How I feel about some of these forums

usmcmp

diannethegeek wrote: »

And because it's proven useful in the past, I'll throw up my list of clean eating definitions. These have all been off-the-cuff answers given to the question of what clean eating really is. I've cleaned a few of them up for punctuation/spelling, but may of them are directly copy/pasted from their original posts.

Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
Nothing at all with a barcode.
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
No added sugar.
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown.
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
Anything that doesn't cause your body bloat or inflammation.

And I'll note that by some of those definitions, Fritos are a clean food.

By some of those definitions eggs, potatoes, kale and oranges are unclean.

Chrysalid2014

Main problems with this forum:
1. People constantly demanding peer reviewed studies when someone posts a personal experience. We all know so-called scientific research can be biased, paid-for, factually incorrect or disproven by a better science next year. If all you want to do is read studies then why come to a board like this at all?
2. Endless squabbling about definitions: addiction and clean eating being two obvious contenders.
3. Close-minded, point-scoring debate as opposed to real productive dialogue. I'd like to listen to someone else's viewpoint and share mine and hopefully both of us would emerge with a greater understanding.
4. And yeah, unnecessary rudeness. If people are saying they're tired of answering the same questions over and over then... don't answer them! How often do you see a thread where the OP's question is answered correctly with the first reply, and it's then followed by twenty other replies in tones of increasing snarkiness, telling him/her the exact same information.

BigLifter10

I feel like I've been here before.

baby05phat

It was a study brought to people's attention on the news

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rats-starve-rather-than-eat-healthy-food/

abetterluke

strong_curves wrote: »

I wouldn't say they're putting them down per se... I see it more as educating them on how weight loss works. It's good that there's rebuttals to things like the "military diet", letting people know you don't have to drastic extreme things in order to lose weight. You can lose weight in a healthy, sustainable way instead of starving yourself.

I agree that it isn't so much that people are being put down...but I do think a lot of times when people are "educating" others they do it in extremely rude and negative ways. It's not very motivating.

Obviously the majority of the forum is very helpful but with any popular post its only a matter of time before it turns sour.

baby05phat

In the experiment, one group of rats was given healthy, nutritionally balanced food. A different group was given "unlimited access to the worst stuff Johnson could find at [the supermarket] Publix, including bacon, sausage, cheesecake, pound cake, Ding Dongs and frosting," reports the Sun-Sentinel.

The junk food group gained weight and became less active. "More surprisingly, the fat rats exhibited the sort of self-destructive behavior associated with human junkies. The rats would eat junk food even if they knew doing so would result in a mild but distinctly uncomfortable electrical shock to their feet," reports the Sun-Sentinel.

The scientists then replaced the unhealthy food with the healthy diet of the first gtoup of rats, and the fat rats refused to eat at all

PeachyCarol

baby05phat wrote: »

I found this thread to be both helpful & nice from some people and I enjoyed reading their responses/learning more and from others I felt like they're saying I'm an idiot for any beliefs I have outside of their own. So it's hard and I'm torn but I'm going to stay here to keep learning from the awesome people

Well, here's the thing. You seem to have a disconnect.

You state your beliefs as facts.

People debate facts that aren't true.

That's not attacking your beliefs. That's correcting misinformation.

FitForL1fe

the internet is a terrible place to go for motivation.

sacking up is better than being patted on the back, anyway.

usmcmp

baby05phat wrote: »

It was a study brought to people's attention on the news

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rats-starve-rather-than-eat-healthy-food/

Even going to the original source of the story there is no study linked. Those are both just news articles. We are wanting the actual study.

lemurcat12

diannethegeek wrote: »

And because it's proven useful in the past, I'll throw up my list of clean eating definitions. These have all been off-the-cuff answers given to the question of what clean eating really is. I've cleaned a few of them up for punctuation/spelling, but may of them are directly copy/pasted from their original posts.

Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
Nothing at all with a barcode.
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
No added sugar.
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown.
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
Anything that doesn't cause your body bloat or inflammation.

And I'll note that by some of those definitions, Fritos are a clean food.

And by others eggs (including the ones I get from a farm), Fage plain greek yogurt, frozen veggies, a meal prepared by Alice Waters, a homemade roasted potato, skinless, boneless chicken breast, smoked salmon, tinned sardines, frozen fish, any meat purchased from a store or even a farm (in my state, anyway), baby cut carrots and bagged spinach, etc. all are unclean.

Not to mention homemade strawberry-rhubarb pie.

baby05phat

I can confirm it with myself, I become the rat when I binge and do a few days of mostly junk (even in my calorie range) I can't handle it and it escalates and I stop wanting clean food and the clean food starts tasting like paper.
If some people have it figured out with moderation thats awesome, but not everyone has. The only way to keep happy for me is to have healthy foods and desserts like dark chocolate, frozen banana ice cream, fruits etc

mommyrunning

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

Main problems with this forum:
1. People constantly demanding peer reviewed studies when someone posts a personal experience. We all know so-called scientific research can be biased, paid-for, factually incorrect or disproven by a better science next year. If all you want to do is read studies then why come to a board like this at all?
2. Endless squabbling about definitions: addiction and clean eating being two obvious contenders.
3. Close-minded, point-scoring debate as opposed to real productive dialogue. I'd like to listen to someone else's viewpoint and share mine and hopefully both of us would emerge with a greater understanding.
4. And yeah, unnecessary rudeness. If people are saying they're tired of answering the same questions over and over then... don't answer them! How often do you see a thread where the OP's question is answered correctly with the first reply, and it's then followed by twenty other replies in tones of increasing snarkiness, telling him/her the exact same information.

Duplicate- sorry can't delete it

andylllI

I really like these forums. Forums that are heavily moderated where everyone is "supportive" and doesn't call out the wacky doodles on their non-scientific woo-based ideas are dangerous because they lend an air at false legitimacy to those ideas. You are entitled to your opinion but others are equally entitled to tell you why your opinion doesn't represent knowledge. Facts are not subjective and you aren't entitled to "your facts." As members of any community we have, I believe, a responsibility to call out misinformation. To do otherwise leaves a false impression (for example the false vaccine "debate" detoxes, homeopathy and other forms of alt med where evidence of efficacy is lacking). Oh, and I am a physician, just not one that specialises in weight loss.

Chrysalid2014

mamapeach910 wrote: »

baby05phat wrote: »

I found this thread to be both helpful & nice from some people and I enjoyed reading their responses/learning more and from others I felt like they're saying I'm an idiot for any beliefs I have outside of their own. So it's hard and I'm torn but I'm going to stay here to keep learning from the awesome people

Well, here's the thing. You seem to have a disconnect.

You state your beliefs as facts.

People debate facts that aren't true.

That's not attacking your beliefs. That's correcting misinformation.

People seem to want to debate anything that hasn't yet been proven by a peer-reviewed study. Dare I mention cider vinegar..?
But seriously, I'm sure you know that just because something hasn't been verified by a study yet doesn't mean it's not true.

JPW1990

baby05phat wrote: »

I thought clean eating was just no take-out or junk food at all.

JPW1990 wrote: »

If you want people to stop complaining about "clean eating," post a definition of "clean eating" that EVERYONE who claims to follow it agrees with and lives by. Until you can do that, you see exactly the reason people complain about the phrase being thrown around as a WOE instead of as a meaningless ephemeral idea.

Now define "junk food". Most people know what you mean when you say it, but is bacon junk food? Is cheese? Beef? When you stack the bacon and cheese on the beef and call it a bacon cheeseburger, does it magically turn into junk food? Say you gave up chips and candy, that's one thing. To suggest it's "clean" eating, you can't win. Then you have one clean eater who uses coffee mate in their coffee vs clean eaters who say coffee mate is chemicals from satan vs clean eaters who say you can only drink fair trade coffeee vs clean eaters who say coffee is evil and poisoning you with caffeine. See how this slippery slope works? No two clean eaters agree on what they eat, therefore, the term is meaningless.

mommyrunning

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

Main problems with this forum:
1. People constantly demanding peer reviewed studies when someone posts a personal experience. We all know so-called scientific research can be biased, paid-for, factually incorrect or disproven by a better science next year. If all you want to do is read studies then why come to a board like this at all?
2. Endless squabbling about definitions: addiction and clean eating being two obvious contenders.
3. Close-minded, point-scoring debate as opposed to real productive dialogue. I'd like to listen to someone else's viewpoint and share mine and hopefully both of us would emerge with a greater understanding.
4. And yeah, unnecessary rudeness. If people are saying they're tired of answering the same questions over and over then... don't answer them! How often do you see a thread where the OP's question is answered correctly with the first reply, and it's then followed by twenty other replies in tones of increasing snarkiness, telling him/her the exact same information.

That actually sums is up pretty well.

barbecuesauce

baby05phat wrote: »

It was a study brought to people's attention on the news

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rats-starve-rather-than-eat-healthy-food/

While I haven't read the actual study, I did see this other link: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-03-29/features/fl-scripps-junk-food-study-20100329_1_junk-food-unhealthy-food-rats

which contained a crucial piece of information: "As part of his research, Kenny used a virus to essentially block healthy rats' D2 receptors. Those rats quickly developed compulsive eating habits."

So they gave the rats brain damage, affecting their body's response to dopamine. This is interesting, but you can't scale it up to humans without much more research. You are stronger than your fast food cravings, you are not addicted to fast food, and maybe you would find other activities that produce dopamine (like petting puppies) useful in your fight against fat.