Clean Eating v Organic
Options
jmurguia78
Posts: 34 Member
Is it the same, or what's the difference??
0
Replies
-
-
Organic is a label regulated by the USDA for compliance.
Clean eating is a nebulous concept that no two people will agree on a definition for unless they're disciples of the same guru.
Both are generally about using conspicuous consumption, moralization, and concepts of purity to make food into something that lets them be better than other people.0 -
Organic is a label regulated by the USDA for compliance.
Clean eating is a nebulous concept that no two people will agree on a definition for unless they're disciples of the same guru.
Both are generally about using conspicuous consumption, moralization, and concepts of purity to make food into something that lets them be better than other people.
Boom!!0 -
Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.0 -
Thanks for all the info greatly appreciated
0 -
^^Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
Its refreshing to see a decent answer to a decent question.
0 -
^^This
^^Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
Its refreshing to see a decent answer to a decent question.
0 -
Organic is a label regulated by the USDA for compliance.
Clean eating is a nebulous concept that no two people will agree on a definition for unless they're disciples of the same guru.
Both are generally about using conspicuous consumption, moralization, and concepts of purity to make food into something that lets them be better than other people.
Yes!0 -
People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods."
Not on MFP or many other places.
It seems to me that a lot of us who aren't "clean eaters" tend to have a diet with an emphasis on whole or minimally-processed foods. What sets aside the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" is that they assert that they eat "no processed foods" or "no foods from a box" or the like which is -- of course -- almost always not actually true.
Specifically, the claims of "clean eaters" on MFP seem to be:
(1) That including even a minimal amount of non-clean food (however that's defined) makes a diet less "healthy" than diets that include these foods.
(2) That "processing" in and of itself makes food less nutritious even though (of course) in the absence of processing most of us would have far less access to foods that promote health like produce in the off-season or fish that is not local or leaner cuts of meat or many dairy products, not to mention whole grains and convenience foods like canned beans or tomatoes.
It is because I disagree with these claims that I am not a "clean eater," and these two claims are what are being debated in the clean eating debates on MFP.
It's rather misleading to suggest that the issue is focusing on whole foods, as many many more people besides self-proclaimed clean eaters do that. The evidence of this is all the "clean eaters" who want special "clean eating" cook books when of course the vast majority of normal cookbooks involve cooking from whole foods. (I have literally hundreds of regular cookbooks, and all focus on whole foods.)0 -
Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This ^^ 100%
All the rest is usually just arguing over a personal dislike of a phrase.0 -
Organic is a label regulated by the USDA for compliance.
Clean eating is a nebulous concept that no two people will agree on a definition for unless they're disciples of the same guru.
Both are generally about using conspicuous consumption, moralization, and concepts of purity to make food into something that lets them be better than other people.
0 -
Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...0 -
Organic is a label regulated by the USDA for compliance.
Clean eating is a nebulous concept that no two people will agree on a definition for unless they're disciples of the same guru.
Both are generally about using conspicuous consumption, moralization, and concepts of purity to make food into something that lets them be better than other people.
0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods."
Not on MFP or many other places.
It seems to me that a lot of us who aren't "clean eaters" tend to have a diet with an emphasis on whole or minimally-processed foods. What sets aside the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" is that they assert that they eat "no processed foods" or "no foods from a box" or the like which is -- of course -- almost always not actually true.
Specifically, the claims of "clean eaters" on MFP seem to be:
(1) That including even a minimal amount of non-clean food (however that's defined) makes a diet less "healthy" than diets that include these foods.
(2) That "processing" in and of itself makes food less nutritious even though (of course) in the absence of processing most of us would have far less access to foods that promote health like produce in the off-season or fish that is not local or leaner cuts of meat or many dairy products, not to mention whole grains and convenience foods like canned beans or tomatoes.
It is because I disagree with these claims that I am not a "clean eater," and these two claims are what are being debated in the clean eating debates on MFP.
It's rather misleading to suggest that the issue is focusing on whole foods, as many many more people besides self-proclaimed clean eaters do that. The evidence of this is all the "clean eaters" who want special "clean eating" cook books when of course the vast majority of normal cookbooks involve cooking from whole foods. (I have literally hundreds of regular cookbooks, and all focus on whole foods.)
Yes, on MFP. There are over 19k members of the Clean Eating group here on MFP. They all have varying approaches, but that seems to be a common theme. And there are a bunch of clean eaters over there who fully admit that they consume some processed foods and eat foods from boxes (meaning prepackaged convenience foods). You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people based on rare claims by a vocal minority. Most of the "clean eaters" on this site do not participate in the main forums, and your two points about non-clean food making a diet "unhealthy" or that processing makes food "less nutritious" are not prominent themes - I'm not even sure that I've seen them, although I haven't read every single post. I also don't see anyone arguing about the definitions, they just seem to offer their opinions and share ideas, ultimately leaving the decision up to the individual.
Most of the clean eaters seem to be focused on the definition I gave above, and the other variations I saw were environmentally-related (growing own food, locally sourcing to reduce environmental impact of transport, concerns about impact of GMOs/farming practices), personal preference based on personal experiences (training, pain/inflammation reduction, overall feeling of mental/physical wellbeing), or concerns about additives/preservatives in foods.
It's not misleading to suggest that the issue is focusing on whole foods; just because other people besides self-proclaimed clean eaters do that doesn't mean it's incorrect, or that only people who declare themselves "clean eaters" are allowed to eat that way. And as for the cookbooks, my cookbooks also have whole food ingredients, but they also contain vegetarian, vegan, and low carb recipes - yet there are still specialized cookbooks on the market for those eating styles. The existence of "clean eating" cookbooks is evidence of capitalism at its finest, not a commentary on the legitimacy of the definition I provided.
Ultimately, it's up to each of us to decide how we want to eat, and decide what label to put on our eating style, if we even choose to label it at all. If that's how you want to define clean eating (because it's been said numerous times there is no one definition), and don't want to call yourself a "clean eater," then don't do it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods."
Not on MFP or many other places.
It seems to me that a lot of us who aren't "clean eaters" tend to have a diet with an emphasis on whole or minimally-processed foods. What sets aside the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" is that they assert that they eat "no processed foods" or "no foods from a box" or the like which is -- of course -- almost always not actually true.
Specifically, the claims of "clean eaters" on MFP seem to be:
(1) That including even a minimal amount of non-clean food (however that's defined) makes a diet less "healthy" than diets that include these foods.
(2) That "processing" in and of itself makes food less nutritious even though (of course) in the absence of processing most of us would have far less access to foods that promote health like produce in the off-season or fish that is not local or leaner cuts of meat or many dairy products, not to mention whole grains and convenience foods like canned beans or tomatoes.
It is because I disagree with these claims that I am not a "clean eater," and these two claims are what are being debated in the clean eating debates on MFP.
It's rather misleading to suggest that the issue is focusing on whole foods, as many many more people besides self-proclaimed clean eaters do that. The evidence of this is all the "clean eaters" who want special "clean eating" cook books when of course the vast majority of normal cookbooks involve cooking from whole foods. (I have literally hundreds of regular cookbooks, and all focus on whole foods.)
Yes, on MFP. There are over 19k members of the Clean Eating group here on MFP. They all have varying approaches, but that seems to be a common theme. And there are a bunch of clean eaters over there who fully admit that they consume some processed foods and eat foods from boxes (meaning prepackaged convenience foods). You're pigeon-holing an entire group of people based on rare claims by a vocal minority. Most of the "clean eaters" on this site do not participate in the main forums, and your two points about non-clean food making a diet "unhealthy" or that processing makes food "less nutritious" are not prominent themes - I'm not even sure that I've seen them, although I haven't read every single post. I also don't see anyone arguing about the definitions, they just seem to offer their opinions and share ideas, ultimately leaving the decision up to the individual.
Most of the clean eaters seem to be focused on the definition I gave above, and the other variations I saw were environmentally-related (growing own food, locally sourcing to reduce environmental impact of transport, concerns about impact of GMOs/farming practices), personal preference based on personal experiences (training, pain/inflammation reduction, overall feeling of mental/physical wellbeing), or concerns about additives/preservatives in foods.
It's not misleading to suggest that the issue is focusing on whole foods; just because other people besides self-proclaimed clean eaters do that doesn't mean it's incorrect, or that only people who declare themselves "clean eaters" are allowed to eat that way. And as for the cookbooks, my cookbooks also have whole food ingredients, but they also contain vegetarian, vegan, and low carb recipes - yet there are still specialized cookbooks on the market for those eating styles. The existence of "clean eating" cookbooks is evidence of capitalism at its finest, not a commentary on the legitimacy of the definition I provided.
Ultimately, it's up to each of us to decide how we want to eat, and decide what label to put on our eating style, if we even choose to label it at all. If that's how you want to define clean eating (because it's been said numerous times there is no one definition), and don't want to call yourself a "clean eater," then don't do it.
Which would make them just like the majority of people who suggest eating foods you enjoy in moderation. The whole argument is stupid. Most people who have found a sustainable eating plan that helps them achieve their goals focus on nutrient dense whole foods. Some people have adapted their way of eating to accomodate personal preference or medical conditions.
I just don't understand the need to label, but whatever. The problem is when someone says that "this food is bad because x,y,z and no one should eat it". I agree that it is a minority of opinion on the boards, but it has become insanely vocal in the past few months. And all it does is lead to arguing.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 390 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions