How Would You Define Clean Eating?

2»

Replies

  • CJDNE
    CJDNE Posts: 1 Member
    I started following the 100 Days of Real Food mini-challenges in January. I am down 21.5 pounds since then. I consider clean eating to be about whole foods without chemicals. I try to imagine an ingredient that I can't pronounce as any household chemical. Would I eat it and do I need it to prepare that food myself? If not, then it shouldn't be in my food! I joined MFP yesterday. I hadn't been counting any calories or anything since starting my real food journey, so was curious to see how much I SHOULD be eating and how much I actually am.
  • Rampant328
    Rampant328 Posts: 134 Member
    I view, "clean eating", as consuming NO processed foods, that is, foods that are the way you'd find them in nature. Butchering does not prevent something from being, "clean", so salmon filets (NOT the ones that have been marinated in a sauce), and ground meats like turkey, I would consider to be, "clean." Lunch meats like sliced/packaged turkey, ham, bologna, roast beef, etc. contain a lot of chemicals that put a burden on the liver; not good. Vegetables can be clean or not also. Since hand washing fruits, vegetables, and nuts that don't have a skin or shell removes very few of the chemical and pesticides, this wouldn't be, "clean", either. Bananas, kiwifruit, oranges, and peeled apples don't have to be organic to be, "clean", since you're peeling the skin with the pesticides off but tomatoes, blueberries, strawberries, blackberries, etc., should be. By the way, you wouldn't find broccoli growing in nature with a garlic butter sauce (or any other kind of sauce), so sauced vegetables would NOT be clean. I've also noticed that 95% (approximately) of processed foods contain vast amounts of processed sugar and salt. While some natural/clean foods like bananas and oranges contain natural sugars, and because the body handles natural and processed sugars the same way, it would still be considered clean since the natural sugar in a banana has a much lower glycemic index then, say candy and therefore presents a much lower load on the liver. Did you know that the liver performs at least 500 functions such as detoxification of the blood, production of bile, synthesis of cholesterol, storage of vitamins like A and B12, and synthesis of proteins? With the proliferation of processed sugar, sodium, preservatives, and other chemicals in the American diet it's no wonder why so many of us are overweight, undernourished, and suffering from things like hypertension. P.S. the CDC has now said that they've placed no upper limit cholesterol but the have lowered the limit for saturated fats. The two kinds of cholesterol are LDL (good) and HDL (bad) but what really happens is that LDL cholesterol pulls fat out of storage and into the blood stream to be used as energy and the HDL takes fat and stores it in fat cells. Cholesterol is really just a storage and retrieval system. It's the saturated fats that are not beneficial.
  • tinascar2015
    tinascar2015 Posts: 413 Member
    I am in horticulture. There are no more nutrients in organics than in non-organics. The science is very clear. The only difference is price, and even though I can afford organic, I never buy it. There are so many websites spreading hysterical misinformation about this.

    Organically grown food is, ironically, the most recalled food. Manure used to fertilize it is often not fully composted, and pathogens like e.coli, salmonella and listeria are present on the food and not as readily washed off as the trace amounts of pesticides that might be on it. But even if the food is perfectly clean, there is zero difference between organic and non-organic. Because.....science.
  • MonsoonStorm
    MonsoonStorm Posts: 371 Member
    For me it is avoiding processed food as much as possible, and staying organic wherever possible.
  • ryanhorn
    ryanhorn Posts: 355 Member
    Like several others on here, I define clean eating as eating in the way your great, great grandparents did.
  • MonsoonStorm
    MonsoonStorm Posts: 371 Member
    I am in horticulture. There are no more nutrients in organics than in non-organics. The science is very clear. The only difference is price, and even though I can afford organic, I never buy it. There are so many websites spreading hysterical misinformation about this.

    Organically grown food is, ironically, the most recalled food. Manure used to fertilize it is often not fully composted, and pathogens like e.coli, salmonella and listeria are present on the food and not as readily washed off as the trace amounts of pesticides that might be on it. But even if the food is perfectly clean, there is zero difference between organic and non-organic. Because.....science.

    Hrm...

    In all honesty, the main reason I buy organic is because that's the market that the small local farmers seem to have been pushed in to in order to survive. Despite what my diary currently says (supermarket brands... I've just moved and am still finding my feet in this area) I prefer to source my food from local farmers. It isn't so much a 'carbon footprint' thing, it's more of a "supermarkets are killing farmers" thing. In all honesty, I see the adverts for the latest massive cheap supermarket advertising 2-for-1 on whatever, or 50% off or whatever and I just cringe. Someone has to pay for all of that, and the supermarkets will be sure to keep their profit margins up as much as possible...

    I live in a big farming area, and I'd like to see the smaller farmers surviving. It's sad to see farmers having to sell off land that's been in their family for hundreds of years because they can no longer stay afloat.
  • Ang108
    Ang108 Posts: 1,711 Member
    For me it is avoiding processed food as much as possible, and staying organic wherever possible.


    With all due respect, you are comparing apples and cucumbers. There are many processed " organic " foods out there, because the food industry is allowed to use " natural " items to add to the food.
    An example from here in Mexico: We have " organic " yogurt with the addition of " 100 % natural " on the container. For me " all natural " means that it is just yogurt. However here it also has cornstarch or arrowroot ( to make the yogurt creamy ) and sugar .....since both are supposedly organically grown and natural they can be added and the label still is the same.For me this is a deception. This happens in many countries with many food items that are sold under the " organic " label.
    I also do not eat industrially processed foods, but eat traditionally processed foods and make my own yogurt, cheese, sauerkraut and Kimchee, pickles, sourdough bread, preserves and canned goods using all natural ( but not organic ) components.

  • tinascar2015
    tinascar2015 Posts: 413 Member
    Good point, Ang. 'Natural' and 'organic' are not interchangeable in the eyes of the US food labeling police. Any company can put the word 'natural' on a label. To say something 'organic' requires filling out paperwork and meeting some standards. And then there is 'certified organic' which is the real acid test.
  • MonsoonStorm
    MonsoonStorm Posts: 371 Member
    Ah, there could be the difference... I'm in the UK, we tend to have stricter labeling laws and tighter regulations all around. I know that there are various additives etc that are illegal here in Europe that are permitted in the US. I have to admit that (although it may be stereotypical and overblown as I only have media to base this on) but in general American farming practices, especially for livestock, leave me rather horrified, and the stranglehold that the large companies have on farmers there is absolutely ridiculous.

    What is your opinion on organic meats by the way? Everything so far seems to be focused on vegetables, my bigger concern lies with the meats though. I prefer my meat to be as devoid of hormones/antibiotics as possible.
  • tinascar2015
    tinascar2015 Posts: 413 Member
    Organic meats -- that's a conundrum. The public is wary of the hormones and antibiotics, yet the FDA (which is way more stringent than the public wants to believe) is monitoring and testing all the time, and as yet has not found cause to ban them. This is an interesting article on growth hormones in cattle. huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/31/hormones-in-food-should-y_n_815385.htmlhttp://

    As for antibiotics, this is interesting information from our FDA:
    http://fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378100.htm

    I never rely on any of the thousands of hysterical and fearmongering websites for this sort of information. Sure, this is a government website, but it bases its decisions on science, not public opinion.

    My husband (a Brit) and I have noticed that the EU has had a rather kneejerk reaction to everything from pesticide use to hormones and antibiotics in livestock to GMOs. My two stepdaughters still have to come to America to get a T-bone steak and they're really frustrated that meat on the bone is still banned in England. The EU banned one class of pesticides because it prematurely decided that chemical was responsible for the bee decline. They acted too soon, as there are now several other factors that scientists have determined are combining to cause Colony Collapse Disorder. And after a couple years of not using these pesticides, what is the result? There has been no positive impact on the bee population, but farm yields have dropped by almost half. The rapeseed that's used to make canola oil is a huge problem, so you will see much higher prices for that now, plus those farmers are suffering huge financial losses. Many people think the pesticide ban will be lifted when it expires.

    This morning on the news I saw a report on a frozen food line called Amy's. I see it in the shop all the time -- very expensive frozen pizzas, enchiladas and other foods -- all organic, all high-end processed foods. As many as 74,000 cases of these frozen foods have been recalled due to Listeria contamination concerns. I wish this were an isolated case, but almost exclusively, when I hear these reports, they're organic foods being recalled.

    So I play it safe and never opt for organic. We can afford it, too. I'd rather take the savings and donate it to a food bank.
  • MonsoonStorm
    MonsoonStorm Posts: 371 Member
    Meat on the bone isn't banned in the UK... Beef perhaps (but that had more to do with BSE rather than anything else - a contaminant from the neural tissue of diseased animals) But all other meats are available on the bone. Kneejerk reaction? perhaps - but the consequences of that particular disease are a little worse than a dodgy tummy. There's also the point that the industry had to do everything it could to reassure every country that banned UK beef that they were doing all they could to make it safe. It was only at the start of this year, 15 yrs after the BSE issue, that the US has allowed the import of IRISH beef (all other EU beef is still under ban) Now, given that BSE has been a non-issue for so long, how much of that "safeguarding ban" is down to politics and the US govt purely wishing to boost their own beef industry? Also given that and the influence that large companies have on the US govt... it is really such a leap that a lot of this anti-organic stuff is been blown out of proportion to meet an agenda?

    The problem is, it isn't the FDA itself that is testing these things, but the companies that develop them. You are right, you can't trust the fear-mongering sites, but then equally, how can you trust the govt system? Until the govt establishes it's own private independent testing system, and removes itself from the influence of large companies, then all results will be skewed.

    The other thing with organic meat (in the UK at least) is the stricter conditions on living standards. Most mass produced cows in the US seem to be raised in massive pens, wallowing in mud, being fed food that their systems aren't designed to digest without a blade of grass in sight, which is something I find hard to comprehend.

    As for listeria, it is common and can happen at any point in the food processing chain. It is also not going to kill you unless you are severely immuno-compromised in the first place. Who's spreading the fear-mongering about bugs in the first place? "Use Dettol anti-bacterial spray on all of your work surfaces! Safety for your entire family!" *cue picture of sweet innocent baby crawling on a surface and then putting it's hands in it's mouth* Fear-mongering is everywhere, most of it propagated by the government and massive companies. Big point for avoiding listeria - "don't eat soft cheeses, blue cheeses etc etc". No thank you. I like my cheese.

    Having lived in China for a long time I have seen the full spectrum of "additives" to food, from simple sugar water all the way through to melamine. The wet markets are still open when it's 35 degrees and all of the produce (meat and veg) is just out in the open air exposed to anything and everything, yet somehow the population keeps going up ;-) The stuff you buy from the side of the road which is being sold by random people who have grown it in their garden... god only knows what it was fertilised with (I can hazard a good guess), you can bet your bottom dollar that they didn't use expensive mass produced chemical stuff though. Simple precautions are all that are needed.

    One other consideration... yes, there may be bugs on food, ok. But bugs have been on food for millenia. Before we became oversterilised germophobes with antiseptic everything, our bodies were better able to cope with such bugs. Now we are caught between increased virulence in bugs (brought about by pesticides etc) and immune systems that, for one reason or another, no longer know what they are attacking or how to attack it. On the other hand we have a plethora of chemicals that our bodies don't know what to do with, the plants don't know what to do with, and the bugs are slowly evolving to ignore regardless.

    Just my opinion.

    It all boils down to eat what you feel most comfortable with and trust no-one ;)
  • MonsoonStorm
    MonsoonStorm Posts: 371 Member
    Pubmed article basically slamming the FDA's testing of the effects of hormones in meat:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10366402

    Oxford journals research article related to the current thinking on hormones in meat and the effects on children, and also decrying the FDA's testing:
    http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/4/341.short

    The govt and the FDA are not necessarily correct. But again, just to re-iterate, this is not me siding with the fear-mongers. I believe that certain people (Mr. Mercola, looking squarely at you!) are downright dangerous at times.
This discussion has been closed.