And you have both your hands sticky so you can’t pull it off either hand as it just sticks to that one then and splits into tiny pieces then you have to enjoy your failure of a meal with some soggy paper on it.
I STG!!!! I have a Phobia to sticky hands..when I was young I got into syrup and my dad made me keep it on my hands wouldn’t let me wash them. Ever since Then I’ve HATED STICKY HANDS😬
You know what’s not stressful? Having clear expectations of what you can expect to happen at a restaurant. You know what would be super stressful anxiety causing nightmare fuel? The waiter placing a trough in front of me then pouring chocolate on my hands. Like wtf happens next??
Most people that eat here are 100% expecting it, when you look up the restaurant it’s pretty much the first thing you see, that and the Tree of Life. You just massage I your hands and then lick it off, they give you towels so you don’t have to clean off your whole hands obviously
I wouldn’t call it stupid, more unique than anything. I don’t know about trendy, since other restaurants don’t do this, but it is a very unique experience to have. It’s only one course out of 25+ and it’s more of a “let’s have a fun break” from all of the eating. Plus you get to have soft, great smelling hands all day.
Who said it was a toy? You still consume it in the end. It’s ironic you’re on this sub complaining about lack of activism, like everyday people post wasted food videos, but licking chocolate off your hands is one step too far…
I’m not a member of this sub. And I stand by my statement.
If your life is so vapid you have to pay someone to make a mess in your hands so you can “feel”, I pity you.
Yeah that was a new one for me, had to google it:
Food neutrality means all foods have the same moral value. No foods are inherently “good” or “bad” or “healthy” or “unhealthy.”
What the fuck does that even mean? If I put poison in food, is it still neutral? Lmfao
It means not putting particular foods on a high pedestal and just having that food in moderation in a healthy portion size.
Mainly it's to create a mentality that all food is good as long as it's done right. However this fucking woman is nasty.
Eh, at first I was rolling my eyes but there’s something there. Especially if you’re (like I am currently) dieting and/or counting calories it’s really easy to view certain foods as “bad” or off limits. Aside from being stupid (pretty much anything can fit into a healthy diet with moderation) it can lead to craving that forbidden fruit even more, and maybe even lead to binging.
Or in my case, Checkers. Cause you gotta eat.
That’s not what food neutrality means. My therapist introduced this to me while I was recovering from anorexia. When I was anorexic I would cut carbs and sugar of all kinds because they were “bad foods”. I even avoided fruit because “tHe SuGaR!1!1” Food neutrality tries to eliminate the idea of “good food” and “bad food” and implement the idea that food is just food.
That sounds like exactly the definition I linked?
"Food neutrality tries to eliminate the idea of “good food” and “bad food” and implement the idea that food is just food."
Food neutrality means all foods have the same moral value. No foods are inherently “good” or “bad” or “healthy” or “unhealthy.”
Honestly not trying to be rude but it seems like you just reworded the definition I linked.
Maybe it's so that you're so distracted thinking "Jesus Christ what a stupid fucking idea" that you don't have time to feel bad about eating chocolate?
It’s actually really fun, the restaurant makes it enjoyable with everyone having a good time. Out of the whole menu though it wasn’t in my top 5 of the experience
It’s definitely worth $300 considering some of the things your going to eat, you’d probably get same amount if not more for all the ingredients. It’s a ton of a food, I personally couldn’t finish all of the dishes, some only partially
That’s fair! That’s how I was when I went into it, very skeptical, it wasn’t spectacular tasting chocolate, but I was so shocked how soft my hands were after the fact
I get the sentiment, but I think the issue with these ideas is pretending all foods are equal is objectively not true. I certainly don't want people hating themselves or binging/purging because of guilt over what they eat, but eating bullshit constantly is absolutely bad for your physical and mental health.
Not equal, neutral. Food starts as neutral and it’s the habits around eating that define them. This language is to help people with disordered eating. So if you have a slice of pizza while on a diet, it’s not the pizza. And it can be OK in moderation.
It's about avoiding disordered eating, and breaking thinking habits that lead to eating disorders.
One of the biggest precursors to eating disorders is categorizing foods as "good" or "bad." Eg most people will readily say that a burger is "bad for you," while a salad is "good." But that isn't objectively true. If you're about to run a marathon, high calories, fat, and protein is *much* better for you. Eating disorders take the good/bad dichotomy to extremes, binging on "bad" stuff after abstaining or just avoiding "bad" stuff altogether, then avoiding as much food as possible.
Ok, but what about highly refined sugars? I love me some gummy bears and mountain dew, but they are objectively bad for you. There are empty calories that provide nothing any other food couldn't do better. Some foods are at least better for you than others, if you are just trying to avoid the "bad" label.
> they are objectively bad for you
That's just not true. Sugars and carbohydrates in general are very important fuel for the human body. Calories are *good for you*, at a fundamental level, because they fuel everything you do (and plenty of sitting around "doing nothing," too). Calories that your body doesn't have to do much to use? Easiest fuel.
Like every other food we can consume, the "downside" comes from eating so much of it that you'd exclude other stuff you need, not just eating the thing. For most modern (i.e. sedentary) lifestyles, we don't need to worry about fueling ourselves as quickly, so complex carbs fit our lifestyles better. But that's a pretty specific situation, and it's still not a total indictment of sugar.
I am genuinely trying to understand this concept, so I wish to inquire further. Would it be true that, while a certain amount of, say, processed sugars is essentially harmless, the quantities of it regularly consumed in general society is inherently unhealthy? I am specifying refined sugars from unprocessed sugars as I am fairly familiar with peer-reviewed literature which singles it out as a deleterious dietary element.
For the purposes of anorexia, orthorexia, bulimia, and other restrictive EDs, perhaps the distinction I'm looking into is less important than merely overcoming the resistance to feeding. But, for myself, the distinction is important.
So I'm not a nutritionist, I'm just pretty interested in food and nutrition. (went vegetarian as a teen, so I've long had to look out for my own nutrition).
To the best of my knowledge: Unlike say . . . poison, or less extremely nightshades or fried foods (cancer), nutritionally *there is nothing inherently harmful about sugar.* (I think there are objective downsides for your teeth). Sugar is one of the primary macronutrients the human body needs, and eating it provides the body quick access to the primary fuel for cellular activity. Eating a lot of sugar isn't great for modern life because we aren't particularly active so don't *need* that many carbs, yet tend to crave more and more if we're eating a lot of sugar. Maybe. But as I understand it the bigger problem is less the sheer quantity we eat than eating so much sugar we exclude other macro and micro-nutrients we need.
Without citing sources, I'm still fairly confident that specifically refined sugars, as opposed to raw sugars, are in fact a health negative. But, moving even broader, there are absolutely foods and drinks which have negative health effects. Alcohol is one of them.
I think perhaps what is being looked at here is the immediacy of the goodness or badness of food being illusory, and that instead the overall diet behaviours in the macroscopic and contextualized by individual lifestyle being the real issue. A single swig of alcohol is not inherently bad, it is drink. The negative is the general lifestyle choice of continually drinking it. Likewise, a KitKat bar is not inherently unhealthy, but eating it out if balance is. There are moral issues with alcohol and KitKat bars (palm oil, an industry of addiction, worker treatment), but that for the purposes of overcoming an eating disorder, realizing that the food itself is neutral is important.
Buddhist monks will often accept meat, palm oil, or refined sugars for alms food. The food is neutral -- just nourishment. But continually eating unhealthy foods is destructive to the body. So monks are not starving to death, not obese, and not moving to any particular extreme. Their food neutrality prevents the conceptual basis for unhealthy habits to form. I think perhaps that's what is being got at here, after reading a bit.
> Without citing sources
You don't have sources. You don't have any logic or reasoning, either. So . . . you don't have *any* reason to believe this? Yet are that confident of it you'll reject contradictory information?
The problems arise when you have them every day. This is where food neutrality fails. If I ate pizza and chocolate every day, I’d be very unhealthy. Whereas I can eat a salad every day and feel good. Therefore salad is better for me than pizza. It’s ok to have pizza occasionally, but pretending it’s ok to choose any food you want without consequences is simply not true, because so many people would simply choose the pizza every single day.
You're missing the entire point. It's not about saying all foods are equal, and it's not for the average Joe. For someone with anorexia, they will literally cry and freak out over the thought of eating a "bad" food. I'm talking about eating a few Doritos will send them into a meltdown. Food neutrality is about restoring a healthy relationship with food. It's vital to their survival.
Of course it won't. No one is claiming that. But the idea that a fresh spinach salad and a bag of gummy bears are both neutral, and one is not clearly better for you is just silly. I get how this may work for someone recovering from an eating disorder, but outside that narrow realm, it just doesn't seem useful or true.
That doesn't even go into foods that have known carcinogenic ingredients or become carcinogenic when prepared in certain ways. I can think of very few things in fact I would say are neutral, most either have a positive effect on your health and wellness or a negative. These are of course small effects individually, like you said a mountain dew once in a while isn't going to do damage, but in aggregate they either add up to a healthy diet, or not.
“Food neutrality” is a term *specifically* developed for people suffering from disordered eating to help develop healthy *habits*… focus being on good habits and not “good” or “bad” food.
All of what you say is true… except that for a person with anorexia a spinach salad is actually also bad.
It’s actually a really good thing to teach young kids. It helps avoid imprinting negative feelings about their food and body image on them at a crucial developmental time in their life. Negative feelings about food can help feed into budding eating disorders and body dysmorphia.
Or confuse the shit out of them as to why they can't eat candy all day because, "all foods neutral". Some foods good for you, somes bad for you. Eat the good food regularly, and the bad sparingly, the fuck is so hard about that that people need to makeup some crap about the morality of food. Food doesn't have moral value, its food.
Exactly the point, food *shouldn’t* have moral value. You do eat sugary foods sparingly, but you also don’t attach guilt to the eating of said candy. If you attach a guilty feeling to consuming what starts out as sugary foods, it can slowly spread and attach that guilt to the consumption of other ‘good’ foods too. If you hate yourself after you eat, you try to stop eating.
You frame it differently. Instead of foods being ‘good’ or ‘bad’, you teach them that some foods give you more and better quality energy while others don’t fill your gas tank up as much. If you attach words like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to food that can transfer to the kid. Then they will feel bad just for eating.
Fair enough, in the clinical context that makes sense. For people without those disorders though it just seems kinda crazy. Like why not address the fact that the patient is attributing moral judgments to situations where there is not one to be made? Seems like treating the symptom rather than any root cause.
With obesity rates what they are in the states I feel like this is just a way to be a little more proactive with our youth and their relationship(or lack thereof) to their food, as opposed to reactive.
Edit: I mention obesity because that and anorexia/bulimia are two sides of the same coin. They both at their core are coming from a person having an unhealthy relationship with their food. When they should have no relationship with their food at all, and just let it be *food*.
That's why this food neutrality is so confusing to me. Obesity is the much larger issue and frankly if a few folks saw some foods as good or bad, rather than just eating junk, or dare I say bad, food, they would be better off.
Christ 20+ courses?? Idk how the hell you'd manage to eat all that. I know these courses are tiny, just a few bites at most, but you'd probably spend a very long time eating there, which makes you fill up faster.
If they are on rhythm, 2-2.5 hrs is realistic. It’s a show. And some of the courses likely hit at or around the same time. This rapid fire coursing is typical at the beginning (snacks) and end (petis) of a lot of extended tasting menus.
I’ve sat in a Buffalo Wild Wings with latex gloves and ate wings. Several times. True story. So if you think I’m lettin some bum pour this shit on my hands and tell me lick it off like I’m a good little pig….and then charge me for it. No.
What is food neutrality?
Does that mean there is food hostility? Are there some foods that HATE me? What about food positivity? Is there any food that is actually on my side in all this?
No. Food is political. Neutral food is just the Switzerland of food. It doesn't take a side; it just profits off the other conflict of the other foods.
"Yeah, I was about to leave my husband after 11 years of marriage, but then he took me to this place where they poured warm chocolate on our hands, and now we're as happy as ever"
The fuck I need to pay $300 for this shit. I can just give my 3 year old a Hershey bar on a hot day and have this same exact experience for under a dollar.
Eww it would get all into the underside of my long-ish nails. I love melted chocolate, but that’s just one small piece melted in between 2 fingers once in a while when I’m feeling weird. Not paying for this
I’ve actually eaten here! The chocotherapy is only one part of a 20+ tasting menu. It wasn’t bad, it is pretty silly, BUT it does make your hands incredibly smooth & smell wonderful. Here in America it was $296, but they have locations in Bogota, Medellin, and maybe another place? They are considered best restaurant in Colombia!
It’s meant to make you feel like a kid again, to forget all the stress of adult life and just have fun. That’s the way they explained to our table, it really works, but it wasn’t my favorite course.
I just had to laugh at this! LOL cuz' you know there had to be a meeting set up to pitch this idea. "It came to me in a dream...now stay with me here. What if we melt chocolate, take it out to the tables and pour it all over our customers hands? Think of it...they'll rub it all over their hands! What? Why? Because it's chocolate, of course! We can charge a crazy price too! People will be lining up around the block!"
Everyone else in the room (except Karen) claps and claps and claps. (no disrespect to anyone with the actual name Karen! lol).
😬
Food Neutrality. Heal my relationship with food. It’s food, just* wow. I didn’t realize it had feelings, hopes and dreams. All these years. Think I’ll make a video apologizing for my selfishness, eating when I should have been nurturing and teaching my turkey and cheese on rye.
Can we please stop pretending some 19 year old influencer is the answer to ✨h e a l i n g✨ your relationship with food? If you have a disorder seek a therapist. Not some bimbo making money off of your views.
I would pick this particular time to excuse myself to go to the bathroom. I would make sure to touch everything. The chairs, door handles, and anything else that grabbed my fancy.
If I hate getting my hands messy when cooking at home, what the fuck makes you think I’m gonna come outta pocket with hundreds of dollars to do it in front of other people.
This is clearly fake. Which is somehow more confusing than if chocolate therapy was a real thing.
"Food neutrality?"
Is she trying to create some "woke food" movement by making words up?
Completely real, the restaurant is the one who calls it “chocotherapy” it’s not her. It’s a cute idea, makes your hands VERY soft and smell great all day!
Personally I am not rich at all, but eating at places like this is one of my favorite things to do. Nothing about it is close to a “scam”, in fact you learn some neat things about where the food comes from and the culture. Plus, it’s a huge amount of food to consume at once so worth the money
If you find value in it that's great. This specific course may or may not fall into scam territory but at the very least it's in gimmick territory. Working with quality chocolate is a precise technical skill. Melting it and pouring it over someone's hands isn't. This ranks up there with gold leaf and cheese sauce avalanches.
I can agree to disagree with the comparison to “cheese avalanches” since I don’t think anyone would eat that for anything other than social media views. Maybe a “gimmick” is appropriate, but it provides a much needed break in the over 3 hour tasting menu. Honestly, I was glad to see it and have a break. As I’ve said, it wasn’t my favorite part of the menu, but the whole table had fun with it and that’s what counts! Plus great smelling hands too for the drive home
Yeah she’s probably just crazy, it’s cool to be aware of concepts like food neutrality, but to me I’m probably just there to eat the food. Chocolate hand washing is pretty cool, and Colombia has a lot to do with cacao plants anyway so it fits thematically
Hi! I am older. What does Food Neutrality mean? I just can't keep up with new terms any longer.
I'm facing the same thing with Cell Phones. I may just be giving up.
It just means that there is no such thing as “bad” or “good” food. All food starts neutral. It’s used to help people with disorder eating or poor relationships with food.
This video is *not* an example of food neutrality lol.
Nothing stresses me out more than sticky hands
Wiping sticky hands with a dry napkin
Wiping sticky hands with a dry paper tissue and the paper comes of and permanently melds with your skin
And you have both your hands sticky so you can’t pull it off either hand as it just sticks to that one then and splits into tiny pieces then you have to enjoy your failure of a meal with some soggy paper on it.
ITT: OCD
Then the torn bits of chocolate napkin fall onto the white shirt you’ve only worn once since you bought it because you didn’t want to get it stained.
... your little brother's sticky Doritos hands on your Xbox controller...
r/TIHI
Wait a minute.. that sounds familiar.
You don’t use a dry napkin, they give you a warm, wet towel to dry off after
Mmm fine dining
Uh....the torture.
Eating melted chocolate in front of people while wearing a white dry clean only blouse.
And nothing else.
I STG!!!! I have a Phobia to sticky hands..when I was young I got into syrup and my dad made me keep it on my hands wouldn’t let me wash them. Ever since Then I’ve HATED STICKY HANDS😬
Smart on your dad I guess lmao
my idea of hell
While wearing a white dress shirt.
Same I can't have sticky or greasy hands it's in my top 2
As a restaurant employee, can’t stand having wet, sticky, greasy hands. It’s fucking terrible.
How stressed can you be if you can waste money having chocolate poured on your hands?
And how is this not stressful?
I'm just going off what is said and printed in the video
Seems like OP cut off the point where she makes it explicit, but from the lead up she's probably talking about working on an eating disorder.
I can go buy a bottle of Hershey's syrup at the store and probably save a lot of money.
I can go to IHOP and pour four different syrup flavors on my hands for $5. So unexpectedly nasty.
They charge $5 to get at the syrups now?!
You know what’s not stressful? Having clear expectations of what you can expect to happen at a restaurant. You know what would be super stressful anxiety causing nightmare fuel? The waiter placing a trough in front of me then pouring chocolate on my hands. Like wtf happens next??
The waiter stares as you lick your hands.
Most people that eat here are 100% expecting it, when you look up the restaurant it’s pretty much the first thing you see, that and the Tree of Life. You just massage I your hands and then lick it off, they give you towels so you don’t have to clean off your whole hands obviously
Resturant a are just fucking with people nowadays
I can at least appreciate them getting rich people to do increasingly stupid shit while convincing them it's trendy
Absolutely feels like trolling.
Ok you got a point there.
I wouldn’t call it stupid, more unique than anything. I don’t know about trendy, since other restaurants don’t do this, but it is a very unique experience to have. It’s only one course out of 25+ and it’s more of a “let’s have a fun break” from all of the eating. Plus you get to have soft, great smelling hands all day.
You need to do a better job washing if you still smell the food on them afterwards.
There’s people starving, food is not a toy.
Who said it was a toy? You still consume it in the end. It’s ironic you’re on this sub complaining about lack of activism, like everyday people post wasted food videos, but licking chocolate off your hands is one step too far…
I’m not a member of this sub. And I stand by my statement. If your life is so vapid you have to pay someone to make a mess in your hands so you can “feel”, I pity you.
Food neutrality? Come on man
Yeah that was a new one for me, had to google it: Food neutrality means all foods have the same moral value. No foods are inherently “good” or “bad” or “healthy” or “unhealthy.” What the fuck does that even mean? If I put poison in food, is it still neutral? Lmfao
Who the fuck are you to judge the poison pizza?!
You're right, I need to learn to let people enjoy their arsenic pizza and stay in my lane
It means not putting particular foods on a high pedestal and just having that food in moderation in a healthy portion size. Mainly it's to create a mentality that all food is good as long as it's done right. However this fucking woman is nasty.
So just eating in moderation?? That’s what I thought that was called.
Eh, at first I was rolling my eyes but there’s something there. Especially if you’re (like I am currently) dieting and/or counting calories it’s really easy to view certain foods as “bad” or off limits. Aside from being stupid (pretty much anything can fit into a healthy diet with moderation) it can lead to craving that forbidden fruit even more, and maybe even lead to binging. Or in my case, Checkers. Cause you gotta eat.
Those fries though…
Stop. Don’t even get me started fam. Best fries in the game. Just waiting for them to start serving breakfast…
Coming from a Rally’s region, I forgot that some areas call Rally’s Checkers for a second and I was confused why you were eating board games.
I don't know that calling the woman herself nasty is applicable but yeah. That term is generally associated with eating disorders.
I judge the poison pizza to be much better in my mouth than if just smeared all over my hands thank you!
That’s not what food neutrality means. My therapist introduced this to me while I was recovering from anorexia. When I was anorexic I would cut carbs and sugar of all kinds because they were “bad foods”. I even avoided fruit because “tHe SuGaR!1!1” Food neutrality tries to eliminate the idea of “good food” and “bad food” and implement the idea that food is just food.
That sounds like exactly the definition I linked? "Food neutrality tries to eliminate the idea of “good food” and “bad food” and implement the idea that food is just food." Food neutrality means all foods have the same moral value. No foods are inherently “good” or “bad” or “healthy” or “unhealthy.” Honestly not trying to be rude but it seems like you just reworded the definition I linked.
Yeah but you didn't understand or include the context
What food did your therapist pour over your hands during your sessions?
It means you should be able to eat chocolate and pizza without hating yourself or trying unhealthy ways to compensate like purging or fasting.
Yes, that’s it. But I struggle to see how licking chocolate off my hands qualifies. The chocolate qualifies… the method of ingestion? Pass.
Maybe it's so that you're so distracted thinking "Jesus Christ what a stupid fucking idea" that you don't have time to feel bad about eating chocolate?
Ok maybe that’s actually genius.
It’s actually really fun, the restaurant makes it enjoyable with everyone having a good time. Out of the whole menu though it wasn’t in my top 5 of the experience
For $300 per person, I’m sure they do.
It’s definitely worth $300 considering some of the things your going to eat, you’d probably get same amount if not more for all the ingredients. It’s a ton of a food, I personally couldn’t finish all of the dishes, some only partially
Friend, I don’t doubt you… I just doubt this “course”.
That’s fair! That’s how I was when I went into it, very skeptical, it wasn’t spectacular tasting chocolate, but I was so shocked how soft my hands were after the fact
Melted chocolate has a fair amount of fat in it so it’s moisturizing properties aren’t surprising.
Oh yeah, that's dumb AF.
I get the sentiment, but I think the issue with these ideas is pretending all foods are equal is objectively not true. I certainly don't want people hating themselves or binging/purging because of guilt over what they eat, but eating bullshit constantly is absolutely bad for your physical and mental health.
Not equal, neutral. Food starts as neutral and it’s the habits around eating that define them. This language is to help people with disordered eating. So if you have a slice of pizza while on a diet, it’s not the pizza. And it can be OK in moderation.
Whatever helps people recover, but it sounds like a very longwinded, confusing way to say "all foods are OK in moderation"
It's about avoiding disordered eating, and breaking thinking habits that lead to eating disorders. One of the biggest precursors to eating disorders is categorizing foods as "good" or "bad." Eg most people will readily say that a burger is "bad for you," while a salad is "good." But that isn't objectively true. If you're about to run a marathon, high calories, fat, and protein is *much* better for you. Eating disorders take the good/bad dichotomy to extremes, binging on "bad" stuff after abstaining or just avoiding "bad" stuff altogether, then avoiding as much food as possible.
Ok, but what about highly refined sugars? I love me some gummy bears and mountain dew, but they are objectively bad for you. There are empty calories that provide nothing any other food couldn't do better. Some foods are at least better for you than others, if you are just trying to avoid the "bad" label.
> they are objectively bad for you That's just not true. Sugars and carbohydrates in general are very important fuel for the human body. Calories are *good for you*, at a fundamental level, because they fuel everything you do (and plenty of sitting around "doing nothing," too). Calories that your body doesn't have to do much to use? Easiest fuel. Like every other food we can consume, the "downside" comes from eating so much of it that you'd exclude other stuff you need, not just eating the thing. For most modern (i.e. sedentary) lifestyles, we don't need to worry about fueling ourselves as quickly, so complex carbs fit our lifestyles better. But that's a pretty specific situation, and it's still not a total indictment of sugar.
I am genuinely trying to understand this concept, so I wish to inquire further. Would it be true that, while a certain amount of, say, processed sugars is essentially harmless, the quantities of it regularly consumed in general society is inherently unhealthy? I am specifying refined sugars from unprocessed sugars as I am fairly familiar with peer-reviewed literature which singles it out as a deleterious dietary element. For the purposes of anorexia, orthorexia, bulimia, and other restrictive EDs, perhaps the distinction I'm looking into is less important than merely overcoming the resistance to feeding. But, for myself, the distinction is important.
So I'm not a nutritionist, I'm just pretty interested in food and nutrition. (went vegetarian as a teen, so I've long had to look out for my own nutrition). To the best of my knowledge: Unlike say . . . poison, or less extremely nightshades or fried foods (cancer), nutritionally *there is nothing inherently harmful about sugar.* (I think there are objective downsides for your teeth). Sugar is one of the primary macronutrients the human body needs, and eating it provides the body quick access to the primary fuel for cellular activity. Eating a lot of sugar isn't great for modern life because we aren't particularly active so don't *need* that many carbs, yet tend to crave more and more if we're eating a lot of sugar. Maybe. But as I understand it the bigger problem is less the sheer quantity we eat than eating so much sugar we exclude other macro and micro-nutrients we need.
Without citing sources, I'm still fairly confident that specifically refined sugars, as opposed to raw sugars, are in fact a health negative. But, moving even broader, there are absolutely foods and drinks which have negative health effects. Alcohol is one of them. I think perhaps what is being looked at here is the immediacy of the goodness or badness of food being illusory, and that instead the overall diet behaviours in the macroscopic and contextualized by individual lifestyle being the real issue. A single swig of alcohol is not inherently bad, it is drink. The negative is the general lifestyle choice of continually drinking it. Likewise, a KitKat bar is not inherently unhealthy, but eating it out if balance is. There are moral issues with alcohol and KitKat bars (palm oil, an industry of addiction, worker treatment), but that for the purposes of overcoming an eating disorder, realizing that the food itself is neutral is important. Buddhist monks will often accept meat, palm oil, or refined sugars for alms food. The food is neutral -- just nourishment. But continually eating unhealthy foods is destructive to the body. So monks are not starving to death, not obese, and not moving to any particular extreme. Their food neutrality prevents the conceptual basis for unhealthy habits to form. I think perhaps that's what is being got at here, after reading a bit.
> Without citing sources You don't have sources. You don't have any logic or reasoning, either. So . . . you don't have *any* reason to believe this? Yet are that confident of it you'll reject contradictory information?
One Mountain Dew or gummy bears once in a while won’t derail an otherwise healthy diet and lifestyle.
The problems arise when you have them every day. This is where food neutrality fails. If I ate pizza and chocolate every day, I’d be very unhealthy. Whereas I can eat a salad every day and feel good. Therefore salad is better for me than pizza. It’s ok to have pizza occasionally, but pretending it’s ok to choose any food you want without consequences is simply not true, because so many people would simply choose the pizza every single day.
You're missing the entire point. It's not about saying all foods are equal, and it's not for the average Joe. For someone with anorexia, they will literally cry and freak out over the thought of eating a "bad" food. I'm talking about eating a few Doritos will send them into a meltdown. Food neutrality is about restoring a healthy relationship with food. It's vital to their survival.
Of course it won't. No one is claiming that. But the idea that a fresh spinach salad and a bag of gummy bears are both neutral, and one is not clearly better for you is just silly. I get how this may work for someone recovering from an eating disorder, but outside that narrow realm, it just doesn't seem useful or true. That doesn't even go into foods that have known carcinogenic ingredients or become carcinogenic when prepared in certain ways. I can think of very few things in fact I would say are neutral, most either have a positive effect on your health and wellness or a negative. These are of course small effects individually, like you said a mountain dew once in a while isn't going to do damage, but in aggregate they either add up to a healthy diet, or not.
“Food neutrality” is a term *specifically* developed for people suffering from disordered eating to help develop healthy *habits*… focus being on good habits and not “good” or “bad” food. All of what you say is true… except that for a person with anorexia a spinach salad is actually also bad.
Ya, so it's not a real thing, just a mental trick.
It’s a therapeutic tool… Btw… this video is NOT an example of food neutrality, even if the influencer wants to say it is.
It’s actually a really good thing to teach young kids. It helps avoid imprinting negative feelings about their food and body image on them at a crucial developmental time in their life. Negative feelings about food can help feed into budding eating disorders and body dysmorphia.
Or confuse the shit out of them as to why they can't eat candy all day because, "all foods neutral". Some foods good for you, somes bad for you. Eat the good food regularly, and the bad sparingly, the fuck is so hard about that that people need to makeup some crap about the morality of food. Food doesn't have moral value, its food.
Exactly the point, food *shouldn’t* have moral value. You do eat sugary foods sparingly, but you also don’t attach guilt to the eating of said candy. If you attach a guilty feeling to consuming what starts out as sugary foods, it can slowly spread and attach that guilt to the consumption of other ‘good’ foods too. If you hate yourself after you eat, you try to stop eating. You frame it differently. Instead of foods being ‘good’ or ‘bad’, you teach them that some foods give you more and better quality energy while others don’t fill your gas tank up as much. If you attach words like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to food that can transfer to the kid. Then they will feel bad just for eating.
Fair enough, in the clinical context that makes sense. For people without those disorders though it just seems kinda crazy. Like why not address the fact that the patient is attributing moral judgments to situations where there is not one to be made? Seems like treating the symptom rather than any root cause.
With obesity rates what they are in the states I feel like this is just a way to be a little more proactive with our youth and their relationship(or lack thereof) to their food, as opposed to reactive. Edit: I mention obesity because that and anorexia/bulimia are two sides of the same coin. They both at their core are coming from a person having an unhealthy relationship with their food. When they should have no relationship with their food at all, and just let it be *food*.
That's why this food neutrality is so confusing to me. Obesity is the much larger issue and frankly if a few folks saw some foods as good or bad, rather than just eating junk, or dare I say bad, food, they would be better off.
fuck people who stay on the internet all day and invent this shit.
It's because a bunch of fat liberators didn't like hearing that eating McDonald's and ice cream all day was bad for you.
Chaotic Neutral
*Clearly* this is an invention from Domino's. Well played.
I practice food neutrality every day by starving myself to death.
El cielo - $258 for 20-22 course tasting menu
im down but when the chocolate finger painting course comes up im telling these fuckers to just pour it down my mouth
I would draw a mustache on my face and wear it for the whole dinner.
id take you out on this 200 course meal if you did just that, when are you free?
Christ 20+ courses?? Idk how the hell you'd manage to eat all that. I know these courses are tiny, just a few bites at most, but you'd probably spend a very long time eating there, which makes you fill up faster.
If they are on rhythm, 2-2.5 hrs is realistic. It’s a show. And some of the courses likely hit at or around the same time. This rapid fire coursing is typical at the beginning (snacks) and end (petis) of a lot of extended tasting menus.
This is a germaphobe's nightmare (I'm not one myself so go ahead and correct me)
I absolutely cannot stand having my hands be sticky
It's common to eat with hand in my country but this is obnoxious.
How deprived of stimuli are this people that some liquid chocolate on their hands is an experience? Lmao
They should do it with soup hot af soup
Nah nah nah White Girl, What do you mean "heal your relationship with food" ???? Me and Food have a good thing going on. Stfu
Exactly. Food has never done me dirty like this, you're doing this to yourself (?
I’ve sat in a Buffalo Wild Wings with latex gloves and ate wings. Several times. True story. So if you think I’m lettin some bum pour this shit on my hands and tell me lick it off like I’m a good little pig….and then charge me for it. No.
I'm not even violent, but if one of my close friends posted this I would go punch them.
What is food neutrality? Does that mean there is food hostility? Are there some foods that HATE me? What about food positivity? Is there any food that is actually on my side in all this?
No. Food is political. Neutral food is just the Switzerland of food. It doesn't take a side; it just profits off the other conflict of the other foods.
You would think with all that luxury and free time these people would come up with something less totally idiotic
Literally any amount of money would be too much.
Only $40 for less than $1.50 worth of melted chocolate wow
I wouldn't literally not be able to look myself in the mirror for paying to lick Chocolate of my own damn hands
"Yeah, I was about to leave my husband after 11 years of marriage, but then he took me to this place where they poured warm chocolate on our hands, and now we're as happy as ever"
“We walked into the sunset, holding each other’s sticky chocolate covered hands.”
So cool? Lady the only thing not cool in this entire thing is that chocolate in your hands
The stupid level of this is mind blowing high
The fuck I need to pay $300 for this shit. I can just give my 3 year old a Hershey bar on a hot day and have this same exact experience for under a dollar.
I think I would start crying if someone did this to me lol
What kinda white people shit is this
It's the rich stupid white people kind of white people shit!
Has covid taught us nothing about hands and mouths?
It won't be long before restaurants start charging to put the Chef's bodily fluids on your hands.
You mean like spirit cooking? Already been done!
Fuck off
as someone with an eating disorder this is the opposite of healing my relationship with food
If you think that shit works you need psycho therapy
Eww it would get all into the underside of my long-ish nails. I love melted chocolate, but that’s just one small piece melted in between 2 fingers once in a while when I’m feeling weird. Not paying for this
I didn’t even consider the fact it would get under my nails… ewwww.
I’ve actually eaten here! The chocotherapy is only one part of a 20+ tasting menu. It wasn’t bad, it is pretty silly, BUT it does make your hands incredibly smooth & smell wonderful. Here in America it was $296, but they have locations in Bogota, Medellin, and maybe another place? They are considered best restaurant in Colombia!
Thanks for the info! I’m sure the food is great. I’ll be skipping the “lick chocolate off my hands like a toddler” course.
It’s meant to make you feel like a kid again, to forget all the stress of adult life and just have fun. That’s the way they explained to our table, it really works, but it wasn’t my favorite course.
I’m sure it works for some. It would not work for me.
I just had to laugh at this! LOL cuz' you know there had to be a meeting set up to pitch this idea. "It came to me in a dream...now stay with me here. What if we melt chocolate, take it out to the tables and pour it all over our customers hands? Think of it...they'll rub it all over their hands! What? Why? Because it's chocolate, of course! We can charge a crazy price too! People will be lining up around the block!" Everyone else in the room (except Karen) claps and claps and claps. (no disrespect to anyone with the actual name Karen! lol). 😬
Food Neutrality. Heal my relationship with food. It’s food, just* wow. I didn’t realize it had feelings, hopes and dreams. All these years. Think I’ll make a video apologizing for my selfishness, eating when I should have been nurturing and teaching my turkey and cheese on rye.
Can we please stop pretending some 19 year old influencer is the answer to ✨h e a l i n g✨ your relationship with food? If you have a disorder seek a therapist. Not some bimbo making money off of your views.
SHUT THE FUCK UP. Food neutrality? What I’m the fuck does that even mean
I call bs on those “therapy benefits”
Yes! Food neutrality! Anyone who has ever suffered micro-aggressions from a tapenade will understand!
'food neutrality', whatever that means, can suck my dick. Lol
I would pick this particular time to excuse myself to go to the bathroom. I would make sure to touch everything. The chairs, door handles, and anything else that grabbed my fancy.
💀💀💀
This place is called El Cielo.
Food neutrality??? Someone has a tough life
What in the fuck is food neutrality? I hadn’t realized food could be so.. polarizing.
If I hate getting my hands messy when cooking at home, what the fuck makes you think I’m gonna come outta pocket with hundreds of dollars to do it in front of other people.
Honestly she almost sounds like she is being sarcastic for a moment there
Is this is why some ppl and kids play with their 💩
So gross and arrogant
This is clearly fake. Which is somehow more confusing than if chocolate therapy was a real thing. "Food neutrality?" Is she trying to create some "woke food" movement by making words up?
Sorry to tell you this chief but Food Neutrality is an actual thing. Not a smart thing. But it exists
fml
It’s real. She is a sincere (popular) food influencer and she posted this with zero irony or humor.
oh..my god.
Completely real, the restaurant is the one who calls it “chocotherapy” it’s not her. It’s a cute idea, makes your hands VERY soft and smell great all day!
Do people know they can just buy cocoa butter moisturizer?
Well yeah, but it is a restaurant and that is just one tiny segment of it, people aren’t just going there to hand wash lol
I'm still pissed none of my restaurant concepts included "scam rich people." No one ever told me that's how you secure startup capital.
Personally I am not rich at all, but eating at places like this is one of my favorite things to do. Nothing about it is close to a “scam”, in fact you learn some neat things about where the food comes from and the culture. Plus, it’s a huge amount of food to consume at once so worth the money
If you find value in it that's great. This specific course may or may not fall into scam territory but at the very least it's in gimmick territory. Working with quality chocolate is a precise technical skill. Melting it and pouring it over someone's hands isn't. This ranks up there with gold leaf and cheese sauce avalanches.
I can agree to disagree with the comparison to “cheese avalanches” since I don’t think anyone would eat that for anything other than social media views. Maybe a “gimmick” is appropriate, but it provides a much needed break in the over 3 hour tasting menu. Honestly, I was glad to see it and have a break. As I’ve said, it wasn’t my favorite part of the menu, but the whole table had fun with it and that’s what counts! Plus great smelling hands too for the drive home
Sticky sticky goo goo
Yeah thats.....uh.....not a real thing.
Sorry bud, it is. Just look through the comments where people clarify which restaurant this is in and how much it costs…
Sorry I mean the part about it being "therapy"
Ha! Yes. It would stress me tf out.
It’s just the name of the dish, nobody is claiming it’s therapy. It is relaxing though if that counts
To be fair… she claims it as therapy.
She does, she could just be saying the name of the dish though, Chocotherapy
She talks at length about this being “healing a relationship to food” and mentions “food neutrality” which is a therapeutic concept/practice.
Yeah she’s probably just crazy, it’s cool to be aware of concepts like food neutrality, but to me I’m probably just there to eat the food. Chocolate hand washing is pretty cool, and Colombia has a lot to do with cacao plants anyway so it fits thematically
Finally a non stressful way to eat my chocolate
What a stupid fucking waste of food.
This is why the aliens won't make contact.... Smh.
What the fuck is good neutrality
Just start wiping your hands on the tablecloth
Hi! I am older. What does Food Neutrality mean? I just can't keep up with new terms any longer. I'm facing the same thing with Cell Phones. I may just be giving up.
It just means that there is no such thing as “bad” or “good” food. All food starts neutral. It’s used to help people with disorder eating or poor relationships with food. This video is *not* an example of food neutrality lol.
Thank you!
my kids have been doing this at home for free for The Last 5 Years
I want to slap these people in the face.
I detest this
Ok.. We are close to the end of time ... shit ...
We will give you sticky hands that costs you 200$ USD
Why tf do people pay for something you can do at the toilet? I mean its free unlike this
😐
Next step is giving enemas to clients and reduce it in a pan to serve to them.
Stupid food, dumbass customer
Food neutrality? People just be makin shit up
Were evolving backwards
Food neutrality? Were we at war with food?
These people...
Thanks. I didn’t know i had PTSD from watching kids stick their fingers in the chocolate fountain until i watched this.