ShareThis Page
‘Bad food’ and other terms that make dietitians cringe | TribLIVE.com
Health

‘Bad food’ and other terms that make dietitians cringe

The Washington Post
1273451_web1_VillaItalianKitchen_Pizza_Pull--2-
Tribune-Review
Even foods with a less-than-ideal nutritional breakdown can have unquantifiable health benefits. Take pizza for example.

The words we use matter. Our choice of language not only mirrors our current way of thinking, it also has the power to shape our attitudes and behaviors over time. That’s why so many food and nutrition professionals cringe at much of the conversation around food and health today. Seemingly innocuous words and phrases that are regularly tossed around set us up for unhealthy approaches to food. I emailed several registered dietitian colleagues to identify the most common offenders — words they wish would be eliminated from the nutrition chatter — and asked them how to reframe that language for a healthier perspective.

Good/bad food

Not surprisingly, almost every dietitian I surveyed ranked the categorization of food as “good” or “bad” high on their cringe list. It is the root of unhealthy food-speak, as most of the other reviled terms can be traced back to this notion. Pinning a black or white value to one particular food shifts focus from the big picture, the overall eating patterns that really define a person’s well-being. Sure, some foods have a better nutritional profile than others, but context matters immensely. Broccoli may easily win a “good” label, but if all you have eaten all day is broccoli, another serving of it may be the last thing you need.

On the flip side, even foods with a less-than-ideal nutritional breakdown can have unquantifiable health benefits. Take pizza for example. “Pizza is often demonized as ‘bad’ because it is high in fat, high in refined carbohydrates and easy to overindulge” with, wrote Chris Mohr, co-founder of the nutrition consultation company Mohr Results. “But if that pizza isn’t an everyday occurrence and it brought friends together, encouraged conversation, laughing and connection, the otherwise ‘bad’ food becomes nurturing for your soul. Food inherently is not good or bad.”

Clean eating

The notion of clean eating is an offshoot of the good/bad food concept that marketers seem to adore, to the dismay of many dietitians. “The original (clean eating) philosophy appears to be one I think we could all get on board with: eating food as close to its original state as possible, in the most nutritious form possible (a.k.a. minimally processed). But what was once a sense of awareness about food seems to have spiraled into a diet-culture-driven system. On social media, it’s become yet another form of body and food-shaming,” explained Jaclyn London, author of “Dressing on the Side” and nutrition director of Good Housekeeping. “No matter what, the alternative to ‘clean’ sounds fearmongering.”

Elizabeth Ward recoils at the term, too, which she wrote about in her food and nutrition blog Better Is the New Perfect: “I can’t get past the notion that if you’re not eating ‘clean,’ then you’re eating ‘dirty.’ “

Guilty pleasure

All of the above is a tee-up for a drive directly into the sand trap of guilt. I bet you have been there: You declare you are going to “be good” or “eat clean” and you beat yourself up at the slightest deviation from what you’ve decided (or a book told you) is the perfect diet. No wonder the term “guilty pleasure” makes dietitians wince.

“Eating is not cheating, and guilt should have no role in food choice,” explained Ward. “Your diet does not need to be perfect. Guilt robs you of the pleasure of eating and makes you feel bad afterward, which can start a downward spiral of shame that prevents you from learning to make better eating choices while allowing for treats. As a dieter in my teens and early 20s, I battled guilt and shame, and I found it to be extremely unproductive.”

Low-carb/cutting carbs

We dietitians get it: People are generally better off eating fewer foods made of refined flour and sugar. If I may speak for the group, we applaud and support efforts in that direction. But somewhere along the way, “carb” has become synonymous with unhealthy. That is a big problem, because many of the most healthful foods in the world are rich in carbohydrates.

“I’m asked if fruit is bad because it’s a ‘carb’ at least once per week,” wrote Marjorie Nolan Cohn, owner of MNC Nutrition and spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. “The fact that people, who are trying to do right by their health, actually question if fruit is bad for them is a window into how distorted our society’s view of food is.”

Wendy Lopez, co-founder of the online platform Food Heaven Made Easy, cringes when she hears people say carbs are bad for you. “People think they’re eating healthier by cutting down on carbohydrates,” she said. “However, carbohydrates are in so many nutritious and tasty foods. Aside from bread, pasta and grains, carbs can also be found in nuts, fruits, vegetables, legumes and more. Carbohydrates provide our bodies with fuel, nutrition and satisfaction.”

The bottom line is that much of the language around food and nutrition that is batted around today traps us into a reductionist, all-or-nothing way of thinking that prevents us from achieving true well-being. So next time you catch yourself or others using the words here, take a moment to pull back far enough to see the bigger, more nuanced picture and reconsider.

Categories: News | Health Now
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.