CI/CO vs Clean Eating
Options
Replies
-
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 -
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
Oh, isn't that what you always tell people? It's the advice I give.
Every time I see one of those "what should I eat" threads I say "only hot pockets." In fact, I recommend doing IIAHP, which stands for "if it's a hot pocket."
*chortle*
I personally live by IIALP (if it's a lean pocket) because Lean Pockets will make you leaner than Hot Pockets. We should argue back and forth about it for pages and pages. I have charts and everything.
LLAP with your IIALP diet!0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
Oh, isn't that what you always tell people? It's the advice I give.
Every time I see one of those "what should I eat" threads I say "only hot pockets." In fact, I recommend doing IIAHP, which stands for "if it's a hot pocket."
*chortle*
I personally live by IIALP (if it's a lean pocket) because Lean Pockets will make you leaner than Hot Pockets. We should argue back and forth about it for pages and pages. I have charts and everything.
But if lean pockets make you lean, does that mean hot pockets make you hot?
Why do I have to choose??? They need to make Hot Lean Sexy Pockets. Life is so unfair.
Rookie mistake. You just alternate. Hot pockets on even days, Lean Pockets on odd days.
0 -
MsJulesRenee wrote: »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.
Smart!
I'm 95% clean-eating while I train right now. I second that it's time-consuming and quite expensive (my staple dinner lately is grilled salmon, quinoa boiled in chicken stock, and mixed veggie stir fries). The health benefits of a diet like that are undeniable, though...
I'm also a single workaholic and can make the decision to spend those resources on always eating high-quality, fresh meats and veggies. If I had other life responsibilities (like most people) it might be more difficult to manage that.
0 -
I'm 95% clean-eating while I train right now. I second that it's time-consuming and quite expensive (my staple dinner lately is grilled salmon, quinoa boiled in chicken stock, and mixed veggie stir fries). The health benefits of a diet like that are undeniable, though...
The question is, does the benefit go away if one also eats, say, 230 calories in an "organic blondie" (which I happened to splurge on yesterday, in fact). The place I bought it from is super-weirdly over-the-top about the organic thing, I guess, as when I checked the ingredients I discovered "organic quinoa, organic whole grain flour, organic all purpose flour, organic sugar, organic unsalted butter, organic eggs, organic molasses, organic Belgian chocolate chunks, Madagascar vanilla bean, kosher salt and baking powder." Setting aside the fact that I'm now kind of embarassed I ate this (delicious) blondie, do those 230 calories on "junk" or whatever we are now calling it mean that the salmon and veggies and oats and strawberries and avocado and so on I also ate don't provide the same basic health benefits than if I'd just had, I dunno, 230 calories of quinoa and extra veggies and olive oil instead of the blondie?
For the record, I wasn't particularly hungry yesterday and ended below my calories, so satiety was not a concern.0 -
I think far too often the health benefits of diet are far overestimated while the health benefits of daily exercise are far underestimated...MsJulesRenee wrote: »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.
Smart!
I'm 95% clean-eating while I train right now. I second that it's time-consuming and quite expensive (my staple dinner lately is grilled salmon, quinoa boiled in chicken stock, and mixed veggie stir fries). The health benefits of a diet like that are undeniable, though...
I'm also a single workaholic and can make the decision to spend those resources on always eating high-quality, fresh meats and veggies. If I had other life responsibilities (like most people) it might be more difficult to manage that.
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 ?
I've yet to meet a raw Cheeto lifestyle person. I've met several raw vegans with dietary issues from too restrictive diets. But you live in a different part of the world.
Btw, the FDA did not ban trans fats but PHOs which are the primary source of trans fats in processed food. It's literally impossible to ban trans fats without banning meat and dairy; both of them contain some trans fat. (A nice steak has 2-3 g).
Of course there are bad chemicals and bad foods (don't eat green potatoes ...) but in general - the idea that you should now avoid cheese because of transfats is poppycock. Nutritionism at its worse.
0 -
MsJulesRenee wrote: »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.
Smart!
I'm 95% clean-eating while I train right now. I second that it's time-consuming and quite expensive (my staple dinner lately is grilled salmon, quinoa boiled in chicken stock, and mixed veggie stir fries). The health benefits of a diet like that are undeniable, though...
I'm also a single workaholic and can make the decision to spend those resources on always eating high-quality, fresh meats and veggies. If I had other life responsibilities (like most people) it might be more difficult to manage that.
Lol. That's like a typical dinner for me minus the chicken stock replaced with masala spices. And I'm no clean eater. I just don't need the label.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm 95% clean-eating while I train right now. I second that it's time-consuming and quite expensive (my staple dinner lately is grilled salmon, quinoa boiled in chicken stock, and mixed veggie stir fries). The health benefits of a diet like that are undeniable, though...
The question is, does the benefit go away if one also eats, say, 230 calories in an "organic blondie" (which I happened to splurge on yesterday, in fact). The place I bought it from is super-weirdly over-the-top about the organic thing, I guess, as when I checked the ingredients I discovered "organic quinoa, organic whole grain flour, organic all purpose flour, organic sugar, organic unsalted butter, organic eggs, organic molasses, organic Belgian chocolate chunks, Madagascar vanilla bean, kosher salt and baking powder." Setting aside the fact that I'm now kind of embarassed I ate this (delicious) blondie, do those 230 calories on "junk" or whatever we are now calling it mean that the salmon and veggies and oats and strawberries and avocado and so on I also ate don't provide the same basic health benefits than if I'd just had, I dunno, 230 calories of quinoa and extra veggies and olive oil instead of the blondie?
For the record, I wasn't particularly hungry yesterday and ended below my calories, so satiety was not a concern.
Obviously junk food and bad for you because processed and unclean.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions