in a context where I could balance calories, nutrients, practicality, satiation, tastiness, social connection, and other factors that food affects. It's kind of like a fun science fair project for grown-ups.
If that kind of idea appeals to you, there's more details about that approach in this thread:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10636388/free-customized-personal-weight-loss-eating-plan-not-spam-or-mlm/p1
Best wishes!18 -
Not sure if it's a MFP Premium feature only, but you can at least take a look at the nutrients view on your diary to see if you are hitting goals for macros, and which foods in your diary are highest in carbs, protein, or fat.
Agree with others that the classification of "good" and "bad" foods is not ideal. I like to look at foods in terms of how well they will fuel me, so a good that is just low calorie might not be great for me if it doesn't have the nutrients I need. Alternatively, making a place in my diet for nutritious high fat or high calorie foods is also important.
its not a premium feature - users on free service can see breakdown of macros too.
I think premium shows more detail on micro-nutrients (correct me if wrong, I don't have premium) but free version certainly gives basic fats, carbs, protein information
0 -
I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.3
-
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Why is that ridiculous? Calories are calories. If you eat a surplus of calories from walnuts, you will gain weight. If you eat a deficit of calories from cake, you will lose weight. That's how weight loss works. MFP didn't make that up.
Nutrition is another issue, but MFP gives you plenty of tools there. You can track all your macro nutrients and some micronurtients. So you can make plenty of nutrition based decisions from that.
However for most people who are overweight or obese, the healthiest thing they can do for themselves is lost weight and get to a normal weight. Eating cake at a normal weight is healthier than nuts of you are obese. One of the great things from this app is it frees you of unhelpful moral judgements about food being "good" or "bad". Good food is food that helps you stay in your calorie goal, bad food is food that makes it difficult to stay in your calorie goal.20 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
I don't understand why that's ridiculous. Different foods have different amounts of calories, and different nutrients. Some are more nutrient dense (more nutrients per calorie or per volume\) than others. Apparently, you had some intuition or prior knowledge that nuts were more nutrient-dense than cake?
However, foods that are nutrient-dense also have different nutrient profiles: Higher in some nutrients, lower in others. Nuts have good nutrition, but contain a lot of fat. Most nuts are high in the more beneficial types of fats (MUFAs/PUFAs), but they're still high in calories, because fats have more calories per gram (9) than carbs (4), protein (4), or alcohol (7).
If I'm short on protein and fats, I'm better off eating nuts (for whatever calories I can spare) than blueberries. If I'm short on protein but have eaten plenty of fat today already, I'd be better off with something like nonfat Greek yogurt or (if I weren't vegetarian) tuna or something like that, instead of nuts or blueberries. If I'm an endurance athlete, midway through a century cycling event or something, pure sugar might be just the thing I need, nutritionally.
Balancing nutrients with needs is what amounts to good nutrition, and that's about overall mixing and matching of foods with different nutritional profiles. Clearly, if we have a weight-management goal of any sort, then the calorie efficiency of the food is part of that picture.
There really aren't "always good" and "always bad" foods. There are mostly foods that are useful in a particular context, at a particular quantity (dosage), to get good overall nutrition at the right calorie level. The really calorie-dense and nutrient-sparse foods are something that can be part of that picture, as an occasional thing (or even a routine thing in small amounts), if we find them pleasurable.
To me, logging is a tool that makes that mixing and matching pretty easy, to get good overall nutrition within a sensible calorie goal, and even allow for the occasional less nutrient-dense treat food, because when I log I do see "the nutritional factors of each food" and can make smarter choices. Because of that, I like logging (have been doing it for almost 5 years now).
YMMV . . . does, evidently.
Best wishes! 10 -
So, did you think MFP made it up that walnuts have fewer calories than cake? (Depending on the cake!) It’s physics. Ignore it if you want, but it is what it is. Most cake is primarily carbs. Walnuts are primarily fat. And carbs have fewer calories per gram than fat, so the same weight of most types of cake probably has fewer calories than the equivalent weight in walnuts. That doesn’t mean you should eat cake. It doesn’t mean you should eat walnuts! It means you have to use your brain to figure out which food will help you meet your nutritional goal and your calorie goal.BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
If you’re trying to lose weight and you eat a boatload of walnuts every day you are probably gonna have a problem staying within your calorie limit. On the other hand, you can eat literally nothing but cake and still lose weight, provided you’re eating at a caloric deficit. Some researcher literally did this with Twinkies just to prove a point.
There are valid reasons not to eat nothing but Twinkies - such as scurvy - but weight loss doesn’t require the eating of only “healthy” foods.
Heck, health itself doesn’t require eating nothing but “healthy” food! When I run a race, I eat sports jellies made of nothing but sugar and binding ingredients to keep my blood glucose up. That is healthy for me at that moment, even though it’s ultra processed and 100% carbs. If you want to determine the true health factors of what you eat, there are no shortcuts. You have to learn what your body needs, when, and why, and use your brain, instead of listening to some guru who gets paid to give one-size-fits-all advice. If I need a nice dose of omega 3s walnuts might be a great choice. If I have already eaten half an avocado and a bunch of almonds and I only have 25 calories left in my budget for the day, they might be a foolish choice and green veggies might make me feel fuller while staying in my calories. If I just ran a half marathon I for sure don’t want to eat flipping walnuts, I want some carbs.
11 -
In for flipping walnuts!
but I'm out on the walnut cake... I just had a 53g egg white, almond, cashews and dates protein (i.e. dessert) bar and a 14g Belgian chocolate covered cookie so my pre-bed snack budget is now spent!
<nighty-night!>6 -
Did someone say cake?!7
-
Good or bad diets (noun and verb) I would agree with.
Good or bad foods - hmm, where's the context?
1,000 cals of sports drink mix (glucose, fructose and electrolytes) - bad food for someone sat on their backside with a small daily allowance, good food for someone cycling 100 miles.6 -
what do you consider good and bad foods? because surely that's down to the individual and portion size.3
-
Wow. Ok. It's just my opinion. I don't think cake is good for you and walnuts are better for you. The end3
-
rheddmobile wrote: »
So, did you think MFP made it up that walnuts have fewer calories than cake? (Depending on the cake!) It’s physics. Ignore it if you want, but it is what it is. Most cake is primarily carbs. Walnuts are primarily fat. And carbs have fewer calories per gram than fat, so the same weight of most types of cake probably has fewer calories than the equivalent weight in walnuts. That doesn’t mean you should eat cake. It doesn’t mean you should eat walnuts! It means you have to use your brain to figure out which food will help you meet your nutritional goal and your calorie goal.BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
If you’re trying to lose weight and you eat a boatload of walnuts every day you are probably gonna have a problem staying within your calorie limit. On the other hand, you can eat literally nothing but cake and still lose weight, provided you’re eating at a caloric deficit. Some researcher literally did this with Twinkies just to prove a point.
There are valid reasons not to eat nothing but Twinkies - such as scurvy - but weight loss doesn’t require the eating of only “healthy” foods.
Heck, health itself doesn’t require eating nothing but “healthy” food! When I run a race, I eat sports jellies made of nothing but sugar and binding ingredients to keep my blood glucose up. That is healthy for me at that moment, even though it’s ultra processed and 100% carbs. If you want to determine the true health factors of what you eat, there are no shortcuts. You have to learn what your body needs, when, and why, and use your brain, instead of listening to some guru who gets paid to give one-size-fits-all advice. If I need a nice dose of omega 3s walnuts might be a great choice. If I have already eaten half an avocado and a bunch of almonds and I only have 25 calories left in my budget for the day, they might be a foolish choice and green veggies might make me feel fuller while staying in my calories. If I just ran a half marathon I for sure don’t want to eat flipping walnuts, I want some carbs.
I don't think cake is good for you. I think walnuts are better. That's all
4 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
I don't understand why that's ridiculous. Different foods have different amounts of calories, and different nutrients. Some are more nutrient dense (more nutrients per calorie or per volume\) than others. Apparently, you had some intuition or prior knowledge that nuts were more nutrient-dense than cake?
However, foods that are nutrient-dense also have different nutrient profiles: Higher in some nutrients, lower in others. Nuts have good nutrition, but contain a lot of fat. Most nuts are high in the more beneficial types of fats (MUFAs/PUFAs), but they're still high in calories, because fats have more calories per gram (9) than carbs (4), protein (4), or alcohol (7).
If I'm short on protein and fats, I'm better off eating nuts (for whatever calories I can spare) than blueberries. If I'm short on protein but have eaten plenty of fat today already, I'd be better off with something like nonfat Greek yogurt or (if I weren't vegetarian) tuna or something like that, instead of nuts or blueberries. If I'm an endurance athlete, midway through a century cycling event or something, pure sugar might be just the thing I need, nutritionally.
Balancing nutrients with needs is what amounts to good nutrition, and that's about overall mixing and matching of foods with different nutritional profiles. Clearly, if we have a weight-management goal of any sort, then the calorie efficiency of the food is part of that picture.
There really aren't "always good" and "always bad" foods. There are mostly foods that are useful in a particular context, at a particular quantity (dosage), to get good overall nutrition at the right calorie level. The really calorie-dense and nutrient-sparse foods are something that can be part of that picture, as an occasional thing (or even a routine thing in small amounts), if we find them pleasurable.
To me, logging is a tool that makes that mixing and matching pretty easy, to get good overall nutrition within a sensible calorie goal, and even allow for the occasional less nutrient-dense treat food, because when I log I do see "the nutritional factors of each food" and can make smarter choices. Because of that, I like logging (have been doing it for almost 5 years now).
YMMV . . . does, evidently.
Best wishes!
Damn yall
Just an opinion. I didn't need an essay. Thanks lol7 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »Wow. Ok. It's just my opinion. I don't think cake is good for you and walnuts are better for you. The end
Eating a small piece of cake and 1 tonne of walnuts wouldn't work out very well for me. Doesn't make either of those foods good or bad however.12 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »Wow. Ok. It's just my opinion. I don't think cake is good for you and walnuts are better for you. The end
I'm allergic to walnuts, so cake is better for me!14 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Why is that ridiculous? Calories are calories. If you eat a surplus of calories from walnuts, you will gain weight. If you eat a deficit of calories from cake, you will lose weight. That's how weight loss works. MFP didn't make that up.
Nutrition is another issue, but MFP gives you plenty of tools there. You can track all your macro nutrients and some micronurtients. So you can make plenty of nutrition based decisions from that.
However for most people who are overweight or obese, the healthiest thing they can do for themselves is lost weight and get to a normal weight. Eating cake at a normal weight is healthier than nuts of you are obese. One of the great things from this app is it frees you of unhelpful moral judgements about food being "good" or "bad". Good food is food that helps you stay in your calorie goal, bad food is food that makes it difficult to stay in your calorie goal.
It's an opinion. Not scripture. Cake has less health benefits than walnuts.4
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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions