Guys, stop with the orthorexia already!

lemurcat12

My main issue with "clean eaters" is simply that I HATE the term "clean" used for food. It sounds super sanctimonious and seems intended as an insult to others, and plus has weirdly religious or addiction-related connotations.

Beyond that, as you say I suspect that most "clean eaters" eat no better than I do (since I try to eat healthy myself, as I assume most in these conversations do), so the need to act as if they eat better than everyone else is a little grating. Especially when they claim not to eat "processed" foods but clearly do.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

lemurcat12 wrote: »

My main issue with "clean eaters" is simply that I HATE the term "clean" used for food. It sounds super sanctimonious and seems intended as an insult to others, and plus has weirdly religious or addiction-related connotations.

Beyond that, as you say I suspect that most "clean eaters" eat no better than I do (since I try to eat healthy myself, as I assume most in these conversations do), so the need to act as if they eat better than everyone else is a little grating. Especially when they claim not to eat "processed" foods but clearly do.

Yes, there was a thread a week or two ago where the OP claimed not to have eaten any processed food or a single gram of added sugar during his weight loss. A quick look at his diary revealed protein powder with added sugar and Chipotle on the day he published the thread.

I think that most "clean" eaters probably eat about like I do, especially if they follow the 80/20 or 90/10 rule. And yet it's been implied to me (and outright stated more than once) that I'll be cancer riddled by the time I reach my 50s because of all the "crap" I eat.

obscuremusicreference

ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

My main issue with "clean eaters" is simply that I HATE the term "clean" used for food. It sounds super sanctimonious and seems intended as an insult to others, and plus has weirdly religious or addiction-related connotations.

Beyond that, as you say I suspect that most "clean eaters" eat no better than I do (since I try to eat healthy myself, as I assume most in these conversations do), so the need to act as if they eat better than everyone else is a little grating. Especially when they claim not to eat "processed" foods but clearly do.

Yes, there was a thread a week or two ago where the OP claimed not to have eaten any processed food or a single gram of added sugar during his weight loss. A quick look at his diary revealed protein powder with added sugar and Chipotle on the day he published the thread.

I think that most "clean" eaters probably eat about like I do, especially if they follow the 80/20 or 90/10 rule. And yet it's been implied to me (and outright stated more than once) that I'll be cancer riddled by the time I reach my 50s because of all the "crap" I eat.

So much this! From a mental health perspective, recognizing that you have a desire for the odd potato chip has to be healthier than feeling bad about it. And in the end, both sides end up with potato chips in their mouths anyway.

IowaJen1979

benjaminhkohl wrote: »

I am definitely sick of everything getting slapped with "gluten free" labels now. Very few people have a gluten intolerance anyway. But I can't help but laugh when I see a carbonated energy drink labeled "gluten free". It's basically just the "low fat!" / "no carbs!" of this decade.

This drives me BONKERS!!!! If I'm deciding between two brands, and one says "gluten free" I'll buy the other one because I find it so IRRITATING! Gluten gets such a bad rap!

SnuggleSmacks

obscuremusicreference wrote: »

ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

My main issue with "clean eaters" is simply that I HATE the term "clean" used for food. It sounds super sanctimonious and seems intended as an insult to others, and plus has weirdly religious or addiction-related connotations.

Beyond that, as you say I suspect that most "clean eaters" eat no better than I do (since I try to eat healthy myself, as I assume most in these conversations do), so the need to act as if they eat better than everyone else is a little grating. Especially when they claim not to eat "processed" foods but clearly do.

Yes, there was a thread a week or two ago where the OP claimed not to have eaten any processed food or a single gram of added sugar during his weight loss. A quick look at his diary revealed protein powder with added sugar and Chipotle on the day he published the thread.

I think that most "clean" eaters probably eat about like I do, especially if they follow the 80/20 or 90/10 rule. And yet it's been implied to me (and outright stated more than once) that I'll be cancer riddled by the time I reach my 50s because of all the "crap" I eat.

So much this! From a mental health perspective, recognizing that you have a desire for the odd potato chip has to be healthier than feeling bad about it. And in the end, both sides end up with potato chips in their mouths anyway.

Which brings us back to orthorexia, wherein foods are assigned "goodness" or "badness" and one feels virtuous and righteous for eating the "good" foods, and one panics and punishes themselves for eating "bad" foods.

I know that a lot of the behaviors which could lead to orthorexia don't have to do so...it doesn't follow that a person who beats herself up for having a cookie or chip will automatically get orthorexia. But I do think that feeling a tremendous amount of guilt or angst over eating is bad in and of itself.

My usual response to people who post about food guilt is "The only food you should feel guilty about eating is the food you stole." Food should be about pleasure, and to a great extent how the food makes you feel physically ties into that pleasure. I think that a lot of people lose sight of this and feel that their diets are a punishment for all the poor choices they've made in the past regarding foods that give a more immediate, sensuous kind of pleasure.

jcim1ru

I think for those people that need to monitor certain types of food intake for genuine, diagnosed health reasons it's a great path.

But for the average person just looking to lose weight and keep it off, I think it's no different than signing up for a program that requires you to take their custom supplements and eat their pre-packed foods.

What will you do when a) you can't afford to keep doing that or b) reach your goal and decide you want the foods you gave up?

I have no medical condition that says I must eat gluten free, so I consume gluten, same with fats, proteins and everything else. I consume everything I want in moderation. The end results?

I still managed to lose 101 pounds in 2014. I never felt that I was sacrificing anything other than volume of food consumed and the overwhelming urge to sit around all day and do nothing.

I didn't suffer from any quirky digestive issues while I was reducing my weight and when I reached my goal my lifestyle and way of eating simply continued. It was truly a lifestyle change for me. It wasn't a diet. It wasn't a trend. And I didn't suddenly have to adjust to eating and cooking in a different fashion because I'd reached the end of a journey.

Like so many others, I always searched for the easy solution. That magical thing that would let me eat whatever I wanted, do as little as I wanted and have the perfect figure. THAT doesn't exist. And once I came to that shocking realization and learned about foods and how to balance them, manage my cravings for them and not feel cheated I had a lot of fun losing the weight, getting fit, and feeling great.

dbmata

Who has ED, hands up!

mccindy72

It's really fun to tell people, if you're very food intolerant like I am, that you can't eat gluten, dairy, corn syrup, beef, pork, legumes, and many others. Even some family members think it's a weird diet thing. It's not, just some crazy things wrong with my GI tract, but it sure drives me crazy when I hear people with nothing wrong with them choosing not to eat foods they could eat for no good reason.