Clean Eating
Replies
-
Most people who push back and ask for the "clean eating" and other categories mentioned above to define what they mean because there is sometimes a perception that in order to be successful you have to follow these somewhat arbitrary and vague plans. The people who challenge and ask for consistent definitions and peer reviewed scientific studies are generally doing so because they want people to know that you don't HAVE to subscribe to one of those philosophies in order to be successful. There are a lot of new people who come to these forums who have been told they have to give something up if they are going to lose weight. They have been told things like "sugar is evil" or "processed is bad" or "you have to eat clean" and they try to adhere to these restrictive ways, only to end up finding it to be too challenging for long term success. Those people give up and go back to their old ways, frustrated and discouraged.
Again - that is not the case for everyone. There are people on here with medical conditions that require them to eliminate food groups - they are exceptions. There are people on here who prefer to eat this way and do not feel they are deprived by cutting things out, they plan to eat this way forever and if they can, more power to them. But there are plenty more people, I would say a majority of people, who cannot sustain that lifestyle forever. Those people should be told that making these drastic changes and completely cutting out fast food, or cookies, or whatever is not the only way to be successful. That is also not to say that the people asking for definitions and saying you don't have to do it that way are saying, "you should only eat fast food and cookies".
If everyone on MFP had open diaries and logged accurately and consistently, and you were to look at a random sampling from both camps - I would venture to guess that Team Moderation eats just as many, if not more, fruits, vegetables, lean proteins and whole grains as Team Restriction. They just also add in ice cream or a slice of Dominos too and don't sweat it.
Many push back and claim that by saying "I eat clean" the poster is judging, being rude, being insulting (of others) Which again suggests that the poster is eating a particular way based on the eating habits of others, which they obviously aren't.
I eat healthy. Not relative to you.
If I say I eat healthy, am I saying you don't?
And, of course, in a few cases the folks who object eat healthier (choose a word you like) than the OP themselves....0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't care at all if people call themselves low carbers or don't count calories. As I have explained many times, I dislike the term "clean eating" because it is rude. It is inherently an insult. If I claim to be "paleo" it's because there's something called the "paleo diet" which I think I'm following--there may be debate on what it is, but the term refers to something specific. If I claim to eat "low carb," it's because I'm keeping my carbs below a certain level. So on.
"Clean" eating isn't like that. It's based on the premise that some foods or ways of eating are "clean" and some are "unclean"--again, a word that in the English language refers to hygiene or a religious code about food. Therefore, it is on its face an insult.
Beyond that, when this is pointed out, when people learn that others perceive it that way, they usually dig in and insist that it's a word they want to use. When I ask why, they never try to answer. Therefore, it seems apparent to me that the insulting portion of it is part of the appeal, is intended.
It also bugs me because it's usually a lie. People claim they are "clean" eaters because they don't eat processed foods, but they usually eat the same processed foods others do. They just decided it doesn't count. IMO, cooking from whole foods isn't "clean eating." It's "cooking."
Very much this. Lemurcat12 has it going on today.
It is not insulting at all to imply, intentionally or inadvertently, that some other person eats high carb. Or that they eat meat. Or that they eat dietary fat. But it is most definitely a value judgement against a person to imply that they eat unclean.
The very connotation of the word "clean" automatically makes everything not labeled clean, "unclean." It is a very holier-than-thou, pompous and douchebaggeried thing to say. Particularly when "clean" doesn't mean anything specific enough to warrant continuing to use the word, and there was already a label for that kind of eating which has been around for decades: whole foods.
0 -
Thanks for the thoughtful replies.
I totally get, understand, and encourage educating people who might not know better; i.e. you don't have to eat a certain way in order to lose weight, get fit or be in good overall health. That makes perfect sense because, yes, some people really don't know that a cookie isn't going to dismantle their entire health or weight loss efforts.
The vitriol I don't get, and I suppose I never will. Because I've personally never felt insulted by whatever somebody labels their eating regimen, even "clean". It does seem amazing to me that people get so personally affronted over things like that. I also do not, for a second, believe that everybody, or even most people, who use the term "clean" are intending to insult other people. That's not been my experience AT ALL.
The only issue I'm going to take up with you is if you are a judgement snot to me personally, or being so to somebody else. And to be perfectly honest most of the people I've found encountered who fit that mold are some fanatical calorie counting nazis, vegan and the 80/10/10 folks. And my issue isn't what they call themselves, or their inherent philosophy, so much as it is the approach of some of them.
Call yourself clean all day long.
I ain't mad at cha. - Tupaclemurcat12 wrote: »I don't care at all if people call themselves low carbers or don't count calories.
Well I mentioned the calorie counting because it does produce a similar reaction in some people around here. Just mentioning that you lose, or maintain, without logging and tracking can sometimes produce get a like response that saying you eat "clean" does.
So does low carb actually.
Just a lot of people around here seem personally upset over the dietary choices of other grown folk.0 -
There are people on here who prefer to eat this way and do not feel they are deprived by cutting things out, they plan to eat this way forever and if they can, more power to them. But there are plenty more people, I would say a majority of people, who cannot sustain that lifestyle forever. Those people should be told that making these drastic changes and completely cutting out fast food, or cookies, or whatever is not the only way to be successful.
Absolutely, and trust me when I say I get what you're saying, and to an extent agree.
However the reason I'm skeptical that most of the responders are trying to be purely helpful is that almost nobody around here mentions that calorie counting and the "everything in moderation" approach likewise has abysmal success rates. Just like every other road.
Restrictive eating in a plentiful food culture has a very high long term failure rate. Let folks know.
But even, sadly, tracking and moderation have very high long term failure rates. Don't let folks know?
There is a very pervasive attitude around here that correcting courses to the "right" way leads to freedom and a significantly greater chance at succeeding in the long term. Except there is no evidence that backs that up. We're all in for some pretty tough odds and most of us will end up rebounding.
Which is why, while I agree with education, I'd prefer to push the "find what works for you" perspective because I know the grim facts that even many of the people taking the "successful" route will fail right along with those who get labeled as doing it the bad/wrong/restrictive way.
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »There are people on here who prefer to eat this way and do not feel they are deprived by cutting things out, they plan to eat this way forever and if they can, more power to them. But there are plenty more people, I would say a majority of people, who cannot sustain that lifestyle forever. Those people should be told that making these drastic changes and completely cutting out fast food, or cookies, or whatever is not the only way to be successful.
Absolutely, and trust me when I say I get what you're saying, and to an extent agree.
However the reason I'm skeptical that most of the responders are trying to be purely helpful is that almost nobody around here mentions that calorie counting and the "everything in moderation" approach likewise has abysmal success rates. Just like every other road.
Restrictive eating in a plentiful food culture has a very high long term failure rate. Let folks know.
But even, sadly, tracking and moderation have very high long term failure rates. Don't let folks know?
There is a very pervasive attitude around here that correcting courses to the "right" way leads to freedom and a significantly greater chance at succeeding in the long term. Except there is no evidence that backs that up. We're all in for some pretty tough odds and most of us will end up rebounding.
Which is why, while I agree with education, I'd prefer to push the "find what works for you" perspective because I know the grim facts that even many of the people taking the "successful" route will fail right along with those who get labeled as doing it the bad/wrong/restrictive way.
Maybe. But at least they get to eat cookies.
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »There are people on here who prefer to eat this way and do not feel they are deprived by cutting things out, they plan to eat this way forever and if they can, more power to them. But there are plenty more people, I would say a majority of people, who cannot sustain that lifestyle forever. Those people should be told that making these drastic changes and completely cutting out fast food, or cookies, or whatever is not the only way to be successful.
Absolutely, and trust me when I say I get what you're saying, and to an extent agree.
However the reason I'm skeptical that most of the responders are trying to be purely helpful is that almost nobody around here mentions that calorie counting and the "everything in moderation" approach likewise has abysmal success rates. Just like every other road.
Restrictive eating in a plentiful food culture has a very high long term failure rate. Let folks know.
But even, sadly, tracking and moderation have very high long term failure rates. Don't let folks know?
There is a very pervasive attitude around here that correcting courses to the "right" way leads to freedom and a significantly greater chance at succeeding in the long term. Except there is no evidence that backs that up. We're all in for some pretty tough odds and most of us will end up rebounding.
Which is why, while I agree with education, I'd prefer to push the "find what works for you" perspective because I know the grim facts that even many of the people taking the "successful" route will fail right along with those who get labeled as doing it the bad/wrong/restrictive way.
Maybe. But at least they get to eat cookies.
Hahaha!
Troof!
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Just a lot of people around here seem personally upset over the dietary choices of other grown folk.
But I think you are misunderstanding if you believe that people are objecting to the "clean" thing because we care how others eat. It's odd how people always take the commentary over the term "clean" as others objecting to how people choose to eat (the OP here claimed to take it that way, when that's clearly not what was going on, for example).
I don't care how others eat at all, so long as it works for them. In fact (although it's not relevant, as I also don't care if people are vegetarian or low carb, etc.), if I wanted to, I could claim to "eat clean," since I don't eat boxed meals, most of the products I buy have few ingredients, I'm picky about the restaurants I go to, I like getting produce from farms and try to source my meat and eggs and dairy based on ethical concerns, blah, blah. Back in the day (oddly enough, when I first was gaining weight) I was more fanatical about this (as part of an annoying foodie thing), and much more focused on eating as locally as possible and making everything I could from whole ingredients (the stupidest was not using canned tomatoes, IMO), although I would have described it as about eating "naturally" instead of clean (I would mock myself back then too). Even now I think I have good reasons for some of what I do, but I think a lot of it is just a fetishism or a way of making it more fun, if you prefer, that happens to help me eat better so what's the harm.
I don't describe myself as someone who "eats clean," mostly because I think it's an offensive and rather silly term, but also because I'm aware of how hypocritical it would be. I eat way less, uh, "clean" than I used to (I eat ice cream and Quest bars and yogurt, etc. and even own some quick oats, even if they are 100% Irish, er, organic), and even back then of course I ate processed food since we all do and thought that some kinds of processing was a positive thing. So I can't help but notice it's hypocritical when most others use it too.
But the bigger problem (because everyone is kind of hypocritical about something) is that it's an insult, because you are saying that other ways of eating are "unclean"--not something factual like "includes meat" or "doesn't limit carbs" or "not according to the Paleo diet," but "unclean." And it's completely unnecessary, since you don't need to say "eat clean." You can say "focuses on whole foods" or "try to eat in a way I consider healthy" or--really--you can just say (as I do) "I'm trying to focus on cooking," which seems to encompass a lot of what most people are trying to do when they "go clean."
The weirdest thing (okay, not really, the baking soda was the weirdest) is how new "clean eaters" so often want special "clean" recipes or cook books. What do they think are in regular cookbooks? Recipes starting with Mars Bars or Big Macs? The written version of the Sandra Lee show (assuming anyone else even knows what I mean by that)?
0 -
I like Sandra Lee.
I lovingly refer to her as Drunken Hines.
I used to watch her show when I had cable because I found it oddly entertaining.
Her recipes...not for me.0 -
DiabolicalColossus wrote: »I lovingly refer to her as Drunken Hines.
I love this and may now use it. I'll credit "some person I know from the internet" if you like. ;-)
0 -
::tips hat::
Enjoy it with my compliments.
:]0 -
DiabolicalColossus wrote: »I like Sandra Lee.
I lovingly refer to her as Drunken Hines.
I used to watch her show when I had cable because I found it oddly entertaining.
Her recipes...not for me.
So glad I stuck with this thread so I could also plagiarize this... Drunken Hines... awesome!
0 -
Dang, this exactly.lemurcat12 wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »Just a lot of people around here seem personally upset over the dietary choices of other grown folk.
But I think you are misunderstanding if you believe that people are objecting to the "clean" thing because we care how others eat. It's odd how people always take the commentary over the term "clean" as others objecting to how people choose to eat (the OP here claimed to take it that way, when that's clearly not what was going on, for example).
I don't care how others eat at all, so long as it works for them. In fact (although it's not relevant, as I also don't care if people are vegetarian or low carb, etc.), if I wanted to, I could claim to "eat clean," since I don't eat boxed meals, most of the products I buy have few ingredients, I'm picky about the restaurants I go to, I like getting produce from farms and try to source my meat and eggs and dairy based on ethical concerns, blah, blah. Back in the day (oddly enough, when I first was gaining weight) I was more fanatical about this (as part of an annoying foodie thing), and much more focused on eating as locally as possible and making everything I could from whole ingredients (the stupidest was not using canned tomatoes, IMO), although I would have described it as about eating "naturally" instead of clean (I would mock myself back then too). Even now I think I have good reasons for some of what I do, but I think a lot of it is just a fetishism or a way of making it more fun, if you prefer, that happens to help me eat better so what's the harm.
I don't describe myself as someone who "eats clean," mostly because I think it's an offensive and rather silly term, but also because I'm aware of how hypocritical it would be. I eat way less, uh, "clean" than I used to (I eat ice cream and Quest bars and yogurt, etc. and even own some quick oats, even if they are 100% Irish, er, organic), and even back then of course I ate processed food since we all do and thought that some kinds of processing was a positive thing. So I can't help but notice it's hypocritical when most others use it too.
But the bigger problem (because everyone is kind of hypocritical about something) is that it's an insult, because you are saying that other ways of eating are "unclean"--not something factual like "includes meat" or "doesn't limit carbs" or "not according to the Paleo diet," but "unclean." And it's completely unnecessary, since you don't need to say "eat clean." You can say "focuses on whole foods" or "try to eat in a way I consider healthy" or--really--you can just say (as I do) "I'm trying to focus on cooking," which seems to encompass a lot of what most people are trying to do when they "go clean."
The weirdest thing (okay, not really, the baking soda was the weirdest) is how new "clean eaters" so often want special "clean" recipes or cook books. What do they think are in regular cookbooks? Recipes starting with Mars Bars or Big Macs? The written version of the Sandra Lee show (assuming anyone else even knows what I mean by that)?
I have no idea who Sandra Lee is.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »Just a lot of people around here seem personally upset over the dietary choices of other grown folk.
But I think you are misunderstanding if you believe that people are objecting to the "clean" thing because we care how others eat. It's odd how people always take the commentary over the term "clean" as others objecting to how people choose to eat (the OP here claimed to take it that way, when that's clearly not what was going on, for example).
I don't care how others eat at all, so long as it works for them. In fact (although it's not relevant, as I also don't care if people are vegetarian or low carb, etc.), if I wanted to, I could claim to "eat clean," since I don't eat boxed meals, most of the products I buy have few ingredients, I'm picky about the restaurants I go to, I like getting produce from farms and try to source my meat and eggs and dairy based on ethical concerns, blah, blah. Back in the day (oddly enough, when I first was gaining weight) I was more fanatical about this (as part of an annoying foodie thing), and much more focused on eating as locally as possible and making everything I could from whole ingredients (the stupidest was not using canned tomatoes, IMO), although I would have described it as about eating "naturally" instead of clean (I would mock myself back then too). Even now I think I have good reasons for some of what I do, but I think a lot of it is just a fetishism or a way of making it more fun, if you prefer, that happens to help me eat better so what's the harm.
I don't describe myself as someone who "eats clean," mostly because I think it's an offensive and rather silly term, but also because I'm aware of how hypocritical it would be. I eat way less, uh, "clean" than I used to (I eat ice cream and Quest bars and yogurt, etc. and even own some quick oats, even if they are 100% Irish, er, organic), and even back then of course I ate processed food since we all do and thought that some kinds of processing was a positive thing. So I can't help but notice it's hypocritical when most others use it too.
But the bigger problem (because everyone is kind of hypocritical about something) is that it's an insult, because you are saying that other ways of eating are "unclean"--not something factual like "includes meat" or "doesn't limit carbs" or "not according to the Paleo diet," but "unclean." And it's completely unnecessary, since you don't need to say "eat clean." You can say "focuses on whole foods" or "try to eat in a way I consider healthy" or--really--you can just say (as I do) "I'm trying to focus on cooking," which seems to encompass a lot of what most people are trying to do when they "go clean."
The weirdest thing (okay, not really, the baking soda was the weirdest) is how new "clean eaters" so often want special "clean" recipes or cook books. What do they think are in regular cookbooks? Recipes starting with Mars Bars or Big Macs? The written version of the Sandra Lee show (assuming anyone else even knows what I mean by that)?
This is amazing.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions