Food Religion?
RaeN81
Posts: 534 Member
Read an interesting article. Food for thought...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-new-religion-how-the-emphasis-on-clean-eating-has-created-a-moral-hierarchy-for-food
Personally, I am not necessarily a "clean" eater. I pretty much see all food as being clean unless it has dropped on the floor but I am interested to hear how others view this phenomenon.
What does it mean to eat clean?
Is an obsession with eating right or clean akin to a type of devotion or religious observance?
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-new-religion-how-the-emphasis-on-clean-eating-has-created-a-moral-hierarchy-for-food
Personally, I am not necessarily a "clean" eater. I pretty much see all food as being clean unless it has dropped on the floor but I am interested to hear how others view this phenomenon.
What does it mean to eat clean?
Is an obsession with eating right or clean akin to a type of devotion or religious observance?
0
Replies
-
I don't worry about or think about "clean" eating. I just want to have the best food I can afford or manage to get for my dad and I. I don't like GMO's cause I think they haven't done enough research on them. I don't like the chemical preservatives in food cause some of the side effects can be bazaar (such as increasing appetite and other things) and I just don't want to take the risk with my daddy's health. He made it to 85 and is still pretty much all there except for his muddled and confused days. I want to make him the best I can. the less preservatives and chemicals in the food the better. I cook from scratch and am proud of it. It's sort of like when people talk about "slow" food. It's not slow. the food moves at the same speed it always did. it's called Knowing How to Cook.0
-
I'm dumber for having read that!! No offence to you I'm sure your awesome!! I think its just a choice and there are lots of adjectives companies make to sell stuff. Twinkees are clean, taste great and you can lose weight eating them if their in your calories range. I do tend to eat more protein and fats than anything else and have lost over 100 lbs.. It all comes down to calories0
-
Check out Matt Fitzgerald's Diet Cults.0
-
There are plenty of people who are thin who die of cancer and fatal heart attacks. In fact my sister worked in a cardiologists' office for a few years and she was surprised to find that the majority of patients where NOT overweight, but instead quite thin and looked relatively "healthy."
I don't know if the poster above was joking or not about Twinkees being "clean" (which is absurd to say the least), but he is right that you could eat them and still lose weight or stay thin, but that doesn't mean you're healthy. People really need to stop equating thin with healthy, some of the most unhealthy people I've met in my lives have been very thin. They could eat anything they wanted and not gain a pound... and that's what they did, eat anything and everything they wanted!
A calorie may be a calorie in the context of losing weight, but if all your calories are made up of junk like Twinkees, you're going to have a rough life and probably a short one too!0 -
Read an interesting article. Food for thought...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-new-religion-how-the-emphasis-on-clean-eating-has-created-a-moral-hierarchy-for-food
Personally, I am not necessarily a "clean" eater. I pretty much see all food as being clean unless it has dropped on the floor but I am interested to hear how others view this phenomenon.
What does it mean to eat clean?
Is an obsession with eating right or clean akin to a type of devotion or religious observance?
I think "clean eating", like "heavy lifting" means different things to different people. In my case, I eat mostly "clean", but I'm not obsessed or devoted to it in any way. I don't give a crap about GMO food (actually, to the contrary, I'm in support of it), organic food, etc. For me, it's about eating foods in such a way that you're preserving as much of the nutrition as possible (raw, steaming, etc) and adding as little crap to it as possible (not deep-frying, for example). I'm not super strict about it, though. For example, dinner might consist of: a tiny baked sweet potato; a heaping plate of mixed greens with sunflower seeds, cucumbers, tomatoes; chicken cooked in pineapple chunks (no oil or seasoning). Then I might put a teensy bit of real butter on the baked potato, sprinkle a bit of salt and pepper on the chicken and potato (just a weensy bit), and eat my salad with a small measured portion of Kraft low-fat Italian dressing or something. I measure all those little adds and log them, but I don't fuss about them because they help make the healthy food more palatable to me. The alternative is that I go out and eat a giant cheeseburger or something because, let's face it, if I don't enjoy my food, I'm not going to be able to eat healthy long-term.
I bake my own treats, cook just about everything from scratch, and use healthy ingredients. 90% of what I consume would be considered "clean". But if I decide one day that I'm going to have a slice of pizza or some onion rings, or even a bit of processed salad dressing, then whatever. I'm going to log it and not cry about it. I'm certainly not going to look down my nose at other people's foods and say, "Ugh. I cannot believe you're eating that."
0 -
BuccaneersFan wrote: »There are plenty of people who are thin who die of cancer and fatal heart attacks. In fact my sister worked in a cardiologists' office for a few years and she was surprised to find that the majority of patients where NOT overweight, but instead quite thin and looked relatively "healthy."
I don't know if the poster above was joking or not about Twinkees being "clean" (which is absurd to say the least), but he is right that you could eat them and still lose weight or stay thin, but that doesn't mean you're healthy. People really need to stop equating thin with healthy, some of the most unhealthy people I've met in my lives have been very thin. They could eat anything they wanted and not gain a pound... and that's what they did, eat anything and everything they wanted!
A calorie may be a calorie in the context of losing weight, but if all your calories are made up of junk like Twinkees, you're going to have a rough life and probably a short one too!
Interestingly, the guy who did the infamous Twinkie experiment actually improved his blood panels, along with losing weight while eating a butt load of Twinkies. Go figure
0 -
I must be tired, I genuinely thought this thread was going to be about pastafarianism.....
0 -
SteampunkSongbird wrote: »I must be tired, I genuinely thought this thread was going to be about pastafarianism.....
All hail the FSM.
0 -
MercuryBlue wrote: »Read an interesting article. Food for thought...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-new-religion-how-the-emphasis-on-clean-eating-has-created-a-moral-hierarchy-for-food
Personally, I am not necessarily a "clean" eater. I pretty much see all food as being clean unless it has dropped on the floor but I am interested to hear how others view this phenomenon.
What does it mean to eat clean?
Is an obsession with eating right or clean akin to a type of devotion or religious observance?
I think "clean eating", like "heavy lifting" means different things to different people.
Yes, your definition seems really quite different than some others I've heard.
For example, I'd not previously seen people claiming that adding oil or butter would be unclean (or adding more than a bit).
On the other hand, fat-free dressing (or any store-bought dressing) would normally be off limits, I assume, as I understand most of the definitions. (And I've certainly seen the GMO thing commonly, although I also am not bothered by GMOs. Still others focus on the sourcing of meat--I tend to do this--while others seem to think that only the leaner cuts are "clean," although I'd think eating the whole animal would be the more "natural" approach and it's one that appeals more to me.)I bake my own treats, cook just about everything from scratch, and use healthy ingredients.
I mostly do this too, although I don't consider olive oil or coconut oil or butter/cheese an unhealthy ingredient. Just a high calorie one to be used with an understanding of that. And I don't think there's anything superior about raw vs. cooked veggies, and so I cook most of my veggies, although I like salads and gazpacho in the summer and prefer some veggies raw.
But mostly I think the term "clean" is unhelpful and does tend to transform common sense ideas about how to "eat healthy" which people can decide on based on what seems most workable and sustainable to them--as you've described, and as I have my own personal approach to--into some kind of odd religious or "purist" idea that isn't really about nutrition anymore.
I mean, as soon as we are saying food is "clean" and--by implication at least--"unclean" we are using language tinged with religious associations.
Again, I recommend the Fitzgerald book.0 -
Haha!MercuryBlue wrote: »SteampunkSongbird wrote: »I must be tired, I genuinely thought this thread was going to be about pastafarianism.....
All hail the FSM.
Let us all be touched by his noodly appendage.
0 -
Read an interesting article. Food for thought...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-new-religion-how-the-emphasis-on-clean-eating-has-created-a-moral-hierarchy-for-food
Personally, I am not necessarily a "clean" eater. I pretty much see all food as being clean unless it has dropped on the floor but I am interested to hear how others view this phenomenon.
What does it mean to eat clean?
Is an obsession with eating right or clean akin to a type of devotion or religious observance?
Not all of us eat natural because of a on religion bordering interest/observance. I believe that most people on this planet eat a more natural way,because that is their food related culture. Here on MFP many people tend to forget that only about 330 million people eat the typical American way, the other 6.5 billion plus people all eat in different ways from the MFP standard diet.
I personally grew up in a cook & eat at home culture ( even though my parents were not exactly poor, we never went out to eat, not even for special occasions like birthdays, anniversaries etc. and neither did anyone else we knew ) . I have luckily ( except for two periods while studying in the US ) lived in cook & eat at home cultures ; maybe not to the degree of my youth, but still eating restaurant food that was made with natural, fresh ingredients, but only when eating out was necessary.So eating the way I do is easy, because that's what I always did without thinking about it. I never even had heard about " eating clean " until I joined MFP.
I think eating " clean " ( to use your expression and one I personally don't like, because it is quite meaningless ) is not a phenomenon at all.....except maybe in the US.
0 -
Haha!MercuryBlue wrote: »SteampunkSongbird wrote: »I must be tired, I genuinely thought this thread was going to be about pastafarianism.....
All hail the FSM.
Let us all be touched by his noodly appendage.
All aboard the pirate ship to spread the word that we shalt have no other monster before Him!
0 -
MercuryBlue wrote: »Read an interesting article. Food for thought...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-new-religion-how-the-emphasis-on-clean-eating-has-created-a-moral-hierarchy-for-food
Personally, I am not necessarily a "clean" eater. I pretty much see all food as being clean unless it has dropped on the floor but I am interested to hear how others view this phenomenon.
What does it mean to eat clean?
Is an obsession with eating right or clean akin to a type of devotion or religious observance?
i
"Ugh. I cannot believe you're eating that."
I have to be honest and confess that sometimes I do exactly think that, even though in general I don't care what people eat as long as they don't try to convince me to eat the same way.
Recently someone send me one of those " nom, nom,really dee-lish " recipes ( her words not mine ). It consisted mostly of instant banana pudding, Cool Whip and marshmallows. She mentioned that " healthnuts " could add a chopped banana and some nuts. She thought that since I really don't like desserts, I could be convinced with a really yummy recipe.....:o).
As far as the mix of instant pudding, Cool Whip and marsh mallows were concerned I did wonder how anyone could eat that.
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »BuccaneersFan wrote: »There are plenty of people who are thin who die of cancer and fatal heart attacks. In fact my sister worked in a cardiologists' office for a few years and she was surprised to find that the majority of patients where NOT overweight, but instead quite thin and looked relatively "healthy."
I don't know if the poster above was joking or not about Twinkees being "clean" (which is absurd to say the least), but he is right that you could eat them and still lose weight or stay thin, but that doesn't mean you're healthy. People really need to stop equating thin with healthy, some of the most unhealthy people I've met in my lives have been very thin. They could eat anything they wanted and not gain a pound... and that's what they did, eat anything and everything they wanted!
A calorie may be a calorie in the context of losing weight, but if all your calories are made up of junk like Twinkees, you're going to have a rough life and probably a short one too!
Interestingly, the guy who did the infamous Twinkie experiment actually improved his blood panels, along with losing weight while eating a butt load of Twinkies. Go figure
Just improving blood panels says nothing about health as long as we don't know absolute figures.
A friend of mine had his triglyceride level in the low 600s. His doctor warned him that he was facing a heart attack, a stroke or death.
My friend took meds and went on a diet and started to walk and his triglyceride level went dramatically down and now is in the high 300s. Quite a change, but he is still in eminent danger of a heart attack, stroke, both or death, because the new number is still much to high for good health.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Yes, your definition seems really quite different than some others I've heard.
For example, I'd not previously seen people claiming that adding oil or butter would be unclean (or adding more than a bit).
On the other hand, fat-free dressing (or any store-bought dressing) would normally be off limits, I assume, as I understand most of the definitions. (And I've certainly seen the GMO thing commonly, although I also am not bothered by GMOs. Still others focus on the sourcing of meat--I tend to do this--while others seem to think that only the leaner cuts are "clean," although I'd think eating the whole animal would be the more "natural" approach and it's one that appeals more to me.)I bake my own treats, cook just about everything from scratch, and use healthy ingredients.
I mostly do this too, although I don't consider olive oil or coconut oil or butter/cheese an unhealthy ingredient. Just a high calorie one to be used with an understanding of that. And I don't think there's anything superior about raw vs. cooked veggies, and so I cook most of my veggies, although I like salads and gazpacho in the summer and prefer some veggies raw.
But mostly I think the term "clean" is unhelpful and does tend to transform common sense ideas about how to "eat healthy" which people can decide on based on what seems most workable and sustainable to them--as you've described, and as I have my own personal approach to--into some kind of odd religious or "purist" idea that isn't really about nutrition anymore.
I mean, as soon as we are saying food is "clean" and--by implication at least--"unclean" we are using language tinged with religious associations.
Again, I recommend the Fitzgerald book.
I don't have a problem with the term "clean" as it refers to ingredients in their natural state. But then, I'm an atheist, so "clean" and "unclean" mean exactly that to me. There are no religious connotations. If people want to add those themselves, that's their prerogative; however, I don't think that the religious have any ownership over those particular words. If someone chooses to interpret it that way, it says more about them than those who use the term "clean eating", I mean.
When said I eat about 90% clean, I meant that my entire plate may consist of "clean" foods, but that I'll eat my salad with a teensy side of dressing and not GAF about it. I know a most people who eat 100% "clean" wouldn't agree with me, but that's okay. I look at food as fuel for my body and make the best choices I can, I'm not in a competition with anyone haha. I guess that's where you get into what the OP is talking about, with people having strong dietary beliefs that become almost like a religion to them, and then judging people based on their dietary "sins". That's just bizarre to me.
As for olive and coconut oil, I've always seen them promoted in clean eating books and recipes; they're certainly not unhealthy ingredients. I also don't think that there is anything "superior" about raw or cooked veggies; I just meant that I prepare my foods in a way that preserves as much of the nutrition as possible, such as raw or steamed. Steaming vegetables preserves more nutrients than boiling, for example. That doesn't mean I won't eat vegetables that have been baked or boiled (certainly it's a better alternative than having them deep-fried), it's just not my go-to. I'd call it more of a personal preference than anything else.
I guess I like saying that I eat mostly "clean" because that's the best way I can think of to describe my way of doing things. If other people want to argue with me and say, "You're not doing it right! That's not eating clean enough! You don't get to call yourself a 'clean eater' because you're not following all the rules!" Well... that would be about as logical to me as someone saying, "You're not being a good Christian, and you shouldn't even call yourself that, because you don't adhere to my personal interpretation of what being a Christian means!" Of course, I use that example because we're talking about "food religion" lol. I guess I just think anyone who is that invested in what other people are doing need to work on themselves a little bit.0 -
I was joking but unfortunatly the truth is the truth and I see clean as a germ not a nutritional value beliefBuccaneersFan wrote: »I don't know if the poster above was joking or not about Twinkees being "clean" (which is absurd to say the least), but he is right that you could eat them and still lose weight or stay thin, but that doesn't mean you're healthy. A calorie may be a calorie in the context of losing weight, but if all your calories are made up of junk like Twinkees, you're going to have a rough life and probably a short one too!
0 -
Read an interesting article. Food for thought...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-new-religion-how-the-emphasis-on-clean-eating-has-created-a-moral-hierarchy-for-food
Personally, I am not necessarily a "clean" eater. I pretty much see all food as being clean unless it has dropped on the floor but I am interested to hear how others view this phenomenon.
What does it mean to eat clean?
Is an obsession with eating right or clean akin to a type of devotion or religious observance?
Not all of us eat natural because of a on religion bordering interest/observance. I believe that most people on this planet eat a more natural way,because that is their food related culture. Here on MFP many people tend to forget that only about 330 million people eat the typical American way, the other 6.5 billion plus people all eat in different ways from the MFP standard diet.
I personally grew up in a cook & eat at home culture ( even though my parents were not exactly poor, we never went out to eat, not even for special occasions like birthdays, anniversaries etc. and neither did anyone else we knew ) . I have luckily ( except for two periods while studying in the US ) lived in cook & eat at home cultures ; maybe not to the degree of my youth, but still eating restaurant food that was made with natural, fresh ingredients, but only when eating out was necessary.So eating the way I do is easy, because that's what I always did without thinking about it. I never even had heard about " eating clean " until I joined MFP.
I think eating " clean " ( to use your expression and one I personally don't like, because it is quite meaningless ) is not a phenomenon at all.....except maybe in the US.
Such a great response. And I think that sort of sums it up. I don't think there's anything overly remarkable about how I prepare foods, or what I eat. I just think of it as the way my mom used to cook, and the way my grandmother used to cook, back in the days when we grew a lot of our own foods. I live in a rural area, though, so I have access to fresh local produce, dairy, and meats; I understand that other people probably can't do the same. I like the term "clean eating" because it brings to mind foods with simple ingredients that aren't super processed. But that doesn't mean I think that processed foods are the devil or anything silly like that. In fact, I very much love processed foods, that's part of my problem. I think of "clean" as in simple, a blank slate. Uncomplicated.
0 -
MercuryBlue wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Yes, your definition seems really quite different than some others I've heard.
For example, I'd not previously seen people claiming that adding oil or butter would be unclean (or adding more than a bit).
On the other hand, fat-free dressing (or any store-bought dressing) would normally be off limits, I assume, as I understand most of the definitions. (And I've certainly seen the GMO thing commonly, although I also am not bothered by GMOs. Still others focus on the sourcing of meat--I tend to do this--while others seem to think that only the leaner cuts are "clean," although I'd think eating the whole animal would be the more "natural" approach and it's one that appeals more to me.)I bake my own treats, cook just about everything from scratch, and use healthy ingredients.
I mostly do this too, although I don't consider olive oil or coconut oil or butter/cheese an unhealthy ingredient. Just a high calorie one to be used with an understanding of that. And I don't think there's anything superior about raw vs. cooked veggies, and so I cook most of my veggies, although I like salads and gazpacho in the summer and prefer some veggies raw.
But mostly I think the term "clean" is unhelpful and does tend to transform common sense ideas about how to "eat healthy" which people can decide on based on what seems most workable and sustainable to them--as you've described, and as I have my own personal approach to--into some kind of odd religious or "purist" idea that isn't really about nutrition anymore.
I mean, as soon as we are saying food is "clean" and--by implication at least--"unclean" we are using language tinged with religious associations.
Again, I recommend the Fitzgerald book.
I don't have a problem with the term "clean" as it refers to ingredients in their natural state.
I do now, after thinking about it as a result of so many discussions at MFP, in part because I don't think it does mean anything in particular, and it's not even so clear what "ingredients in their natural state" would mean. I mean, I guess that kicks out yogurt or smoked salmon, but why are those "unclean" in any way that matters? If it's supposed to be about health, those are perfectly nutritious foods.But then, I'm an atheist, so "clean" and "unclean" mean exactly that to me.
There's still a purity connotation, even if it doesn't have a moral/religious one to you (and frankly I see a lot of people who have rejected traditional religious ideas elevating health-related ones to such a level, and think it's a common human thing to do). Bill Maher is someone not religious who speaks of certain food and health-related things as if they were moral issues, matters of "sin."
But setting that aside, although I find it intriguing (and its why I agreed with the argument in the book I mentioned), calling foods "unclean" (even by implication) is insulting and not, in fact, accurate. You may not think that smoked salmon is as ideal as fresh caught and cooked salmon (although is that actually available to most of us?) or even the frozen stuff, but does that make it "unclean"? If we get into the rules that people bring into this--like "lean meat only" or "no label" or "not organic" the question becomes even more pertinent, I think.There are no religious connotations. If people want to add those themselves, that's their prerogative; however, I don't think that the religious have any ownership over those particular words.
No one said they did. But using those words when you aren't talking about something being literally "clean" is a choice, and that it relates to concepts of "purity" and ways that humans traditionally define themselves based on eating choice--ideas that have NOTHING to do with religion, plus the firm way people want to hold on to the language even though it really communicates nothing given how varying the definitions is, IMO, extremely interesting.I guess that's where you get into what the OP is talking about, with people having strong dietary beliefs that become almost like a religion to them, and then judging people based on their dietary "sins". That's just bizarre to me.
Yes, this is how I think about it, and why I think it's problematic. There's no reason related to nutrition to get overly worried about some of the perceived "sins" against clean eating. I usually prefer to make dressing rather than buy it, but if I refused to get a salad at, say, Pret because I'd have to go without dressing or use their premade one, that would be putting hurdles in my way that are probably unnecessary and not related to actual health concerns.I guess I like saying that I eat mostly "clean" because that's the best way I can think of to describe my way of doing things. If other people want to argue with me and say, "You're not doing it right! That's not eating clean enough! You don't get to call yourself a 'clean eater' because you're not following all the rules!" Well... that would be about as logical to me as someone saying, "You're not being a good Christian, and you shouldn't even call yourself that, because you don't adhere to my personal interpretation of what being a Christian means!" Of course, I use that example because we're talking about "food religion" lol. I guess I just think anyone who is that invested in what other people are doing need to work on themselves a little bit.
I just have a negative reaction to the term "clean" because it sounds self-righteous to me and doesn't seem to mean anything--it sounds to me like people are saying that those who don't eat like them eat "unclean" or "dirty," and it's clear that lots of others do take it that way and get bugged by it, and I can understand why enough to think why use the term. IMO, what you are talking about (which is pretty similar to how I like to eat, and sounds pretty common sense based too) is simply trying to eat a healthy, balanced diet or eating mostly from home-cooked whole foods. I also notice that people who claim to "eat clean" quite often don't eat any differently than those who would never use the term, so I find it says more about how the person likes to self-identify, which gets us to the "food religion" thing again, maybe.
Not saying this to be critical, but to further discussion/communication.0 -
MercuryBlue wrote: »Read an interesting article. Food for thought...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-new-religion-how-the-emphasis-on-clean-eating-has-created-a-moral-hierarchy-for-food
Personally, I am not necessarily a "clean" eater. I pretty much see all food as being clean unless it has dropped on the floor but I am interested to hear how others view this phenomenon.
What does it mean to eat clean?
Is an obsession with eating right or clean akin to a type of devotion or religious observance?
Not all of us eat natural because of a on religion bordering interest/observance. I believe that most people on this planet eat a more natural way,because that is their food related culture. Here on MFP many people tend to forget that only about 330 million people eat the typical American way, the other 6.5 billion plus people all eat in different ways from the MFP standard diet.
I personally grew up in a cook & eat at home culture ( even though my parents were not exactly poor, we never went out to eat, not even for special occasions like birthdays, anniversaries etc. and neither did anyone else we knew ) . I have luckily ( except for two periods while studying in the US ) lived in cook & eat at home cultures ; maybe not to the degree of my youth, but still eating restaurant food that was made with natural, fresh ingredients, but only when eating out was necessary.So eating the way I do is easy, because that's what I always did without thinking about it. I never even had heard about " eating clean " until I joined MFP.
I think eating " clean " ( to use your expression and one I personally don't like, because it is quite meaningless ) is not a phenomenon at all.....except maybe in the US.
Such a great response. And I think that sort of sums it up. I don't think there's anything overly remarkable about how I prepare foods, or what I eat. I just think of it as the way my mom used to cook, and the way my grandmother used to cook, back in the days when we grew a lot of our own foods. I live in a rural area, though, so I have access to fresh local produce, dairy, and meats; I understand that other people probably can't do the same.
I live in a big city, but we have access to fresh local produce (well, in season--it's the midwest, so there are more limited growing seasons than some places) and, of course, dairy and meat (which I like to get from a local farm).
I just thought I'd mention that I completely agree with what you say above, but oddly enough that's another reason why the term "clean eating" annoys me. Like when people ask about "clean eating recipes" I wonder what they think are in regular cookbooks and generally why they think they are eating in a special way that deserves a name.0 -
Honestly, I don't put that much thought into it. I like the term "clean eating" because it's a lot easier than saying "I generally eat unprocessed, fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean meats, eggs, nuts, and dairy items containing high amounts of protein, prepared in such a way as to preserve as much of their nutritional value as possible." While some may think "clean eating" sounds judgmental (in the sense that some people may feel that it implies that other foods are "dirty" or "unclean"), where I come from the opposite would be true. If I say "clean eating", people generally understand what I'm referring to and don't think about it too much. If I were to offer the other explanation, they'd feel I was being pretentious, self-righteous, maybe even preachy. They'd also be more likely to feel I were being judgmental, by virtue of me choosing not to eat things that they do eat. I live in a simple place, with simple people. It's a lovely community, but I've taken flak in the past for being too "wordy" or offering unnecessarily long explanations. The language and labels I use are shaped by the place that I live and the people in my life. If people want to attach meaning to it that isn't there, then that's on them.0
-
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »BuccaneersFan wrote: »There are plenty of people who are thin who die of cancer and fatal heart attacks. In fact my sister worked in a cardiologists' office for a few years and she was surprised to find that the majority of patients where NOT overweight, but instead quite thin and looked relatively "healthy."
I don't know if the poster above was joking or not about Twinkees being "clean" (which is absurd to say the least), but he is right that you could eat them and still lose weight or stay thin, but that doesn't mean you're healthy. People really need to stop equating thin with healthy, some of the most unhealthy people I've met in my lives have been very thin. They could eat anything they wanted and not gain a pound... and that's what they did, eat anything and everything they wanted!
A calorie may be a calorie in the context of losing weight, but if all your calories are made up of junk like Twinkees, you're going to have a rough life and probably a short one too!
Interestingly, the guy who did the infamous Twinkie experiment actually improved his blood panels, along with losing weight while eating a butt load of Twinkies. Go figure
Just improving blood panels says nothing about health as long as we don't know absolute figures.
A friend of mine had his triglyceride level in the low 600s. His doctor warned him that he was facing a heart attack, a stroke or death.
My friend took meds and went on a diet and started to walk and his triglyceride level went dramatically down and now is in the high 300s. Quite a change, but he is still in eminent danger of a heart attack, stroke, both or death, because the new number is still much to high for good health.
I don't know the Twinkie guys' numbers off the top of my head, but I eat Twinkies once in a while, along with all the other foods that I like (fast food, 'processed' foods, boxed foods, canned foods, frozen foods, fresh foods, food from the ground, food that started out on four legs etc etc), and my blood results earlier this month showed that my triglycerides number was a 49 and my Coronary Heart Disease Risk is 2.6 (less than 4.4 is recommended). Doctor was pretty geeked about all that and told me to keep doing what I was doing, which includes eating the occasional Twinkie when the mood strikes. I also went from having glucose numbers in the 120 range/pre-diabetic back in 2012 when I was almost 60lbs heavier, to my last fasting glucose number being an 86. Those are some pretty absolute figures
eta: I've had the mix of instant pudding (vanilla and banana flavored), Cool Whip and marshmallows, along with crushed up graham crackers and sliced bananas-it's actually a pretty popular potluck dessert around me. And it tastes awesome
0 -
MercuryBlue wrote: »SteampunkSongbird wrote: »I must be tired, I genuinely thought this thread was going to be about pastafarianism.....
All hail the FSM.
Blessed be his noodly appendage.
0 -
MercuryBlue wrote: »Read an interesting article. Food for thought...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-new-religion-how-the-emphasis-on-clean-eating-has-created-a-moral-hierarchy-for-food
Personally, I am not necessarily a "clean" eater. I pretty much see all food as being clean unless it has dropped on the floor but I am interested to hear how others view this phenomenon.
What does it mean to eat clean?
Is an obsession with eating right or clean akin to a type of devotion or religious observance?
i
"Ugh. I cannot believe you're eating that."
I have to be honest and confess that sometimes I do exactly think that, even though in general I don't care what people eat as long as they don't try to convince me to eat the same way.
Recently someone send me one of those " nom, nom,really dee-lish " recipes ( her words not mine ). It consisted mostly of instant banana pudding, Cool Whip and marshmallows. She mentioned that " healthnuts " could add a chopped banana and some nuts. She thought that since I really don't like desserts, I could be convinced with a really yummy recipe.....:o).
As far as the mix of instant pudding, Cool Whip and marsh mallows were concerned I did wonder how anyone could eat that.
I'm with you on. That sounds really awful. Now, some clean eaters would say the same thing about a dark chocolate coated dacquoise layered with whipped fresh cream and strawberries. And I'm sorry. I do not wonder how someone could eat that, because I'd make that and eat it all up.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MercuryBlue wrote: »Read an interesting article. Food for thought...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-new-religion-how-the-emphasis-on-clean-eating-has-created-a-moral-hierarchy-for-food
Personally, I am not necessarily a "clean" eater. I pretty much see all food as being clean unless it has dropped on the floor but I am interested to hear how others view this phenomenon.
What does it mean to eat clean?
Is an obsession with eating right or clean akin to a type of devotion or religious observance?
Not all of us eat natural because of a on religion bordering interest/observance. I believe that most people on this planet eat a more natural way,because that is their food related culture. Here on MFP many people tend to forget that only about 330 million people eat the typical American way, the other 6.5 billion plus people all eat in different ways from the MFP standard diet.
I personally grew up in a cook & eat at home culture ( even though my parents were not exactly poor, we never went out to eat, not even for special occasions like birthdays, anniversaries etc. and neither did anyone else we knew ) . I have luckily ( except for two periods while studying in the US ) lived in cook & eat at home cultures ; maybe not to the degree of my youth, but still eating restaurant food that was made with natural, fresh ingredients, but only when eating out was necessary.So eating the way I do is easy, because that's what I always did without thinking about it. I never even had heard about " eating clean " until I joined MFP.
I think eating " clean " ( to use your expression and one I personally don't like, because it is quite meaningless ) is not a phenomenon at all.....except maybe in the US.
Such a great response. And I think that sort of sums it up. I don't think there's anything overly remarkable about how I prepare foods, or what I eat. I just think of it as the way my mom used to cook, and the way my grandmother used to cook, back in the days when we grew a lot of our own foods. I live in a rural area, though, so I have access to fresh local produce, dairy, and meats; I understand that other people probably can't do the same.
I live in a big city, but we have access to fresh local produce (well, in season--it's the midwest, so there are more limited growing seasons than some places) and, of course, dairy and meat (which I like to get from a local farm).
I just thought I'd mention that I completely agree with what you say above, but oddly enough that's another reason why the term "clean eating" annoys me. Like when people ask about "clean eating recipes" I wonder what they think are in regular cookbooks and generally why they think they are eating in a special way that deserves a name.
Well, I guess if you compare recipes in Taste of Home vs. The Joy of Cooking?
You have a good point there. It is weird.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions