CI/CO vs Clean Eating
Replies
-
-
I must be a special snowflake since I'd prefer a baby carrot over cheetos anyday.
I would, too -- but certainly not before I switched to clean eating and whole foods could I really appreciate the flavor of carrot. Honestly now I'd rather have a well seasoned plate of charred brussels sprouts than a nasty cheeto.
0 -
Also can we have more threads about this?0
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
Mine has nothing to do with clean eating. Also, I think that mentality that clean eating "cleans" up your taste buds is a lot of malarkey.
I mean, definitely not malarkey for me. I think a lot of people today have their palate so bombarded by sugar and salt that they they've been blasted of the ability to appreciate complex flavors. Agree to disagree on that one.And what makes cheetos nasty? If you prefer not to eat it, awesome....but the need of those in the clean eating community to put a judgment or good/bad label on foods is just super duper annoying. Egads.
I don't judge people, but objectively there are "good" and "bad" foods for the human body -- and that involves having to be pretty darn liberal with our definitions of what actually constitutes "real food."
Not that I will never eat something "processed" or that it can't be part of a healthy diet-- but yeah, I will unapologetically place different values on different foods. Not all foods are created equal (and it's the created ones that we should look at more carefully).I'd assume you were sarcastic since these are the WORST, but sadly...I think you are completely serious.
No that was sarcasm
. 0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Is a cheeto ever healthy? ... ... If I eat one I eat 20 and want more; vanishing caloric density; it makes me thirsty / hungrier, leading to terrible decisions. The item itself may be fine as part of some CI/CO calculation if I eat two of them and move to a carrot, but it was designed for me really want another making that carrot seem as bland as ever.
That has to factor into any equation about whether or not to eat something, right?
Extremely good point. You might find this book interesting. It was available in my library system:
Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us
Q. How did you land on salt, sugar, and fat as your way to write about the industry? Why these three ingredients?
A. I’d been investigating a surge in deadly outbreaks of E. coli in meat when an industry source, a microbiologist, suggested that if I wanted to see an even bigger public health hazard, I should look at what food companies were intentionally adding to their products, starting with salt. And sure enough, when I looked at this--by gaining access to high level industry officials and a trove of sensitive, internal records--a window opened on how aggressive the industry was wielding not only salt, but sugar and fat, too. These are the pillars of processed foods, the three ingredients without which there would be no processed foods. Salt, sugar and fat drive consumption by adding flavor and allure. But surprisingly, they also mask bitter flavors that develop in the manufacturing process. They enable these foods to sit in warehouses or on the grocery shelf for months. And, most critically to the industry's financial success, they are very inexpensive.
Oh, let's just parse this little gem of manipulation. First, he superfluously mentions that he was investigating E coli, the words "public health hazard", and appeals to an authority.
His audience is now in fear and primed.
The next sentence, the food industry, "intentionally" adds salt to food. Oh heavens, this is shocking. My grandmother did that very thing too!!! Salt is intentionally added to food because yes, it's a preservative and flavoring agent. People like the taste. Most people, without a medical condition, "intentionally" add salt to their own food, but hey... throw an inflammatory word at the "food industry" and further set the stage.
Next? Enter the hero!!!!! He sweeps in and... now here's the kicker, we know that those BIG BAD MEANIES have been fooling us all along????? How? Because the hero "gained access... (to) a trove of sensitive internal records".
Well, those records showed!!! Those big meanies were being aggressive wielding salt sugar and fat!!!!!!!!!!!!! (never mind that every time I bake a cake or cookie for my family, I use those very things for myself, there's no room for logic in this discussion!!!! What's that you say? Amounts are listed on food pacakging???? Don't be silly!!!!!!!!)
In case someone has decided to think... hey, I use salt, sugar, and fat when I cook... the hero mentions something vague and nebulous that he doesn't define .... "bitter flavors that develop in the manufacturing process". What those flavors might be will forever remain shrouded in mystery and doubt. Planting lingering doubts about the enemy... a good tactic for any conspiracy theorist.
He then claims that salt sugar and fat enable those foods to sit on grocery shelves for months. HEY!!! Why won't they do that for the cookies I make for my family????????
And then, horror of horrors, those things are cheap. A business is successful. Because any poor slob who works for a living is paid by unsuccessful business enterprise, amirite?
I'm not even going to bother with the other paragraphs.0 -
Just want to add that when I saw my doctor, he told me that he defines "clean eating" as NO processed foods. Mostly a raw food diet with lean protein. Eg, for me, no lunch meat, no crackers or processed cheeses, breads and pastas, frozen foods anything that is processed.0
-
Mine has nothing to do with clean eating. Also, I think that mentality that clean eating "cleans" up your taste buds is a lot of malarkey.
I mean, definitely not malarkey for me. I think a lot of people today have their palate so bombarded by sugar and salt that they they've been blasted of the ability to appreciate complex flavors. Agree to disagree on that one.And what makes cheetos nasty? If you prefer not to eat it, awesome....but the need of those in the clean eating community to put a judgment or good/bad label on foods is just super duper annoying. Egads.
I don't judge people, but objectively there are "good" and "bad" foods for the human body -- and that involves having to be pretty darn liberal with our definitions of what actually constitutes "real food."
Not that I will never eat something "processed" or that it can't be part of a healthy diet-- but yeah, I will unapologetically place different values on different foods. Not all foods are created equal (and it's the created ones that we should look at more carefully).I'd assume you were sarcastic since these are the WORST, but sadly...I think you are completely serious.
No that was sarcasm.
No. Objectively there are bad diets. But not bad/good foods.
Example: you would likely consider broccoli a "good" food. However a normal calorie diet with 50% broccoli is toxic, independent of the rest.
Example: you consider Cheetos a "bad" food. However a diet of 5% Cheetos will have no consequence if the rest is fine.
It's the overall diet and context that matters.
0 -
I have eaten a healthful diet consisting of whole foods all my life. It's a cultural thing and not nutritional wisdom.
When I started to overeat for about half a dozen of different reasons and started to gain a lot of weight for the first time in my life, I looked just as frumpy and lumpy as the people who got overweight from eating mostly processed foods.
So far I lost 65 pounds and the frumpy and lumpy is disappearing. I would think that the same would happen to a person who lost 65 pounds eating mostly whatever made them fat, just in moderate portions.
In my experience exercise with or after weight loss is what makes us look fit and lean ( of course a healthy diet might help a bit, bit not significantly ) while a healthy diet directly influences our state of health and that in return affects all aspects of life, maybe even the way we look.
Nice sensible post.0 -
Also can we have more threads about this?
Heh.
(On the other topic, I do think people tend to like and crave the foods they are used to eating, but I've personally never had the experience where eating some less nutrient dense foods (or lots of really sweet or really salty foods) affected my palate so I couldn't appreciate the tastes of other foods. I understand this does happen to some people.)0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Mine has nothing to do with clean eating. Also, I think that mentality that clean eating "cleans" up your taste buds is a lot of malarkey.
I mean, definitely not malarkey for me. I think a lot of people today have their palate so bombarded by sugar and salt that they they've been blasted of the ability to appreciate complex flavors. Agree to disagree on that one.And what makes cheetos nasty? If you prefer not to eat it, awesome....but the need of those in the clean eating community to put a judgment or good/bad label on foods is just super duper annoying. Egads.
I don't judge people, but objectively there are "good" and "bad" foods for the human body -- and that involves having to be pretty darn liberal with our definitions of what actually constitutes "real food."
Not that I will never eat something "processed" or that it can't be part of a healthy diet-- but yeah, I will unapologetically place different values on different foods. Not all foods are created equal (and it's the created ones that we should look at more carefully).I'd assume you were sarcastic since these are the WORST, but sadly...I think you are completely serious.
No that was sarcasm.
No. Objectively there are bad diets. But not bad/good foods.
Example: you would likely consider broccoli a "good" food. However a normal calorie diet with 50% broccoli is toxic, independent of the rest.
Example: you consider Cheetos a "bad" food. However a diet of 5% Cheetos will have no consequence if the rest is fine.
It's the overall diet and context that matters.
Just because something can be passable in negligible amounts doesn't make it any less "bad." I enjoy my selective poisons from time to time, but calling a spade a spade is important for moderation. A cheeto is objectively worse than broccoli -- saying otherwise I'm pretty sure is just trolling.
Side note: My understanding is that broccoli / kale / brussels sprouts are only toxic if you have an existing thyroid disorder (that overeating these can exacerbate, but not cause). Having said that, of course you need to have a balanced diet -- you can poison yourself by having too much water. Nobody is arguing a diet shouldn't be balanced, only that it's clear whole, natural foods are better than processed garbage.0 -
Just want to add that when I saw my doctor, he told me that he defines "clean eating" as NO processed foods. Mostly a raw food diet with lean protein. Eg, for me, no lunch meat, no crackers or processed cheeses, breads and pastas, frozen foods anything that is processed.
get a new doctor ….ASAP0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Is a cheeto ever healthy? ... ... If I eat one I eat 20 and want more; vanishing caloric density; it makes me thirsty / hungrier, leading to terrible decisions. The item itself may be fine as part of some CI/CO calculation if I eat two of them and move to a carrot, but it was designed for me really want another making that carrot seem as bland as ever.
That has to factor into any equation about whether or not to eat something, right?
Extremely good point. You might find this book interesting. It was available in my library system:
Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us
Q. How did you land on salt, sugar, and fat as your way to write about the industry? Why these three ingredients?
A. I’d been investigating a surge in deadly outbreaks of E. coli in meat when an industry source, a microbiologist, suggested that if I wanted to see an even bigger public health hazard, I should look at what food companies were intentionally adding to their products, starting with salt. And sure enough, when I looked at this--by gaining access to high level industry officials and a trove of sensitive, internal records--a window opened on how aggressive the industry was wielding not only salt, but sugar and fat, too. These are the pillars of processed foods, the three ingredients without which there would be no processed foods. Salt, sugar and fat drive consumption by adding flavor and allure. But surprisingly, they also mask bitter flavors that develop in the manufacturing process. They enable these foods to sit in warehouses or on the grocery shelf for months. And, most critically to the industry's financial success, they are very inexpensive.
Oh, let's just parse this little gem of manipulation. First, he superfluously mentions that he was investigating E coli, the words "public health hazard", and appeals to an authority.
His audience is now in fear and primed.
The next sentence, the food industry, "intentionally" adds salt to food. Oh heavens, this is shocking. My grandmother did that very thing too!!! Salt is intentionally added to food because yes, it's a preservative and flavoring agent. People like the taste. Most people, without a medical condition, "intentionally" add salt to their own food, but hey... throw an inflammatory word at the "food industry" and further set the stage.
I'm just picking out this little bit, although I enjoyed it all, as that's really what struck me too.
Isn't the whole point of preparing food (like when cooking) to make it as tasty as possible?
And isn't this why home cooks often work to perfect their baking of sweet treats (with, you know, sugar) and cook veggies in fat? Why fine restaurants still have millions of calories in their dishes, since butter is commonly added in large quantities?
Why the Julia Child book discussed upthread isn't all that low cal, for that matter.
There's nothing sinister about trying to make food taste good, and I might be weird but I don't actually think any of the oh so scary highly processed options--like frozen meals or packaged treats or McD's--taste better than their homemade counterparts. The reason that cheap and reasonably tasty packaged food makes it harder to not overeat for some is because there is a much higher opportunity cost to actually buying ingredients and cooking for most people. If every time I thought "oh, I might like some ice cream" or "I'd really like pizza" I had to make the ice cream or pizza, I'm sure I'd decide against the bother more often than not. If I can get the same thing by making a phone call or a quick detour on the way home from work or short walk (which I can) and for not that much more money, then sure it's going to be tempting.
But options aren't a bad thing. They are just something that humans need to learn to deal with.
IMO, that I live in a world of modern conveniences, where I can get fish from the ocean (although I live in the midwest) and cheese from Spain and olive oil from Italy (or wherever, as I read that book about olive oil), as well as strawberries from close to my home now and yet lots of produce in January too, where I can go out for sushi or Indian or Ethiopian food every night if I so wish (and am willing to spend the money) and, indeed, pick up my phone and order whatever kind of food I want is not that difference from the choice I had about career (as opposed to another time when that would be much more constrained) or the fact that modern conveniences save me tons of time on household chores. It's great. And it makes life more complicated and gives me more opportunity to screw up, probably.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Mine has nothing to do with clean eating. Also, I think that mentality that clean eating "cleans" up your taste buds is a lot of malarkey.
I mean, definitely not malarkey for me. I think a lot of people today have their palate so bombarded by sugar and salt that they they've been blasted of the ability to appreciate complex flavors. Agree to disagree on that one.And what makes cheetos nasty? If you prefer not to eat it, awesome....but the need of those in the clean eating community to put a judgment or good/bad label on foods is just super duper annoying. Egads.
I don't judge people, but objectively there are "good" and "bad" foods for the human body -- and that involves having to be pretty darn liberal with our definitions of what actually constitutes "real food."
Not that I will never eat something "processed" or that it can't be part of a healthy diet-- but yeah, I will unapologetically place different values on different foods. Not all foods are created equal (and it's the created ones that we should look at more carefully).I'd assume you were sarcastic since these are the WORST, but sadly...I think you are completely serious.
No that was sarcasm.
No. Objectively there are bad diets. But not bad/good foods.
Example: you would likely consider broccoli a "good" food. However a normal calorie diet with 50% broccoli is toxic, independent of the rest.
Example: you consider Cheetos a "bad" food. However a diet of 5% Cheetos will have no consequence if the rest is fine.
It's the overall diet and context that matters.
for the win….and cosigning0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Is a cheeto ever healthy? ... ... If I eat one I eat 20 and want more; vanishing caloric density; it makes me thirsty / hungrier, leading to terrible decisions. The item itself may be fine as part of some CI/CO calculation if I eat two of them and move to a carrot, but it was designed for me really want another making that carrot seem as bland as ever.
That has to factor into any equation about whether or not to eat something, right?
Extremely good point. You might find this book interesting. It was available in my library system:
Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us
Q. How did you land on salt, sugar, and fat as your way to write about the industry? Why these three ingredients?
A. I’d been investigating a surge in deadly outbreaks of E. coli in meat when an industry source, a microbiologist, suggested that if I wanted to see an even bigger public health hazard, I should look at what food companies were intentionally adding to their products, starting with salt. And sure enough, when I looked at this--by gaining access to high level industry officials and a trove of sensitive, internal records--a window opened on how aggressive the industry was wielding not only salt, but sugar and fat, too. These are the pillars of processed foods, the three ingredients without which there would be no processed foods. Salt, sugar and fat drive consumption by adding flavor and allure. But surprisingly, they also mask bitter flavors that develop in the manufacturing process. They enable these foods to sit in warehouses or on the grocery shelf for months. And, most critically to the industry's financial success, they are very inexpensive.
Oh, let's just parse this little gem of manipulation. First, he superfluously mentions that he was investigating E coli, the words "public health hazard", and appeals to an authority.
His audience is now in fear and primed.
The next sentence, the food industry, "intentionally" adds salt to food. Oh heavens, this is shocking. My grandmother did that very thing too!!! Salt is intentionally added to food because yes, it's a preservative and flavoring agent. People like the taste. Most people, without a medical condition, "intentionally" add salt to their own food, but hey... throw an inflammatory word at the "food industry" and further set the stage.
I'm just picking out this little bit, although I enjoyed it all, as that's really what struck me too.
Isn't the whole point of preparing food (like when cooking) to make it as tasty as possible?
And isn't this why home cooks often work to perfect their baking of sweet treats (with, you know, sugar) and cook veggies in fat? Why fine restaurants still have millions of calories in their dishes, since butter is commonly added in large quantities?
Why the Julia Child book discussed upthread isn't all that low cal, for that matter.
There's nothing sinister about trying to make food taste good, and I might be weird but I don't actually think any of the oh so scary highly processed options--like frozen meals or packaged treats or McD's--taste better than their homemade counterparts. The reason that cheap and reasonably tasty packaged food makes it harder to not overeat for some is because there is a much higher opportunity cost to actually buying ingredients and cooking for most people. If every time I thought "oh, I might like some ice cream" or "I'd really like pizza" I had to make the ice cream or pizza, I'm sure I'd decide against the bother more often than not. If I can get the same thing by making a phone call or a quick detour on the way home from work or short walk (which I can) and for not that much more money, then sure it's going to be tempting.
But options aren't a bad thing. They are just something that humans need to learn to deal with.
IMO, that I live in a world of modern conveniences, where I can get fish from the ocean (although I live in the midwest) and cheese from Spain and olive oil from Italy (or wherever, as I read that book about olive oil), as well as strawberries from close to my home now and yet lots of produce in January too, where I can go out for sushi or Indian or Ethiopian food every night if I so wish (and am willing to spend the money) and, indeed, pick up my phone and order whatever kind of food I want is not that difference from the choice I had about career (as opposed to another time when that would be much more constrained) or the fact that modern conveniences save me tons of time on household chores. It's great. And it makes life more complicated and gives me more opportunity to screw up, probably.
The other thing that's hinted at in the whole ridiculous Big-Bad-Conspiring-Food-Industry vs. us unsuspecting gullible peons? The sin they're all guilty of? It's wrong to make things taste good because people will then want to buy them.
The people, who are employed, because the business they work for also takes measures to ensure it's successful. Kind of like the author of the book took measures to ensure that the diatribe he scribbled would be successful with all the hyperbole he flung around.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Mine has nothing to do with clean eating. Also, I think that mentality that clean eating "cleans" up your taste buds is a lot of malarkey.
I mean, definitely not malarkey for me. I think a lot of people today have their palate so bombarded by sugar and salt that they they've been blasted of the ability to appreciate complex flavors. Agree to disagree on that one.And what makes cheetos nasty? If you prefer not to eat it, awesome....but the need of those in the clean eating community to put a judgment or good/bad label on foods is just super duper annoying. Egads.
I don't judge people, but objectively there are "good" and "bad" foods for the human body -- and that involves having to be pretty darn liberal with our definitions of what actually constitutes "real food."
Not that I will never eat something "processed" or that it can't be part of a healthy diet-- but yeah, I will unapologetically place different values on different foods. Not all foods are created equal (and it's the created ones that we should look at more carefully).I'd assume you were sarcastic since these are the WORST, but sadly...I think you are completely serious.
No that was sarcasm.
No. Objectively there are bad diets. But not bad/good foods.
Example: you would likely consider broccoli a "good" food. However a normal calorie diet with 50% broccoli is toxic, independent of the rest.
Example: you consider Cheetos a "bad" food. However a diet of 5% Cheetos will have no consequence if the rest is fine.
It's the overall diet and context that matters.
Just because something can be passable in negligible amounts doesn't make it any less "bad." I enjoy my selective poisons from time to time, but calling a spade a spade is important for moderation. A cheeto is objectively worse than broccoli -- saying otherwise I'm pretty sure is just trolling.
Side note: My understanding is that broccoli / kale / brussels sprouts are only toxic if you have an existing thyroid disorder (that overeating these can exacerbate, but not cause). Having said that, of course you need to have a balanced diet -- you can poison yourself by having too much water. Nobody is arguing a diet shouldn't be balanced, only that it's clear whole, natural foods are better than processed garbage.
Nope, wouldn't say objectively worse, context still matters. If a person was starving to death, Cheetos would be better than broccoli in terms of getting calories in them quickly. Similarly if a person had a need to for energy quickly and doesn't have time for chewing - such as if someone was doing a marathon, I'd say Cheetos would objectively be better in that context than broccoli.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think your contempt for those looking to improve their diet and have the audacity to use a term you don't approve of while doing so comes through loud and clear. So loud and clear all I can see is your rude assumptions; not those who you are railing against.
Except I've never, ever expressed any contempt for people trying to improve their diets. I am encouraging of that.
I do dislike the "clean" term, as I'm quite open about, but I'm not aggressive at all with people who just happen to use it. I typically ask what they mean and explain why I don't think it's helpful. I reserve my more irritated posts about it for the threads specifically on the topic, after people start with the claims that not eating "clean" means you don't care about health. But sure, in threads like this one I do return attitude with attitude sometimes.
So as for the "rude assumptions," let's look at those:
"What I have argued is that NO ONE is so ignorant that they don't know eating veggies is considered healthy"
Is anyone? I've seen lots of people on MFP claiming they can't and won't eat veggies (including people asking if they can still be "clean eaters"). I have seen no evidence that anyone really starts MFP thinking that it's advised by nutrition scientists to eat lots and lots of cake and no veggies. So if your argument is really that people don't have even this rudimentary understanding of nutrition, I think you are the one who is making rude assumptions about others.
"Or be a fool who thinks there are special "clean eating" recipes and the rest of us are dumping cream of mushroom soup on our steak* or loads of sugar on our salmon."
Yes, this could have been said more nicely, but again I find it kind of insulting that it's assumed that people who don't use "clean eating recipes" must not ever cook with whole foods. It's also pretty obviously not true. I note that you have refused to address that point.
"I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes."
"This is almost as bad as "what can I order at Starbucks" in terms of what causes me to worry about the basic competence of people."
These go together and the second was a joke, but you can't really think it's that hard to find recipes, right? The truth (as another poster hinted at) is that people asking for "clean eating recipes" probably aren't that ignorant about recipes, but don't really know what would qualify--they are probably not sure what "clean eating" really involves, since it's just a trendy term (just like lots of people seem to want to do low carb before they know what a carb is), not about recipes. They just don't seem to realize that there's nothing "unclean" (even according to most "clean eaters") about something normal and simple like some roasted chicken with veggies.
Although if we've now decided that foods involving salt, sugar, and fat are "unclean," well, take all those normal cookbooks off the table. I think Ornish has a cookbook, though.0 -
Somewhere is are bags of Cheetos and boxes of Hot Pockets that feels really bad about just for existing. I hope all you people's argument was worth all the emotional turmoil the food out there is suffering.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Mine has nothing to do with clean eating. Also, I think that mentality that clean eating "cleans" up your taste buds is a lot of malarkey.
I mean, definitely not malarkey for me. I think a lot of people today have their palate so bombarded by sugar and salt that they they've been blasted of the ability to appreciate complex flavors. Agree to disagree on that one.And what makes cheetos nasty? If you prefer not to eat it, awesome....but the need of those in the clean eating community to put a judgment or good/bad label on foods is just super duper annoying. Egads.
I don't judge people, but objectively there are "good" and "bad" foods for the human body -- and that involves having to be pretty darn liberal with our definitions of what actually constitutes "real food."
Not that I will never eat something "processed" or that it can't be part of a healthy diet-- but yeah, I will unapologetically place different values on different foods. Not all foods are created equal (and it's the created ones that we should look at more carefully).I'd assume you were sarcastic since these are the WORST, but sadly...I think you are completely serious.
No that was sarcasm.
No. Objectively there are bad diets. But not bad/good foods.
Example: you would likely consider broccoli a "good" food. However a normal calorie diet with 50% broccoli is toxic, independent of the rest.
Example: you consider Cheetos a "bad" food. However a diet of 5% Cheetos will have no consequence if the rest is fine.
It's the overall diet and context that matters.
Just because something can be passable in negligible amounts doesn't make it any less "bad." I enjoy my selective poisons from time to time, but calling a spade a spade is important for moderation. A cheeto is objectively worse than broccoli -- saying otherwise I'm pretty sure is just trolling.
Side note: My understanding is that broccoli / kale / brussels sprouts are only toxic if you have an existing thyroid disorder (that overeating these can exacerbate, but not cause). Having said that, of course you need to have a balanced diet -- you can poison yourself by having too much water. Nobody is arguing a diet shouldn't be balanced, only that it's clear whole, natural foods are better than processed garbage.
Your understanding is partially incomplete. Aside from the issues related to thyroid, one also has kidney stone risks that are significantly elevated. Oxalate binding also reduced calcium absorption (principally from the broccoli itself).
A single Cheetos or a single broccoli stem isn't worst or better. It's overall context.
Eating one or the other will not improve or worsen your health. It's overall context.
If what you call "processed garbage" is another person's acceptable food stuff. You really should stop with the denigration of food. Moderation doesn't require your uppity food attitude.0 -
Somewhere is are bags of Cheetos and boxes of Hot Pockets that feels really bad about just for existing. I hope all you people's argument was worth all the emotional turmoil the food out there is suffering.
Don't worry, as it has been proclaimed: "Blessed are you who are now weeping, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil....Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven."
Therefore, the Cheetos and the Hot Pockets and the Lean Pockets and the potatoes and the corn and the gluten and the sugar, added and intrinsic, and all the reviled foods of the world, they shall be rewarded in heaven.
I like to think heaven for a Hot Pocket will involve Susan Powter screaming "Hot Pockets make you HOT."0 -
I was really hoping we'd be consistently at the gifs by this point0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Mine has nothing to do with clean eating. Also, I think that mentality that clean eating "cleans" up your taste buds is a lot of malarkey.
I mean, definitely not malarkey for me. I think a lot of people today have their palate so bombarded by sugar and salt that they they've been blasted of the ability to appreciate complex flavors. Agree to disagree on that one.And what makes cheetos nasty? If you prefer not to eat it, awesome....but the need of those in the clean eating community to put a judgment or good/bad label on foods is just super duper annoying. Egads.
I don't judge people, but objectively there are "good" and "bad" foods for the human body -- and that involves having to be pretty darn liberal with our definitions of what actually constitutes "real food."
Not that I will never eat something "processed" or that it can't be part of a healthy diet-- but yeah, I will unapologetically place different values on different foods. Not all foods are created equal (and it's the created ones that we should look at more carefully).I'd assume you were sarcastic since these are the WORST, but sadly...I think you are completely serious.
No that was sarcasm.
No. Objectively there are bad diets. But not bad/good foods.
Example: you would likely consider broccoli a "good" food. However a normal calorie diet with 50% broccoli is toxic, independent of the rest.
Example: you consider Cheetos a "bad" food. However a diet of 5% Cheetos will have no consequence if the rest is fine.
It's the overall diet and context that matters.
Just because something can be passable in negligible amounts doesn't make it any less "bad." I enjoy my selective poisons from time to time, but calling a spade a spade is important for moderation. A cheeto is objectively worse than broccoli -- saying otherwise I'm pretty sure is just trolling.
Side note: My understanding is that broccoli / kale / brussels sprouts are only toxic if you have an existing thyroid disorder (that overeating these can exacerbate, but not cause). Having said that, of course you need to have a balanced diet -- you can poison yourself by having too much water. Nobody is arguing a diet shouldn't be balanced, only that it's clear whole, natural foods are better than processed garbage.
Your understanding is partially incomplete. Aside from the issues related to thyroid, one also has kidney stone risks that are significantly elevated. Oxalate binding also reduced calcium absorption (principally from the broccoli itself).
A single Cheetos or a single broccoli stem isn't worst or better. It's overall context.
Eating one or the other will not improve or worsen your health. It's overall context.
If what you call "processed garbage" is another person's acceptable food stuff. You really should stop with the denigration of food. Moderation doesn't require your uppity food attitude.
You are so cool.
The argument that morality has to enter the equation in order to apply moderation is just silly, and represents a skewed view of building an appropriate view of food.
To say "a cheeto" is objectively worse than "a piece of broccoli" is just silly.
There's room in my day for BOTH. That's moderation.
0 -
@lemurcat12 - It's one thing to have theoretical knowledge, and quite another to know how to put it into practical use day to day. Vastly different things. This forum is full of people learning relationships between food and their bodies * all over again*.0
-
Even if it's down to portions and macros. And planning. And shopping for the week. Etc. You underestimate the adjustments required.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Mine has nothing to do with clean eating. Also, I think that mentality that clean eating "cleans" up your taste buds is a lot of malarkey.
I mean, definitely not malarkey for me. I think a lot of people today have their palate so bombarded by sugar and salt that they they've been blasted of the ability to appreciate complex flavors. Agree to disagree on that one.And what makes cheetos nasty? If you prefer not to eat it, awesome....but the need of those in the clean eating community to put a judgment or good/bad label on foods is just super duper annoying. Egads.
I don't judge people, but objectively there are "good" and "bad" foods for the human body -- and that involves having to be pretty darn liberal with our definitions of what actually constitutes "real food."
Not that I will never eat something "processed" or that it can't be part of a healthy diet-- but yeah, I will unapologetically place different values on different foods. Not all foods are created equal (and it's the created ones that we should look at more carefully).I'd assume you were sarcastic since these are the WORST, but sadly...I think you are completely serious.
No that was sarcasm.
No. Objectively there are bad diets. But not bad/good foods.
Example: you would likely consider broccoli a "good" food. However a normal calorie diet with 50% broccoli is toxic, independent of the rest.
Example: you consider Cheetos a "bad" food. However a diet of 5% Cheetos will have no consequence if the rest is fine.
It's the overall diet and context that matters.
Why do you chose 50& for broccoli, but only 5% for Cheetos ? Also, outside of MFP it is not realistic to assume that a person eats only 5% of Cheeto type foods and apart from that their diet is really healthy.
I think that no one in their normal mind would ingest 50% of their caloric intake a day in just broccoli alone, but I know several people who easily eat 50% of their caloric intake in Cheetos or similar products a day.
I wonder why last week the American FDA ordered that all trans fats have to disappear by 2018 ? They especially pointed out that the new rule concerned the snack & chips industry as well as bakery goods industry, because trans fats are not meant for human consumption these days ( that is according to the FDA spoked person and not my interpretation ). They stated they were dangerous and unhealthy if consumed in smallish amounts and toxic when ingested regularly. Maybe there are " bad " foods after all ?
0 -
I don't think I do underestimate the adjustments required, tomatoey. I'm not really sure what comment you are taking issue with, though.
When people have specific questions/struggles I try to give advice. But this wasn't one of those threads. OP doesn't seem to be struggling, but was wondering about the benefits of eating better (which she called "clean") and several of us answered in various ways (I think I was generally positive about the benefits of improving one's diet, even, although I am alleged to be anti such things) and then talked more generally about "eating clean" itself not being really the issue, as one can certainly meet nutrient needs without doing that and processed foods aren't without nutrients. OP wasn't being criticized either, and she doesn't seem to be a real "clean eating" or "all processed food is EVIL" type.0 -
Through my years of dieting I've lost weight "clean", lost weight on processed food, and lost weight eating barely nothing.
I looked the same each time. Eating "clean" is exhausting and expensive 24/7, the only thing positive was that my skin was very clear.
Right now I eat what I want, when I want, but make sure to fill up with veggies, fruit, and whole grains, too. Losing much slower but steady and I never feel deprived. If I want some pop I have my little 8oz glass, if I want candy I eat my candy. All my major meals are balanced. I don't even feel like I'm on a diet, I'm just more mindful of what I put in my mouth.0 -
Came for the shenanigans ...... Stayed for the GIFs!!!!!! Hahaha.
Carrot bukake FTW!!!!
CI/CO crew checking in!!!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions