Where have all the healthy eaters gone?
Replies
-
+1,000
The problem with identifying people as healthy eaters (or not) is that 1) healthy eating is in the context of a whole diet and 2) unless you are looking at everyone's diary, you really don't have any justification for declaring someone a "healthy eater" and its presumptuous to try.
It's also kind of crappy to say healthy eaters are better behaved - what does that even mean? If you are talking about better behaved in terms of life choices, well, I just have to laugh at that. But, I realize that's not what you were referring to...
In the last week, I've been told to shut up. I've had reasonable questions deflected. I've been snarked at and laughed at....all by your "healthy eating posse." I don't care about such things, because this is an internet forum. But, I also don't tolerate hypocrites.
I think the worst thing I have had said to me was when someone seen canned chicken in my diary and said I was eating dog food full of chemicals. I have seen others who have mentioned that they were happy with their choices they made while eating out only to be ran down for eating "chemicals". In general I have seen clean eaters tell people they were ingesting poison, toxins, crap, junk, garbage, etc. These things are usually said when the person isn't even asking for advice on how to clean up their diet (noun).
On the flip side, I don't see the flexible eating crew say things like that. The most common thing I see is people letting others know that there is no reason to go on a very restrictive diet for the purpose of losing weight. It's all about finding a balance and using moderation.0 -
No, it's always the same script, same questions, same responses, same underlying hostility, it is just boring and tedious at some point. No offense, but it is almost always guys that have a shirtless, flexing profile pic. I can see it coming from a mile away.
ahh so you are just going to do a drive by and clarify nothing and make underhanded attempts at insulting people?
If you can't formulate your position with examples, and have to result to insulting people then that is the sign of a small mind...
My definition of "clean/healthy" entails having high food quality standards in choosing food that has an absence of artificial food additives that exist primarily to drastically prolong the shelf life of the food and/or make it taste/smell/feel/appear more like food "should be" (as determined by corporate marketing executives).
In other words, whole foods or foods that are just processed enough to make them safe for human consumption or to isolate the edible portion. Is this correct? This is basically what anybody who says they eat healthy does too, but without the derogative term "clean eating". Some just include the occasional convenience food too. Why is everyone arguing?
0 -
Well I am taking off until the new year. Still logging, but I am eating the cake.0
-
+1,000
The problem with identifying people as healthy eaters (or not) is that 1) healthy eating is in the context of a whole diet and 2) unless you are looking at everyone's diary, you really don't have any justification for declaring someone a "healthy eater" and its presumptuous to try.
It's also kind of crappy to say healthy eaters are better behaved - what does that even mean? If you are talking about better behaved in terms of life choices, well, I just have to laugh at that. But, I realize that's not what you were referring to...
In the last week, I've been told to shut up. I've had reasonable questions deflected. I've been snarked at and laughed at....all by your "healthy eating posse." I don't care about such things, because this is an internet forum. But, I also don't tolerate hypocrites.
I think the worst thing I have had said to me was when someone seen canned chicken in my diary and said I was eating dog food full of chemicals. I have seen others who have mentioned that they were happy with their choices they made while eating out only to be ran down for eating "chemicals". In general I have seen clean eaters tell people they were ingesting poison, toxins, crap, junk, garbage, etc. These things are usually said when the person isn't even asking for advice on how to clean up their diet (noun).
On the flip side, I don't see the flexible eating crew say things like that. The most common thing I see is people letting others know that there is no reason to go on a very restrictive diet for the purpose of losing weight. It's all about finding a balance and using moderation.
I completely agree. And I also can't believe someone told you that you were eating dog food. That's so rude.
Oh - and I've had canned chicken. It wasn't bad! No shame in that game!
0 -
Clean eating to me seems like another unrealistic fad that you can only live by for a few weeks. But that is me. Everyone knows that eating healthy and " clean" is better then eating pizza and coke. But if that is all you tell yourself you can eat chances of binge eating are probable. If someone really loves eating clean and never wants anything else, then that is great for them. But a lot of people who were gaining results from still eating things that they enjoy like pizza may feel like clean eaters are shaming them for not losing weight the way THEY think they should be losing. Its hard enough to get started on a better diet without people pointing out every thing you are doing wrong.
really, it is? So if I eat pizza, hit my macros, and am in a deficit for the day then that is not healthy?
what if I eat clean and am in a surplus for the day...does that mean that I am still healthier than the pizza eater that is in a deficit and hit their macros????0 -
No, it's always the same script, same questions, same responses, same underlying hostility, it is just boring and tedious at some point. No offense, but it is almost always guys that have a shirtless, flexing profile pic. I can see it coming from a mile away.
ahh so you are just going to do a drive by and clarify nothing and make underhanded attempts at insulting people?
If you can't formulate your position with examples, and have to result to insulting people then that is the sign of a small mind...
See, you are already (claiming to be) insulted by the fact that I don't like to argue about healthy eating, and I haven't even stated a position yet - then you goad me by insulting my intelligence. You are following the script, perhaps you don't even realize it. ("Dude doesn't think like me, dude doesn't want to engage in a senseless argument trading a hundred posts that lead to nowhere, he must be dumb"). I'm sure you've reviewed my academic credentials and can intelligently assess my mental aptitude based upon a few lines posted on a message board. Okay, I'll let myself get sucked into this yet again...
My definition of "clean/healthy" entails having high food quality standards in choosing food that has an absence of artificial food additives that exist primarily to drastically prolong the shelf life of the food and/or make it taste/smell/feel/appear more like food "should be" (as determined by corporate marketing executives).
you don't like to argue about it, but you called people a bunch of "broscientoligists" whatever that means, and then throw around comments about people with "shirtless pictures" ...so I guess you passively aggressively don't like to argue, but do...
Yea, I got a shirtless picture..yea, I am proud of my progress...big deal..does that make me a broscientologist? Or do I get to be a broscientist because I don't agree with clean eating?
so basically nothing is clean then, because preservatives...?
I threw the term out there in general, you chose to own it / personalize it.
I have no problems with shirtless profile pics, I have one saved to MFP. I am just stating an absolute fact that most people who argue with me against clean eating have a shirtless, flexing pic. I'm not sure why that is.
Not all preservatives are created equal.0 -
say wut?
you specifically address a group of people then dust it off and say "you're personalizing it"
when you called them out specifically??
you have got to be kidding me.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »
I believe they are referring to their point of "content with what they eat and let others do as they please" - that certainly would be better behaved than 'attacking' people for what they eat in particular, which I see happen here often. If that isn't it & what's actually being suggested is that 'people who eat very healthy are better behaved' well, they can stick that.
Typically people are not being attacked for how they choose to eat, what is discussed is attacked is the thought that you have to "eat clean" or whatever nonsense to lose weight. It's also not the person that is attacked it is the idea that is questioned.
Either way they can stick the better behaved comment as this is not kindergarten
Agreed. People are getting stick for talking/asking about different dietary approaches recently keto for example has become popular people were getting bombarded with negativity just for asking about it. I think it's because this forum has seen it all & are just tired with people trying to use excuses or quick fixes, but the curious also seem to get lumped in with this.
I'm a "clean eater" but I just enjoyed a nice 300g down of mint choc chip ice cream, that's what makes balance so wonderful. it's around 80/20 for me. I know for some people they have to be 100% but everyone needs to realise that we are all individuals. Those people who have that "this is the only way" attitude need to take a back seat.
So you aren't really a clean eater. Thus, why use the term when you know it's controversial. I care about healthy eating but would never claim "clean" because it's meaningless and rude and because anyone could reasonably point out that I eat ice cream and processed foods like smoked salmon and cottage cheese and the occasional boneless skinless chicken breast. I think it's weird when people claim not to eat processed when of course they do.
That's why I used quote marks when stating "clean" I am to build the majority of my diet from unprocessed (disregarding cooking, cutting & cleaning) sources. I didn't claim I ate no processed foods, I did the opposite. I was using it to point out that some things work for some (like 100% clean) but not others, and using my own experience with sustainability to drive the point.
Right, and I pretty much agree with that, but I'm asking why then identify with or invoke the term clean. In the context of the MFP arguments you aren't a clean eater based on what you said unless you just like the label. An argument about labels is not disagreement with healthy eating, as some like to proclaim. Most who say clean eating isn't meaningful or necessary probably eat like you. So again, why assert that you are clean? I simply don't get it. Based on the same criteria I know I'm not.
So the issue is just that I used the term clean? I didn't really want to attach myself to the label - hence keeping some distance by using quote marks. I am one of those people who say & think the clean eating mantra isn't meaningful (ofc it works for some which is great) I personally HATE the label, it suggests that other ways of eating are un-clean. I guess I should have said I eat mostly foods that are classed as "clean", but even though it's not 100% that's still healthy & working, that's what I mean. Is this clearer? I'm very anti "one true way" s'all about that individual balance.
Not an issue. I was mostly curious since you seemed to be associating yourself with the clean eating "side"--complaining that people asserted that "clean" eating is restrictive and were anti healthy eating. I wanted to point out that in fact you describe your eating as more similar to what the "moderate" folks do and ask why adopt the label (as you seemed to be doing). It seems that we actually agree on the label, as well as probably general ideas about how to approach healthy eating.
The reason I raised it is that one of my pet peeves is how the "clean" eaters want to assert that they are the only ones who care about health or healthy eating. I think for whatever reason lots of people want to argue that because people dislike the term "clean eating" or don't think elimination is necessary that they, well, advise eating 1200 calories of pizza only or Twinkies 24/7. That's a total straw man and pretty obnoxious. (Not saying you said it, but that misrepresentation--the claim that people who don't "clean eat" are anti healthy eating--is one of the main reasons the debates on the topic tend to be more noise than enlightenment.)0 -
+1,000
The problem with identifying people as healthy eaters (or not) is that 1) healthy eating is in the context of a whole diet and 2) unless you are looking at everyone's diary, you really don't have any justification for declaring someone a "healthy eater" and its presumptuous to try.
It's also kind of crappy to say healthy eaters are better behaved - what does that even mean? If you are talking about better behaved in terms of life choices, well, I just have to laugh at that. But, I realize that's not what you were referring to...
In the last week, I've been told to shut up. I've had reasonable questions deflected. I've been snarked at and laughed at....all by your "healthy eating posse." I don't care about such things, because this is an internet forum. But, I also don't tolerate hypocrites.
I think the worst thing I have had said to me was when someone seen canned chicken in my diary and said I was eating dog food full of chemicals. I have seen others who have mentioned that they were happy with their choices they made while eating out only to be ran down for eating "chemicals". In general I have seen clean eaters tell people they were ingesting poison, toxins, crap, junk, garbage, etc. These things are usually said when the person isn't even asking for advice on how to clean up their diet (noun).
On the flip side, I don't see the flexible eating crew say things like that. The most common thing I see is people letting others know that there is no reason to go on a very restrictive diet for the purpose of losing weight. It's all about finding a balance and using moderation.
Amen!
0 -
+1,000
The problem with identifying people as healthy eaters (or not) is that 1) healthy eating is in the context of a whole diet and 2) unless you are looking at everyone's diary, you really don't have any justification for declaring someone a "healthy eater" and its presumptuous to try.
It's also kind of crappy to say healthy eaters are better behaved - what does that even mean? If you are talking about better behaved in terms of life choices, well, I just have to laugh at that. But, I realize that's not what you were referring to...
In the last week, I've been told to shut up. I've had reasonable questions deflected. I've been snarked at and laughed at....all by your "healthy eating posse." I don't care about such things, because this is an internet forum. But, I also don't tolerate hypocrites.
I think the worst thing I have had said to me was when someone seen canned chicken in my diary and said I was eating dog food full of chemicals. I have seen others who have mentioned that they were happy with their choices they made while eating out only to be ran down for eating "chemicals". In general I have seen clean eaters tell people they were ingesting poison, toxins, crap, junk, garbage, etc. These things are usually said when the person isn't even asking for advice on how to clean up their diet (noun).
On the flip side, I don't see the flexible eating crew say things like that. The most common thing I see is people letting others know that there is no reason to go on a very restrictive diet for the purpose of losing weight. It's all about finding a balance and using moderation.
I completely agree. And I also can't believe someone told you that you were eating dog food. That's so rude.
Oh - and I've had canned chicken. It wasn't bad! No shame in that game!
Lamb, Menhaden Fish Meal, Oatmeal, Ground Barley, Ground Brown Rice, Rye Flour, Tomato Pomace, Salmon Meal, Chicken Fat (preserved with Mixed Tocopherols), Tomatoes, Ground Millet, Natural Lamb Flavor, Carrots, Ground Flaxseed, Dicalcium Phosphate, Calcium Carbonate, Potassium Chloride, Vitamin E Supplement, Spinach, Choline Chloride, Taurine, Mixed Tocopherols added to preserve freshness, Zinc Proteinate, Sweet Potatoes, Apples, Blueberries, Zinc Sulfate, Calcium Carbonate, Niacin, Ferrous Sulfate, Iron Proteinate, Beta-Carotene, Glucosamine Hydrochloride, Chondroitin Sulfate, Vitamin A Supplement, Copper Sulfate, Thiamine Mononitrate, Yucca Schidigera Extract, Copper Proteinate, Manganese Proteinate, Manganese Sulfate, d-Calcium Pantothenate, Sodium Selenite, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Chicory Root Extract, Garlic Powder, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Biotin, Calcium Iodate, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Folic Acid, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Dried Lactobacillus plantarum Fermentation Product, Dried Enterococcus faecium Fermentation Product, Dried Lactobacillus casei Fermentation Product, Dried Lactobacillus acidophilus Fermentation Product, Rosemary Extract, Green Tea Extract, Spearmint Extract.
This is a naturally preserved product.
..i would eat it if it tasted good. But I also eat canned chicken.0 -
Oh - and I've had canned chicken. It wasn't bad! No shame in that game!
So have I. No worse than canned tuna for salads or sandwiches. Actually, it is much better than canned tuna but only because I can't stand fish. Oh canned corned beef is great for homemade hash and I have a great reuben appetizer that uses it too.
0 -
Oh - and I've had canned chicken. It wasn't bad! No shame in that game!
So have I. No worse than canned tuna for salads or sandwiches. Actually, it is much better than canned tuna but only because I can't stand fish. Oh canned corned beef is great for homemade hash and I have a great reuben appetizer that uses it too.
And less to no mercury!0 -
Well, this thread is going well now... Can't keep track of the number of parallel arguments anymore, but I have a feeling I will lose neurons if I try.0
-
OP eats captain crunch with soda?
Wow, you're supposed to use milk.0 -
Which is why I refuse to use the term "processed food". It is as ambiguous as "clean eating". When referring to the foods I rarely buy, I use the term "convenience foods". It is a concept most people get: the frozen heat-and-eat dinners, boxed and canned pre-made foods, Little Debbie cakes (mmmmmm, Little Debbies), "instant" anything like oatmeal, etc. I think I eat "healthy". I mostly eat whole foods I prepare myself, whole grain breads, etc. I do use a Quest bar as an afternoon snack and a scoop of protein powder (neither of which are allowed by the clean eating crowd) but are very common among those who say they are eating healthy.
Yeah, basically this.
I would nitpick about the instant oatmeal based on an example from another thread I gave. The oatmeal I personally prefer and tend to eat (I mostly have eggs anyway) is Bob's Red Mill steel cuts, which is neither instant nor normally disapproved of by the "clean" crowd, I don't think (I don't care, I just am picky about oatmeal and after trial and error discovered I liked it best). But I have two to three other oatmeals, two steel cut, one not, and one of the steel cuts is a "quick cook" brand that you can microwave in minutes. All of them are just oats, and the quick cook kind actually has more protein and fiber than the other two. So I'm wondering why draw a distinction?
It's this kind of thing that creates a problem with the usual brightline rules when it comes to processed (or even convenience) foods.
A similar question I'd ask has to do with buying lunch. I do sometimes, but I am picky about where I buy from, and buy things that have ingredients that I'd personally use only. So why would this matter or be different than buying it myself? (Also, I know some people into "clean" eating who will buy ready made or convenience meals so long as they are specially made to be consistent with their dietary ideas--the "paleo meals" and some such.)
Not at all suggesting that you are arguing otherwise--I typically agree with your posts on these issues--but using this as a vehicle to ask.
0 -
Absolutely NOT, especially if it is dark chocolate.Liftng4Lis wrote: »What exactly is "healthy" eating? I can guarantee you I eat more veggies now that ever, but I also enjoy chocolate or a treat. Does this make it unhealthy??
0 -
TopazCutie wrote: »_HeartsOnFire_ wrote: »
Agreed. Some foods are more nutritious/better/healthier than others - it's a fact. In the big picture though, the impact of the "unhealthy" foods depends on so many other factors
Yep, lots of foods are more nutritious/better/healthier than bran flakes, at least based on what I personally rate. Would it then make sense for me to come be judgy about someone eating bran flakes and lecture them on how they should eat, I dunno, broccoli or salmon? Or is it entirely possible that bran flakes fit well in their overall diet AND their taste preferences? If so, why would Capt Crunch be different, especially if the differences are as minor as someone stated above.
I mean, I think all cold cereal is icky and a weird thing to voluntarily eat, but some people just have odd tastes. ;-)
(Yes, I know I'm really the weird one here, at least for an American.)0 -
heh... someone needed a pre-workout make up N pig tail selfie- so I obliged. I took before and afters- at some point I'll throw them up somewhere in the ethernet.
back in for the discussion...- for those saying the people advocating more "unhealthy" foods- have a larger calorie intake to accommodate it. I aim to be eating 16-1700 roughly... still rocking the sweet treats and what chocolate milk. It's not perfect- no- but it gets the job done.
There are ways to make it work... the problem isn't a matter of health- it's a matter of context within the diet- AND maximizing your bang for your buck calorie wise.
That's what I hit when I do incorporate some foods that I eat just for the taste. But that's my maintenance, and on days where I am unable to be active, that's over my maintenance. I know I'm not the average person, but there are a lot of people who really do have lower intakes for different reasons. To me, it's not worth the macro gymnastics to fit in fun foods daily and still be satiated. To someone else with my intake, it might be worth it. If I want yums, I have a maintenance day. If I had a higher TDEE, I'd have no reason not to more frequently include the yums. People work hard for their TDEE's and fitness, it's not a slam. But I do think we tend to think of our diets when we give advice for others, so I think that's where some of the disparity comes in.
indeed- for some people it's worth it- for others not.
but- there is not a single label or preconceived notion in what you or I have said.
It's simple a function of the context of what we are doing.
I freely admit on days when I'm running out of food- I've had BAGS of steamables- not one- not two- but like THREE... because I'm REALLY hungry- but I have nothing left to squeeze in there... so function is- eat something uber low calorie- but highly filling- and satiating- 3 bags of veggies is dayum filling- so I have at it... but it's not "healthy or not" it's just a function of what happened that day.
I was thinking of using the word function to make my post more concise. My focus is on trying to make what I eat nutritionally functional. I call some foods (that I do eat) junk food because they really have very little nutritional value. I don't think that makes them "bad" just not advisable for me most of the time. My 220 calories of "ice cream" has zero grams of protein. That's just not a smart fit very often (for my diet, where I need to be very vigilant to get my protein.) If they ever make a protein enhanced ice cream that fits what I can eat, I'd be all over that, and the frequency would be based more on finances.
I'm a sensitive person, and I think we've gotten a tad oversensitive on what words can be used even generally. It's one thing to get offended when someone tells you that you eat crap and junk, but if someone posts "How often can I eat junk food?," people could just answer the question rather than the word demonizing showing up or people taking it as a personal insult. Junk food is pretty common lingo for food that doesn't have a lot of nutritional value. It's been around a long time, no one's attacking you by using the term (unless they're using it against you.) People often tell me I eat "rabbit food" and sometimes I know it's meant kind of derisively. I don't take it that way, because it's often true.0 -
Clean eating to me seems like another unrealistic fad that you can only live by for a few weeks. But that is me. Everyone knows that eating healthy and " clean" is better then eating pizza and coke. But if that is all you tell yourself you can eat chances of binge eating are probable. If someone really loves eating clean and never wants anything else, then that is great for them. But a lot of people who were gaining results from still eating things that they enjoy like pizza may feel like clean eaters are shaming them for not losing weight the way THEY think they should be losing. Its hard enough to get started on a better diet without people pointing out every thing you are doing wrong.
And the reverse is also true. Those people who choose not to eat pizza, candy and drink soda are demonized by those that do. People are coming on here looking for like minded people. When a thread is posted where someone is looking for friends who eat "clean" there is no reason for a million posts (and stupid Gif's, pictures etc) to pop up about how they wash their food so it's clean or they eat pizza, candy, etc and then post pictures about all the food they eat. Good for you. That's awesome that you eat that stuff and that you're getting results but not everyone eats that way so while some "clean" eaters may come off as being superior (and honestly I haven't found one on this board that has the same can be said for the "dirty" eaters.0 -
Thread locked as it's a drama thread. Below is the rule it violates:
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions