104 Lbs lost and cured thanks to clean eating!
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »My favourite in this stuff is always the reference to natural vegetables. Cos, um, nature didn't make most of the veggies on your dinner plate (using most to allow for anyone collecting wild, undomesticated plant foods), humans did. A lot of the undomesticated antecedents of our modern domesticated vegetables aren't even recognisable, and some were poisonous.
That's not to say veggies aren't good for you. And yes, I'm being pedantic with semantics, but bandying around words like 'natural' and 'clean' with no clear definition (or outright changing the definition to suit) irks me. Broccoli does not occur in nature. Corn? Corn we have messed with to the point that it is so indehiscent that if we stopped planting it, it would cease to exist within a few years, because it can't self seed (talking domesticated corn here, obviously its wild antecedent would be just fine - also, took scientists years to figure out where corn even came from, because its ancestor is so vastly different to the delicious yellow cobs we munch down on. Like seriously, baffling mystery for ages).
But well done on your weight loss OP
Broccoli doesn't exist in nature. I'm not sure that is true. Nature is the world outside of man. I think it's debatable whether that means man never ever had a hand in it's existance, or only that it can exist without man now.
Oxford English Dictionary definition of natural:
"Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind"
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »My favourite in this stuff is always the reference to natural vegetables. Cos, um, nature didn't make most of the veggies on your dinner plate (using most to allow for anyone collecting wild, undomesticated plant foods), humans did. A lot of the undomesticated antecedents of our modern domesticated vegetables aren't even recognisable, and some were poisonous.
That's not to say veggies aren't good for you. And yes, I'm being pedantic with semantics, but bandying around words like 'natural' and 'clean' with no clear definition (or outright changing the definition to suit) irks me. Broccoli does not occur in nature. Corn? Corn we have messed with to the point that it is so indehiscent that if we stopped planting it, it would cease to exist within a few years, because it can't self seed (talking domesticated corn here, obviously its wild antecedent would be just fine - also, took scientists years to figure out where corn even came from, because its ancestor is so vastly different to the delicious yellow cobs we munch down on. Like seriously, baffling mystery for ages).
But well done on your weight loss OP
Broccoli doesn't exist in nature. I'm not sure that is true. Nature is the world outside of man. I think it's debatable whether that means man never ever had a hand in it's existance, or only that it can exist without man now.
Oxford English Dictionary definition of natural:
"Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind"
But how far back does that go? If broccoli is planted, then goes to seed and another plant grows naturally from that, goes to seed and another plant grows. At what point is it no longer made by man. Never?
I get what you are saying because I think about this a lot. I'm not sure it's a question that can be answered. Also, as someone on here pointed out to me, at least one dictionary is not so strict in the definition.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »My favourite in this stuff is always the reference to natural vegetables. Cos, um, nature didn't make most of the veggies on your dinner plate (using most to allow for anyone collecting wild, undomesticated plant foods), humans did. A lot of the undomesticated antecedents of our modern domesticated vegetables aren't even recognisable, and some were poisonous.
That's not to say veggies aren't good for you. And yes, I'm being pedantic with semantics, but bandying around words like 'natural' and 'clean' with no clear definition (or outright changing the definition to suit) irks me. Broccoli does not occur in nature. Corn? Corn we have messed with to the point that it is so indehiscent that if we stopped planting it, it would cease to exist within a few years, because it can't self seed (talking domesticated corn here, obviously its wild antecedent would be just fine - also, took scientists years to figure out where corn even came from, because its ancestor is so vastly different to the delicious yellow cobs we munch down on. Like seriously, baffling mystery for ages).
But well done on your weight loss OP
Broccoli doesn't exist in nature. I'm not sure that is true. Nature is the world outside of man. I think it's debatable whether that means man never ever had a hand in it's existance, or only that it can exist without man now.
Oxford English Dictionary definition of natural:
"Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind"
But how far back does that go? If broccoli is planted, then goes to seed and another plant grows naturally from that, goes to seed and another plant grows. At what point is it no longer made by man. Never?
I get what you are saying because I think about this a lot. I'm not sure it's a question that can be answered. Also, as someone on here pointed out to me, at least one dictionary is not so strict in the definition.
Also, I think by any standard this level of "natural" was never what was intended by the term "clean eating".0 -
thecunninglinguist wrote: »you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
It sure as heck does.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »My favourite in this stuff is always the reference to natural vegetables. Cos, um, nature didn't make most of the veggies on your dinner plate (using most to allow for anyone collecting wild, undomesticated plant foods), humans did. A lot of the undomesticated antecedents of our modern domesticated vegetables aren't even recognisable, and some were poisonous.
That's not to say veggies aren't good for you. And yes, I'm being pedantic with semantics, but bandying around words like 'natural' and 'clean' with no clear definition (or outright changing the definition to suit) irks me. Broccoli does not occur in nature. Corn? Corn we have messed with to the point that it is so indehiscent that if we stopped planting it, it would cease to exist within a few years, because it can't self seed (talking domesticated corn here, obviously its wild antecedent would be just fine - also, took scientists years to figure out where corn even came from, because its ancestor is so vastly different to the delicious yellow cobs we munch down on. Like seriously, baffling mystery for ages).
But well done on your weight loss OP
Broccoli doesn't exist in nature. I'm not sure that is true. Nature is the world outside of man. I think it's debatable whether that means man never ever had a hand in it's existance, or only that it can exist without man now.
Oxford English Dictionary definition of natural:
"Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind"
But how far back does that go? If broccoli is planted, then goes to seed and another plant grows naturally from that, goes to seed and another plant grows. At what point is it no longer made by man. Never?
I get what you are saying because I think about this a lot. I'm not sure it's a question that can be answered. Also, as someone on here pointed out to me, at least one dictionary is not so strict in the definition.
Also, I think by any standard this level of "natural" was never what was intended by the term "clean eating".
Kind of my point really. Definitions get changed to suit. Why is processing not natural then? We've been doing that for 10s of thousands of years (a lot longer than what broccoli, or any other domesticated species, has existed for). Why is it okay to hand grind my wheat with a grinding stone, but not a big industrial machine (yes, I do know the answer to this is nutrient loss, but it's a continuum). I could put up a pretty convincing argument that 'Nature' forced us to develop processing technology in the first place in order to survive.0 -
thecunninglinguist wrote: »im not sure why clean eating gets bashed on here so often. its clearly superior in every way except for taste (and maybe cost/conveinience), and thats preference. to me "clean" or healthy foods taste better
you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
You don't get out much, do you? That was said light-heartedly, btw.
I've always been a good cook, so much preferred making my own food from scratch from the best ingredients possible. And that is what I ate, to excess, that made me fat.
I had periods where I indulged in traditionally thought of unhealthy things like sweets, but also LONG stretches of time (I'm talking years) where I didn't eat those things, and I still either maintained my large size or gained weight on healthy fats, lean meats, and produce.
To the OP, congratulations on your fantastic loss, and for feeling such great improvement in your health. I think I'll leave my comments there.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thecunninglinguist wrote: »you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
I'm not sure this is true. But it might depend on what you mean by "traditional healthy foods".
Honestly, I can't say I've met a person that became obese on a diet of only whole natural foods. But then, I'm not sure I've ever met someone that eats only whole natural foods. That's pretty hard in today's world.
Well, what do you consider only whole natural foods? Because let me tell you, I could really pack away some serious almonds and avocados. Those habits put on a few pounds.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »My favourite in this stuff is always the reference to natural vegetables. Cos, um, nature didn't make most of the veggies on your dinner plate (using most to allow for anyone collecting wild, undomesticated plant foods), humans did. A lot of the undomesticated antecedents of our modern domesticated vegetables aren't even recognisable, and some were poisonous.
That's not to say veggies aren't good for you. And yes, I'm being pedantic with semantics, but bandying around words like 'natural' and 'clean' with no clear definition (or outright changing the definition to suit) irks me. Broccoli does not occur in nature. Corn? Corn we have messed with to the point that it is so indehiscent that if we stopped planting it, it would cease to exist within a few years, because it can't self seed (talking domesticated corn here, obviously its wild antecedent would be just fine - also, took scientists years to figure out where corn even came from, because its ancestor is so vastly different to the delicious yellow cobs we munch down on. Like seriously, baffling mystery for ages).
But well done on your weight loss OP
Broccoli doesn't exist in nature. I'm not sure that is true. Nature is the world outside of man. I think it's debatable whether that means man never ever had a hand in it's existance, or only that it can exist without man now.
Broccoli is a result of careful breeding of cultivated leafy cole crops in the northern Mediterranean starting in about the 6th century BC.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12231-010-9115-2
I'm quite sure it could continue to exist without humans, but we're not eating anything like people in antiquity first laid hands on.0 -
thecunninglinguist wrote: »
the fact i think my food is superior doesnt mean that i think im superior. 2 different thingsTheVirgoddess wrote: »thecunninglinguist wrote: »im not sure why clean eating gets bashed on here so often. its clearly superior in every way except for taste (and maybe cost/conveinience), and thats preference. to me "clean" or healthy foods taste better
you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
Because comments like the bold.
People that eat clean tend to think they are superior for their food choices. It's not true. How you eat doesn't determine what sort of person you are.
I also really, really dislike the implication that chemicals and preservatives will keep you fat.
I've lost a lot of weight and reversed a potentially serious medical condition by using a moderate approach to all food. But I'm not smug enough to claim my way is the only way and that people that eat differently will fail. *I* realize there are many ways to achieve a calorie deficit and everyone should find the one that works for them.
So it's not that "clean" eating is hated on here (aside from it being rather ambiguous), it's the attitude that a lot of clean eaters have. It's obnoxious.
Yes, I know this. Which is why I said:
People that eat clean tend to think they are superior for their food choices. If you're not one of those - awesome! I was attempting to answer your question about why clean eating has a bad rap.0 -
Also, I'm assuming 'clean' eaters avoid modern GMOs like the plague, yes? At what point has enough time passed for those to be considered natural along with the GMOs we created centuries ago? (cos that's what every domesticated plant or animal on your plate is, a GMO. By definition).0
-
thecunninglinguist wrote: »im not sure why clean eating gets bashed on here so often. its clearly superior in every way except for taste (and maybe cost/conveinience), and thats preference. to me "clean" or healthy foods taste better
you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
Yeah, fat people totally didn't exist before the 1950s and the invention of boxed cake mix and TV dinners.0 -
Wow, a lot has gone on while I was working. My point in the OP was that I am happy that my health problems have gone away due to eating better, and that I've lost 104lbs. I know I could theoretically loose all that weight eating ramen noodles and Reese's cups but my health wouldn't have improved, after 11 months of that I'd probably be dead or close to it. And I don't think I'm superior to anyone who commented because of what I eat. My OP was just happy to be alive and healthy because I changed my eating habits.
0 -
Congratulations, OP! I'm glad you've got your health in check. Well done. Ignore the debate and live as it suits you and well 0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I ate lots of pastured beef, free range chicken, and in-season veggies from the farm when I was getting fat, as well as when I was losing. It was the calories, not the food source, that did it.
I lost because I modified my cooking methods and portion sizes, among other things.
I just get annoyed by the assumption that "chemical additives" that probably have few calories are what make people fat (I tend to focus on whole foods, but for ethical, local, and personal issues, as well as because I enjoy cooking, not because I think those ingredients or eating non-organic or the like makes you fat). I also get annoyed by the assumption that anyone who gets fat must be eating from a box and anyone eating from a box must be or remain fat. It's really much simpler.
Right you are, my friend. I agree 100%. My diet is very good, usually organic, minimally processed, lots of whole grains, veg and lean chicken or fish. Just when you eat 4x your bodyweight and are not a hummingbird...well....
0 -
Congrats, OP! Now what are these delicious recipes you speak of? I don't think the tool allows external visibility to the recipes in your account or anything0
-
Congratulations!!0
-
Good for you Steve, now get back to work. 0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thecunninglinguist wrote: »you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
I'm not sure this is true. But it might depend on what you mean by "traditional healthy foods".
Honestly, I can't say I've met a person that became obese on a diet of only whole natural foods. But then, I'm not sure I've ever met someone that eats only whole natural foods. That's pretty hard in today's world.
Well, what do you consider only whole natural foods? Because let me tell you, I could really pack away some serious almonds and avocados. Those habits put on a few pounds.
They do. Whole natural foods would be unprocessed/minimally processed foods. I eat mostly whole natural foods, and I'm overweight. As I say I've never met anyone that eats 100% clean/natural/whole/whatever, but that would take some serious dedication in today's world. I doubt someone putting that type of effort into their diet wouldn't also think about calories.
Not to mention the calories you'd burn obtaining all that whole food.
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Also, I'm assuming 'clean' eaters avoid modern GMOs like the plague, yes? At what point has enough time passed for those to be considered natural along with the GMOs we created centuries ago? (cos that's what every domesticated plant or animal on your plate is, a GMO. By definition).
No it's not. GMO is fairly recent. Hybrid breeding of plants is not GMO0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions