Clean Eating
Replies
-
thornborrow193 wrote: »I am opinionated. Always have been that way. When comments are made that I feel are defensible or even derogatory then I can't stay still or silent. It's not being over sensitive. I quite a strong and level headed person. It's stating my words so they are clear and my points are reiterated when I feel it is required. As you said it is an open forum.
I am not asking for everyone to be on my side or agree with my thought process but my original post was to have a network of people who are trying the same thing.
But I do hope this whole conversation ends. There are so much more beautiful things we can chat about versus this never ending debate.
Opinionated and sensitive are different things. You can voice your opinions without getting your panties in a bunch because people don't agree with them, and share their opinions.
You are reading things into what everyone is saying. Just like the villianizing comment that was someone actually agreeing with you.
The wonderful thing about the forums are if you are done with a thread you have this wonderful thing called a choice not to return to that thread and the conversation ends for you.0 -
thornborrow193 wrote: »Hi, I do spend time with my kids and really to imply that I spend more time I the kitchen then with them is a low blow. My children cook with me, we sit at the ramble and eat dinner as a family then we finish off by doing the dishes and clean up together. But that is how I run dinner time at home and not necessarily the way every house is or should be.
It takes an all of 15 min to prep a chicken breast to be baked in the oven or my husband to BBQ them.
I work every day and come home and take my kids to events, sports etc and I time manage my day to include dinner. It's how it works for me, for us.
It wasn't me who makes chicken nuggets
although I am sure my kids would eat that up.
I disagree with pop being drank and I do not permit my kids to have any form of dark pop however there are times when they get it but they understand how bad if is for them. < again is my choice and my right to say so. I am sure I opened up another can just now.
"villainizing" ..... really? I believe I stated numerous times this is my choice and was never meant to make anyone or thing into a villain.
Wow. You're really overstretching here. Do you get this offended in real life too? How do you get along with people?
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Kruggeri suggested that making meals from scratch everyday would take time away from her kids, so she'd rather do that on the weekends.
I highly doubt she meant it to insult anyone. Personally I think people assume from-scratch cooking is far more time consuming than it is, but regardless if she thinks that cooking from scratch will cost her play time with the rugrats, than that's her take and prerogative.
I don't think anybody meant to imply that the OP doesn't care as much about spending time with her family (though I know plenty of people do make that implication when they feel cornered and judged about their reliance on convenience foods).
ahh, okay. thanks0 -
thornborrow193 wrote: »I am opinionated. Always have been that way. When comments are made that I feel are defensible or even derogatory then I can't stay still or silent. It's not being over sensitive. I quite a strong and level headed person. It's stating my words so they are clear and my points are reiterated when I feel it is required. As you said it is an open forum.
I am not asking for everyone to be on my side or agree with my thought process but my original post was to have a network of people who are trying the same thing.
But I do hope this whole conversation ends. There are so much more beautiful things we can chat about versus this never ending debate.
In my experience the way to get a thread to die is for the OP to walk away.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »thornborrow193 wrote: »I am opinionated. Always have been that way. When comments are made that I feel are defensible or even derogatory then I can't stay still or silent. It's not being over sensitive. I quite a strong and level headed person. It's stating my words so they are clear and my points are reiterated when I feel it is required. As you said it is an open forum.
I am not asking for everyone to be on my side or agree with my thought process but my original post was to have a network of people who are trying the same thing.
But I do hope this whole conversation ends. There are so much more beautiful things we can chat about versus this never ending debate.
In my experience the way to get a thread to die is for the OP to walk away.
Now the OP can request that her own thread be deleted by the mods.
0 -
Even when the OP leaves the thread, it sometimes still doesn't end.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »thornborrow193 wrote: »I am opinionated. Always have been that way. When comments are made that I feel are defensible or even derogatory then I can't stay still or silent. It's not being over sensitive. I quite a strong and level headed person. It's stating my words so they are clear and my points are reiterated when I feel it is required. As you said it is an open forum.
I am not asking for everyone to be on my side or agree with my thought process but my original post was to have a network of people who are trying the same thing.
But I do hope this whole conversation ends. There are so much more beautiful things we can chat about versus this never ending debate.
In my experience the way to get a thread to die is for the OP to walk away.
0 -
Dave198lbs wrote: »when "clean" eaters and "healthy" eaters talk about "processing" or "processed" foods, most people understand that they mean added preservatives and artificial flavor enhancements that are not found naturally in the food...i.e. mass produced foods.
Maybe they do and maybe they don't. There's no consistency, so how are we supposed to know what they mean. For example, in this very thread we were told that instant oats are unclean, even though (as I pointed out) the "quick oats" in my cupboard that can be made in the microwave are "100% organic Irish oats" with no other ingredients (I checked this morning, beats me why their ethnicity matters, but that's what the package says). ;-) Similarly, in another recent thread, I was told that anything made with flour is by definition highly processed, since flour itself is (whole grain too).
More significantly, do you know how this could be avoided? People using words to mean what the commonplace or even dictionary definition is. "Processed" does not mean "with preservatives and artificial flavors." When state law has specific rules about the "processing" of meat, such that farmers have to use a third-party processor, they don't mean that artificial flavors must be added, obviously.
I always ask on this thread why--given how broad the category of "processed" is--people aren't specific about whatever it is they are trying to avoid. For example, though I don't insist others do this, I do avoid certain kinds of additives and ingredients or at least try to keep them to small amounts. People are never willing to, perhaps because they don't know or are embarrassed to admit it's baking soda.
0 -
thornborrow193 wrote: »Hi, I do spend time with my kids and really to imply that I spend more time I the kitchen then with them is a low blow. My children cook with me, we sit at the ramble and eat dinner as a family then we finish off by doing the dishes and clean up together. But that is how I run dinner time at home and not necessarily the way every house is or should be.
It takes an all of 15 min to prep a chicken breast to be baked in the oven or my husband to BBQ them.
I work every day and come home and take my kids to events, sports etc and I time manage my day to include dinner. It's how it works for me, for us.
It wasn't me who makes chicken nuggets although I am sure my kids would eat that up.
I disagree with pop being drank and I do not permit my kids to have any form of dark pop however there are times when they get it but they understand how bad if is for them. < again is my choice and my right to say so. I am sure I opened up another can just now.
"villainizing" ..... really? I believe I stated numerous times this is my choice and was never meant to make anyone or thing into a villain.
Wow. You know, the funny thing is, when I was typing my comment about me preferring to use convenience foods for weeknight dinners and cooking more on the weekends I actually thought to myself, "I hope the OP doesn't think I am saying that she isn't spending quality time with her kids too" then thought, "nah, people would surely know that I'm talking about my choices, not what happens in other people's houses". Guess I was wrong.
I love to cook. I wish I had more time for it. I know it doesn't take that long to put together a meal from scratch. I do that too - I'm just saying that for me and my family, there is nothing wrong with choosing a box of Hamburger Helper or throwing some tater tots in the oven to go along with our chicken and vegetables. That's the point of convenience foods - they are convenient. That doesn't make them evil.
0 -
Well, I see the butthurt continues. It must be really exhausting to go through life looking for offense in everything. OP - I genuinely feel badly that this is how you perceive everything. I've gotten a ton of helpful advice and made some good friend from interacting in the forums. You're going to miss out.-2
-
[quote=
So here it goes:
I, Melanie, make a commitment to eat healthier in a way that is best for my goals and my plans for myself and my family. It is not to offend or persecute anyone on MFP but to see results and make a strong, sustainable, achievable plan for myself.
I choose not to buy for convenience but to make other foods convenient.
[/quote]
In my humble opinion I believe this to be the best post in this whole thread. I don't think anyone can debate or argue these points in my opinion.
Butt,,, this is MFP .
0 -
I still find it amazing that the term "clean eating" seems to dig so deeply under so many people's skin on here. I don't use the term, but in real life I hear it all the time and I have never seen anyone take any noticeable offense to the term.
Who cares if there is no consensus about what that means? There seems to be little consensus about ANY diet approach. What is considered "low carb" to one isn't the same to someone else. The same goes for low fat, macro percentages, paleo, hell even calorie counting; some think counting should be a life long thing, others a temporary, others count every bite they can, others don't think you need to be that strict. I do intermittent fasting and there are so many different timing windows and philosophies with that avenue.
Nobody needs to come to some universal consensus of what is "clean" eating to them. Who cares if they want steel cut oats but don't consider instant to be "clean" enough for them. Big whoop. I can totally understand if some clean eating adherent is being an obnoxious *kitten* about it to you personally, criticizing and judging the diets of others, but often around here somebody will just say they're trying to eat "clean" for themselves, whatever that means, and it gets folks VERY butthurt.
-2 -
For some reason, folks feel judged.Iwishyouwell wrote: »I still find it amazing that the term "clean eating" seems to dig so deeply under so many people's skin on here. I don't use the term, but in real life I hear it all the time and I have never seen anyone take any noticeable offense to the term.
Who cares if there is no consensus about what that means? There seems to be little consensus about ANY diet approach. What is considered "low carb" to one isn't the same to someone else. The same goes for low fat, macro percentages, paleo, hell even calorie counting; some think counting should be a life long thing, others a temporary, others count every bite they can, others don't think you need to be that strict. I do intermittent fasting and there are so many different timing windows and philosophies with that avenue.
Nobody needs to come to some universal consensus of what is "clean" eating to them. Who cares if they want steel cut oats but don't consider instant to be "clean" enough for them. Big whoop. I can totally understand if some clean eating adherent is being an obnoxious *kitten* about it to you personally, criticizing and judging the diets of others, but often around here somebody will just say they're trying to eat "clean" for themselves, whatever that means, and it gets folks VERY butthurt.
It's interesting that the "lifting heavy" crowd doesn't get backlash from...who, the presumed opposite... the "lifting light" crowd....
But this one topic sure does it.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Who cares if there is no consensus about what that means? There seems to be little consensus about ANY diet approach. What is considered "low carb" to one isn't the same to someone else. The same goes for low fat, macro percentages, paleo, hell even calorie counting; some think counting should be a life long thing, others a temporary, others count every bite they can, others don't think you need to be that strict. I do intermittent fasting and there are so many different timing windows and philosophies with that avenue.
The problem is it gets used as if there is consensus, as if it means something other than an insult, when it doesn't. "Unclean" has nothing to do with nutrition. It's either a hygienic thing or a religious one. Either way, it's an insult.
People come on and say "I'm trying to eat clean, how do you do it" or the like, when what they probably really want to talk about is how to eat healthily or, often, how to eat in a way conducive to weight loss. Yet by their word choice they exclude all conversation with people who don't self define as clean eaters (because they understand the label is stupid, perhaps). What's the point, why not use more generally-accessible, non-divisive language?
Also, I really do think people should be ashamed of themselves for wanting to claim a label that serves only to insult some unidentified other.
And often it seems to be about preening and patting yourself on the head for not eating 24/7 out of boxes, as if most of us did.Who cares if they want steel cut oats but don't consider instant to be "clean" enough for them.
I would much prefer to discuss the actual issues with people. If someone really thinks that instant oats are terrible to eat, I'd be interested to understand why and perhaps enter into a conversation with them. Who knows, maybe they know something I don't.
"Oh, I don't eat processed food" said by someone chomping on some cold cuts on whole wheat bread from the grocery with store bought mustard on them is just silliness.
Also, it's generally confusing to people, because many get the idea that they have to "eat clean" to be healthy or lose weight but have no idea what that means. Or, worse, they are told they have to drop baking soda.
0 -
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »Who cares if there is no consensus about what that means? There seems to be little consensus about ANY diet approach. What is considered "low carb" to one isn't the same to someone else. The same goes for low fat, macro percentages, paleo, hell even calorie counting; some think counting should be a life long thing, others a temporary, others count every bite they can, others don't think you need to be that strict. I do intermittent fasting and there are so many different timing windows and philosophies with that avenue.
The problem is it gets used as if there is consensus, as if it means something other than an insult, when it doesn't. "Unclean" has nothing to do with nutrition. It's either a hygienic thing or a religious one. Either way, it's an insult.
People come on and say "I'm trying to eat clean, how do you do it" or the like, when what they probably really want to talk about is how to eat healthily or, often, how to eat in a way conducive to weight loss. Yet by their word choice they exclude all conversation with people who don't self define as clean eaters (because they understand the label is stupid, perhaps). What's the point, why not use more generally-accessible, non-divisive language?
Also, I really do think people should be ashamed of themselves for wanting to claim a label that serves only to insult some unidentified other.
And often it seems to be about preening and patting yourself on the head for not eating 24/7 out of boxes, as if most of us did.Who cares if they want steel cut oats but don't consider instant to be "clean" enough for them.
I would much prefer to discuss the actual issues with people. If someone really thinks that instant oats are terrible to eat, I'd be interested to understand why and perhaps enter into a conversation with them. Who knows, maybe they know something I don't.
"Oh, I don't eat processed food" said by someone chomping on some cold cuts on whole wheat bread from the grocery with store bought mustard on them is just silliness.
Also, it's generally confusing to people, because many get the idea that they have to "eat clean" to be healthy or lose weight but have no idea what that means. Or, worse, they are told they have to drop baking soda.
You are the winner of the day.0 -
And yet, still, none of those well thought out responses explain why "clean eating" is a point of contention so heavily here, or in other very limited circles.
There are tons of diet/fitness related concepts that are not clearly defined.
What constitutes "low carb"?
What constitutes "healthy eating"?
What constitutes "low fat"?
What constitutes "paleo"?
What constitutes "the right macro balance"?
What constitutes "heavy lifting"?
What constitutes "enough calories"?
What constitutes "moderation"?
When are you considered a "runner"?
What counts as "exercise"?
The list goes on, and on, and on. Look at other sites. Within every niche dieting community, from calorie counters, to vegans, runners, body builders, vegetarian, paleo, low fat, low carb, etc, etc, etc there are still debates within groups as to who are the "true believer."
The only consistent thing about the diet/fitness world is the inconsistency.
I am just wondering why, on this board, certain concepts seem to get people vitriolic in the extreme.
Call myself a "clean eater" I'm somehow insulting you.
Call myself a "low carber" I'm somehow shaming you.
Say I don't count calories, and I'm somehow belittling you.
Why does the dietary choices that other people make for themselves seem to cause such a stink. If you're not eating it, and you're not using the concept, or don't believe in the approach, why do you care so much (universal you, not any particular person in this thread)?0 -
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."0 -
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.0 -
I only ask "clean eaters" for a definition because I want to understand precisely what is meant by the term. Nothing more than that. I want to understand what they're saying so I remain informed.
That really isn't an unreasonable request.0 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions