The Problem with 'Good Foods' vs. 'Bad Foods': A Better Approach

We're taught to categorize foods: vegetables are good, cookies are bad. Chicken breast is good, pizza is bad. This binary thinking seems to simplify nutrition, making it easier to make "right" choices.

But for many people, this framework creates more problems than it solves.

The Hidden Cost of Food Morality

When you label food as "good" or "bad," you're not just categorizing nutrients—you're creating a moral framework around eating. And that framework extends to how you see yourself.

Eat "good" food? You're disciplined, virtuous, in control. Eat "bad" food? You're weak, undisciplined, failing.

This isn't about whether some foods are more nutritious than others—they obviously are. It's about the psychological burden of turning every food choice into a test of character.

The result: guilt, shame, and all-or-nothing thinking that undermines long-term success.

The Restriction-Binge Cycle

Strict food rules create a predictable pattern:

1. You commit to avoiding "bad" foods completely
2. The forbidden foods become more desirable (psychological reactance)
3. Eventually you eat them—perhaps after stress, fatigue, or willpower depletion
4. You feel guilty and ashamed for "failing"
5. You compensate with stricter restriction
6. The cycle repeats, often with more intensity

This cycle isn't a willpower failure. It's a predictable outcome of rigid food rules. The stricter the rules, the more intense the eventual breakdown.

A Better Framework

Instead of "good" and "bad," consider categorizing foods by frequency:

Foods to eat often: Vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, whole grains—nutrient-dense foods that support health and performance.

Foods to eat sometimes: Less nutrient-dense options that you enjoy. Not forbidden, just not the foundation of your diet.

This framework acknowledges nutritional differences without creating moral judgments. A cookie isn't "bad"—it's just not something you eat at every meal.

Making Peace with Imperfection

Sustainable nutrition requires room for imperfection. A few key principles:

One meal doesn't define your health. Your overall pattern matters far more than any single food choice. A donut in a context of generally healthy eating has minimal impact.

Guilt is counterproductive. When you eat something, it's done. Shame doesn't undo the calories—it just damages your relationship with food and often triggers more problematic eating.

Restriction often backfires. For most people, moderate inclusion of enjoyed foods produces better long-term results than strict elimination.

Context matters. A post-workout meal has different nutritional priorities than a celebration dinner. Flexibility is appropriate.

The Emotional Reality of Eating

Food isn't just fuel. It carries cultural meaning, social connection, comfort, and pleasure. Pretending eating is purely rational ignores the emotional reality most people experience.

Acknowledging this doesn't mean eating emotionally is always appropriate. It means understanding that when emotional eating happens, it's not because you're broken—it's because food is genuinely connected to emotion for most humans.

The goal isn't eliminating this connection. It's developing a healthier relationship where food provides appropriate enjoyment without becoming a primary coping mechanism.

Practical Implementation

To move away from good/bad thinking:

Notice your language. When you catch yourself calling food "good" or "bad," try reframing: "This is something I eat often" or "This is an occasional treat."

Remove forbidden foods. If you've labeled something as completely off-limits, consider whether controlled inclusion might work better than total restriction.

Eat without guilt. When you choose to eat something less nutritious, do it deliberately and without shame. Enjoy it. Then return to your normal eating pattern.

Focus on addition, not subtraction. Rather than eliminating foods, focus on adding more nutrient-dense options. When you eat more vegetables and protein, less nutritious foods naturally take a smaller role.

Separate food from self-worth. Your food choices don't make you a good or bad person. They're just choices—some support your goals better than others.

When Structure Helps

This isn't an argument against all structure. Some people genuinely do better with clear guidelines:

Medical necessities. Allergies, celiac disease, or diabetes may require strict avoidance of certain foods.

Addiction-like patterns. Some individuals find certain foods trigger overconsumption they can't control. Avoidance may be easier than moderation for these specific foods.

Clear rules reduce decision fatigue. For some people, simple rules ("I don't eat dessert on weekdays") work better than constant negotiation.

The key is that sustainable structure comes from self-knowledge and works for you personally—not from external rules that create shame when broken.

The Bottom Line

Categorizing foods as "good" or "bad" creates psychological burden that often undermines long-term success. The guilt, shame, and all-or-nothing thinking that accompany moral food frameworks frequently lead to worse outcomes than flexible approaches.

Instead, think about foods in terms of frequency. Nutrient-dense foods form the foundation of your diet; less nutritious foods you enjoy have a smaller but real place.

One meal doesn't define your health. Guilt doesn't undo calories. Sustainable nutrition requires room for imperfection and freedom from food-related shame.

Use the AFT Calculator to track your performance, and remember that consistent, balanced nutrition—free from guilt and extremes—supports the energy and recovery you need for training.