clean eating
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Why would I eat a food that I don't eat? Where are these parties where only one food is served, and who is forcing me to eat food at the party? Why would I go to a sporting event or eating establishment during a night out, and order something that I don't eat? I'm not a clean eater, but that makes no sense no matter how you eat.
Also, do you have any studies to support your claim that all people who eat clean inevitably binge, or is that just hyperbole or an anecdotal assertion?
If you've only cut out one specific food, yea maybe you can go your whole life without ever eating it again, but the more restrictive the diet, the harder it is to avoid the restricted foods indefinitely. Studies have shown that rigid diets are associated with eating disorder, mood disturbances, and excessive concern with body size/shape
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
I wouldn't necessarily characterize clean eating as rigid. Less convenient than eating convenience foods, sure, but not so much rigid. Your studies didn't define rigid eating but I found this:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8130552_Rigid_and_flexible_control_of_eating_behavior_in_a_college_population
You wouldn't characterize clean eating as an "all or nothing" approach? I don't think there is a less flexible form of dieting than clean eating, at least none that I've come across. There is a reason most nutritionists debate "Clean Eating vs. Flexible Dieting" as the two main forms of dieting on two ends of the spectrum. Clean eating is not flexible at all, it is extremely rigid.
This makes me think they are using a very different definition of clean eating than just the standard 'natural and un/minimally processed'. Because simply avoiding overly processed and synthetic foods still allows for a very flexible diet.
That depends highly on your definition of a processed food, which is itself subjective.
Yes, I have read some posts that claim to think picking an apple is processing. But my definition wouldn't matter, that used in the study would.
There was no definition given for processed food in either of the studies I linked. Are you referring to a different study?
Without definition of terms any article or study is extremely subjective and therefore mostly meaningless.
A study about rigid dieting is not meaningless just because there's no definition of a processed foods. The fact that people are cutting foods out of their diet in the first place makes the diet rigid, not what they are cutting out.
I disagree. Without definitions the study tells us little. Is cutting foods what is meant by "rigid"? Is it all that is meant? What foods? How many foods? Do calories remain the same, or is there also severe calorie restriction?
Without knowing what is meant by "rigid" the study is as meaningless as the phrase "clean eating" without a definition.0 -
According to...
United States Code, 2010 Edition
Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 9 - FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
SUBCHAPTER II - DEFINITIONS
(gg) The term “processed food” means any food other than a raw agricultural commodity and includes any raw agricultural commodity that has been subject to processing, such as canning, cooking, freezing, dehydration, or milling.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title21/html/USCODE-2010-title21-chap9-subchapII.htm0 -
Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Why would I eat a food that I don't eat? Where are these parties where only one food is served, and who is forcing me to eat food at the party? Why would I go to a sporting event or eating establishment during a night out, and order something that I don't eat? I'm not a clean eater, but that makes no sense no matter how you eat.
Also, do you have any studies to support your claim that all people who eat clean inevitably binge, or is that just hyperbole or an anecdotal assertion?
If you've only cut out one specific food, yea maybe you can go your whole life without ever eating it again, but the more restrictive the diet, the harder it is to avoid the restricted foods indefinitely. Studies have shown that rigid diets are associated with eating disorder, mood disturbances, and excessive concern with body size/shape
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
I imagine it would depend on your diet and lifestyle. I have no problem avoiding fast food, prepackaged meals like Stouffer's lasagna, or the above-mentioned Froot Loops. I'm not even a clean eater.
I can't see anything beyond the abstracts, but from your first link: The second strongest canonical correlation (r=0.59) associated calorie counting and conscious dieting with overeating while alone and increased body mass.
It would appear most of MFP is doomed. Doomed!
But it also states that only a small portion of the participants were dieting for weight loss, and it compares flexible dieting to calorie counting/conscious dieting, and to low dietary restraint. Does this mean calorie counting and conscious dieting is supposed to be rigid dieting? That's not the same as restricting food groups or certain foods.
From the second study: Since this was a cross sectional study, causality of eating disorder symptoms could not be addressed.
All that means is that they found a correlation, and the data collected was self-reported, which is notorious for being flawed. It's unfortunate that neither study has the full text, because they don't address what they mean by the terms "rigid dieting" "strict dieting" and "flexible dieting." You can't really extrapolate the studies to this conversation without knowing whether the definition of "strict" or "rigid" dieting is in line with clean eating.
Here's a link to a full study that I found finally.
http://www.goallab.nl/publications/documents/MeulePapiesKubler2012Appetite.pdf
Yea it's unfortunate that for some studies you can only see the abstract. It's too bad that you have to pay for scientific findings haha.
I absolutely agree that correlation studies are much weaker than something proving causation, but at the same time it can't be completely discredited.
It is true that much of the evidence for restrictive diets leading to unhealthy behavior is anecdotal, but time and time again, nutritionists and dietitians have seen the results of restrictive dieting over and over again, and that cannot be discounted. Maybe it has not been studied enough, but that does not mean it isn't occurring.
Thanks, I'll have to read it later, no time now. FTR, I don't disagree that restriction can lead to issues with binging or disordered thoughts about food, I'm just not sold on it being tied to a particular eating style as much as simply a function of the individual. I think people who go overboard with restricting food items would be just as likely to go overboard with something like calorie counting or exercise, especially if they have obsessive tendencies initially.0 -
In my opinion clean eating is unprocessed, natural plant based foods with lean fat. I eat pretty heathy majority of the time & throw in a few foods that are low in fat & calories that might might be the healthiest but are still fit my calories for the day. For example I love animals crackers & have them for a snack a lot. They don't have many nutrient benefits but are low in fat & calories & fit my eating lifestyle. I do not think 100% clean eating will work long term. People tend to binge a lot on that type of diet. So I suggest finding healthy foods u like such as sweet potatoes, avacodo & also some other foods that are maybe not so healthy but not completely bad for u that still fits your diet. Such as I love whole wheat pancakes but like to dress it up with light syrup & peanut butter & cinnamon. Maybe not the healthiest meal but a lot better than eating regular pancakes with regular syrup. I also think that once ppl lose their weight they should have a cheat day once a week. It helps u to keep on track during the week. I have been eating like this for 3 years & it works for me. I hardly ever am tempted to have a cookie chocolate etc because I eat healthy foods that I like. I also do not crave that junk food because I rarely eat it. Is much rather prefer some dates & natural peanut butter over icecream0
-
Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Why would I eat a food that I don't eat? Where are these parties where only one food is served, and who is forcing me to eat food at the party? Why would I go to a sporting event or eating establishment during a night out, and order something that I don't eat? I'm not a clean eater, but that makes no sense no matter how you eat.
Also, do you have any studies to support your claim that all people who eat clean inevitably binge, or is that just hyperbole or an anecdotal assertion?
If you've only cut out one specific food, yea maybe you can go your whole life without ever eating it again, but the more restrictive the diet, the harder it is to avoid the restricted foods indefinitely. Studies have shown that rigid diets are associated with eating disorder, mood disturbances, and excessive concern with body size/shape
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
I imagine it would depend on your diet and lifestyle. I have no problem avoiding fast food, prepackaged meals like Stouffer's lasagna, or the above-mentioned Froot Loops. I'm not even a clean eater.
I can't see anything beyond the abstracts, but from your first link: The second strongest canonical correlation (r=0.59) associated calorie counting and conscious dieting with overeating while alone and increased body mass.
It would appear most of MFP is doomed. Doomed!
But it also states that only a small portion of the participants were dieting for weight loss, and it compares flexible dieting to calorie counting/conscious dieting, and to low dietary restraint. Does this mean calorie counting and conscious dieting is supposed to be rigid dieting? That's not the same as restricting food groups or certain foods.
From the second study: Since this was a cross sectional study, causality of eating disorder symptoms could not be addressed.
All that means is that they found a correlation, and the data collected was self-reported, which is notorious for being flawed. It's unfortunate that neither study has the full text, because they don't address what they mean by the terms "rigid dieting" "strict dieting" and "flexible dieting." You can't really extrapolate the studies to this conversation without knowing whether the definition of "strict" or "rigid" dieting is in line with clean eating.
Here's a link to a full study that I found finally.
http://www.goallab.nl/publications/documents/MeulePapiesKubler2012Appetite.pdf
Yea it's unfortunate that for some studies you can only see the abstract. It's too bad that you have to pay for scientific findings haha.
I absolutely agree that correlation studies are much weaker than something proving causation, but at the same time it can't be completely discredited.
It is true that much of the evidence for restrictive diets leading to unhealthy behavior is anecdotal, but time and time again, nutritionists and dietitians have seen the results of restrictive dieting over and over again, and that cannot be discounted. Maybe it has not been studied enough, but that does not mean it isn't occurring.
Thanks, I'll have to read it later, no time now. FTR, I don't disagree that restriction can lead to issues with binging or disordered thoughts about food, I'm just not sold on it being tied to a particular eating style as much as simply a function of the individual. I think people who go overboard with restricting food items would be just as likely to go overboard with something like calorie counting or exercise, especially if they have obsessive tendencies initially.
Yea, I can definitely agree with that0 -
According to...
United States Code, 2010 Edition
Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 9 - FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
SUBCHAPTER II - DEFINITIONS
(gg) The term “processed food” means any food other than a raw agricultural commodity and includes any raw agricultural commodity that has been subject to processing, such as canning, cooking, freezing, dehydration, or milling.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title21/html/USCODE-2010-title21-chap9-subchapII.htm
Apparently when I buy boneless skinless chicken breast from the grocery store and go home and freeze it, it becomes processed. You learn something every day...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Why would I eat a food that I don't eat? Where are these parties where only one food is served, and who is forcing me to eat food at the party? Why would I go to a sporting event or eating establishment during a night out, and order something that I don't eat? I'm not a clean eater, but that makes no sense no matter how you eat.
Also, do you have any studies to support your claim that all people who eat clean inevitably binge, or is that just hyperbole or an anecdotal assertion?
If you've only cut out one specific food, yea maybe you can go your whole life without ever eating it again, but the more restrictive the diet, the harder it is to avoid the restricted foods indefinitely. Studies have shown that rigid diets are associated with eating disorder, mood disturbances, and excessive concern with body size/shape
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
I wouldn't necessarily characterize clean eating as rigid. Less convenient than eating convenience foods, sure, but not so much rigid. Your studies didn't define rigid eating but I found this:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8130552_Rigid_and_flexible_control_of_eating_behavior_in_a_college_population
You wouldn't characterize clean eating as an "all or nothing" approach? I don't think there is a less flexible form of dieting than clean eating, at least none that I've come across. There is a reason most nutritionists debate "Clean Eating vs. Flexible Dieting" as the two main forms of dieting on two ends of the spectrum. Clean eating is not flexible at all, it is extremely rigid.
This makes me think they are using a very different definition of clean eating than just the standard 'natural and un/minimally processed'. Because simply avoiding overly processed and synthetic foods still allows for a very flexible diet.
That depends highly on your definition of a processed food, which is itself subjective.
Yes, I have read some posts that claim to think picking an apple is processing. But my definition wouldn't matter, that used in the study would.
There was no definition given for processed food in either of the studies I linked. Are you referring to a different study?
Without definition of terms any article or study is extremely subjective and therefore mostly meaningless.
A study about rigid dieting is not meaningless just because there's no definition of a processed foods. The fact that people are cutting foods out of their diet in the first place makes the diet rigid, not what they are cutting out.
I disagree. Without definitions the study tells us little. Is cutting foods what is meant by "rigid"? Is it all that is meant? What foods? How many foods? Do calories remain the same, or is there also severe calorie restriction?
Without knowing what is meant by "rigid" the study is as meaningless as the phrase "clean eating" without a definition.
Fair enough, in return I'd ask you why you think it can be beneficial to completely cut certain foods out of your diet?0 -
I eat clean because I wash my hands before I sit at the table. Works every time.0
-
Eating a healthy diet is not an eating disorder.Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Binging on junk food is not something that all healthy eaters do.
I realize that some people here have had eating disorders. Whatever they need to do to manage them is great and what they should do. However, not everyone has an ED.
Assuming that people without EDs will suddenly develop them because they chose to eat healthy food...as if that's some foregone conclusion...it's ludicrous.
Please do not demonize healthy diets.0 -
Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Why would I eat a food that I don't eat? Where are these parties where only one food is served, and who is forcing me to eat food at the party? Why would I go to a sporting event or eating establishment during a night out, and order something that I don't eat? I'm not a clean eater, but that makes no sense no matter how you eat.
Also, do you have any studies to support your claim that all people who eat clean inevitably binge, or is that just hyperbole or an anecdotal assertion?
If you've only cut out one specific food, yea maybe you can go your whole life without ever eating it again, but the more restrictive the diet, the harder it is to avoid the restricted foods indefinitely. Studies have shown that rigid diets are associated with eating disorder, mood disturbances, and excessive concern with body size/shape
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
Eating disorders are actual mental illnesses. You don't develop a disorder because you eat a healthy diet.
While some people with EDs do obsess about healthy food, many don't. Many anorexics eat junk food. Anorexics, bulimics, BED people - you'll find people in all those groups eating junk foods.
Eating healthy is not a mental illness. It doesn't lead to mental illness.
Will you next be saying that people should stop lifting weights so that they don't become muscle dysmorphics?0 -
Eating a healthy diet is not an eating disorder.Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Binging on junk food is not something that all healthy eaters do.
I realize that some people here have had eating disorders. Whatever they need to do to manage them is great and what they should do. However, not everyone has an ED.
Assuming that people without EDs will suddenly develop them because they chose to eat healthy food...as if that's some foregone conclusion...it's ludicrous.
Please do not demonize healthy diets.
I don't demonize healthy diets, I demonize irrational diets that aren't based on any sound science and lead to bad relationships with food...0 -
You could both lose or gain weight while eating "clean" if you're at a caloric deficit or surplus. From a nutrition and body composition standpoint eating healthily matters, but solely for weight loss? It doesn't.
I think when people say "clean eating" there's a purist mindset. Eat this, not that. Bad foods, good foods. It's not a realistic long term way to look at weight loss. That used to be me.
I used to be convinced I couldn't lose weight unless I got rid of all junk food. It just perpetuated an "all or nothing" mentality and I just kept failing because of my unrealistic expectations for myself. Now I follow IIFYM, make room for foods I like, am not constantly feeing as if Im failing, and have had a shift in mindset. I am also losing more weight now, and feel much more satisfied.
Why make it harder than you have to?0 -
I would classify myself as a healthy eater as opposed to a clean eater. I make sure to consume plenty of foods that are high in nutrients and i examine my food log to make sure I'm hitting my goals for protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals. But to me, healthy eating also includes modest amounts of foods that I love, including salty snacks, chocolate, wine, ice cream. . . and yes, occasionally Froot Loops. I nearly always stay within my calories; if I go over, it was purposeful for a special occasion. And I've been able to maintain for nearly three years.0
-
Bravo!!!SherryTeach wrote: »I would classify myself as a healthy eater as opposed to a clean eater. I make sure to consume plenty of foods that are high in nutrients and i examine my food log to make sure I'm hitting my goals for protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals. But to me, healthy eating also includes modest amounts of foods that I love, including salty snacks, chocolate, wine, ice cream. . . and yes, occasionally Froot Loops. I nearly always stay within my calories; if I go over, it was purposeful for a special occasion. And I've been able to maintain for nearly three years.
0 -
The bolded is why the "clean eating" mentality is flawed...brilliantwords wrote: »You could both lose or gain weight while eating "clean" if you're at a caloric deficit or surplus. From a nutrition and body composition standpoint eating healthily matters, but solely for weight loss? It doesn't.
I think when people say "clean eating" there's a purist mindset. Eat this, not that. Bad foods, good foods. It's not a realistic long term way to look at weight loss. That used to be me.
I used to be convinced I couldn't lose weight unless I got rid of all junk food. It just perpetuated an "all or nothing" mentality and I just kept failing because of my unrealistic expectations for myself. Now I follow IIFYM, make room for foods I like, am not constantly feeing as if Im failing, and have had a shift in mindset. I am also losing more weight now, and feel much more satisfied.
Exactly, why...?brilliantwords wrote: »Why make it harder than you have to?
0 -
The bolded is why the "clean eating" mentality is flawed...brilliantwords wrote: »You could both lose or gain weight while eating "clean" if you're at a caloric deficit or surplus. From a nutrition and body composition standpoint eating healthily matters, but solely for weight loss? It doesn't.
I think when people say "clean eating" there's a purist mindset. Eat this, not that. Bad foods, good foods. It's not a realistic long term way to look at weight loss. That used to be me.
I used to be convinced I couldn't lose weight unless I got rid of all junk food. It just perpetuated an "all or nothing" mentality and I just kept failing because of my unrealistic expectations for myself. Now I follow IIFYM, make room for foods I like, am not constantly feeing as if Im failing, and have had a shift in mindset. I am also losing more weight now, and feel much more satisfied.
Exactly, why...?brilliantwords wrote: »Why make it harder than you have to?
For some people it is not unrealistic nor is it hard. If it is unrealistic and/or hard for you...then don't attempt it. Just don't judge others on what you can or can not do.
Someone can eat "dirty"...someone can eat "clean"...makes no difference to me. I choose to eat in a way that fits in to MY life...not someone elses.
0 -
Everyone who says they eat clean has their own definition. There is no consensus, one agreed-upon-by-everyone definition.
I eat healthy. I have lots of fruits and veggies, no-fat dairy, whole grains, and lean, white meats. And tuna. If that fits for someone's definition of "clean", yay. If not, that's okay, too. If they don't include me in their idea of "clean," I'm not offended or hurt and wish them well with their plan.
My objective is to be healthy, not to follow a diet plan. So I eat what is right for me. Everyone should do what is right for them.
I largely agree with this and think it's a good way to look at it.
My hang up is that clean eating just really doesn't mean anything specific (as you say), so anyone who claims to be a "clean eater" is just generally saying they eat "better" than others, which of course is presumptuous and probably not true, so I find it obnoxious.
If people want to be obnoxious, their business, though. I'm trying to not be bugged.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I have seen many people state clean eating does not work. I'm just curious, how do you define clean eating? In your opinion, what is it's successes, or failures. What is it's opposite dirty eating?
When you say it doesn't work - in what way?? to nourish the body and to keep the person alive??
Clean eating is whatever you want it to be. I'm not sure there is any particular or definitive guide.
I'm sure it's just a better and healthier way of eating to the standard diet.
This pinpoints what annoys me about the "clean eating" claim. I suspect most of us -- including those of us who don't go on and on about how we are "clean eaters" or think our diets deserve special labels -- try to eat healthy and likely eat better than the standard diet (which in the US anyway has plenty of issues). So when someone claims they are a "clean eater," I see them as saying their diet is "better and healthier" than those who aren't clean eaters, and of course that's not true often.
More to the point, their food is not actually "cleaner," so that choice of word seems designed to be rude and to insult others by calling their food not clean.0 -
allaboutthefood wrote: »Clean eating to me, means more fresh foods, veggies, fruits, meats and anything that grows from a tree or in the ground, the less it's processed the better etc..
Out of curiosity, more than what? I eat lots and lots of vegetables (generally 10-12 servings a day of non starchy veg), some fruit, usually get my meat from a local farm, tend to cook things from scratch, always make my own dressings and pasta sauces, etc. So I'd say I do this "more" than many, and somewhat more than I used to (although I always did it some).
However, even if I liked the term "clean" I'd feel like a liar claiming I was "clean eating," because I include processed foods like smoked salmon and greek yogurt (plain usually, but not 100% of the time) and ice cream in my diet. Yesterday I was at a work thing all day and ate the supplied lunch, which was generally not bad, but included pre-made sandwiches, and it didn't bother me at all as it fit okay in my overall diet. I am always puzzled when people who seem to eat at least as much "non clean" stuff as me (as I understand it) nevertheless call themselves "clean." It seems like they are assuming non-clean eaters eat quite differently when I don't think we generally do.
More to the point, "clean" seems to mean an absence of "unclean," and so "clean = more of this stuff or even mostly this stuff" doesn't really make sense to me. This could be my failing or lack of understanding, though, but it is what I find confusing/dishonest in the label.0 -
SherryTeach wrote: »I would classify myself as a healthy eater as opposed to a clean eater. I make sure to consume plenty of foods that are high in nutrients and i examine my food log to make sure I'm hitting my goals for protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals. But to me, healthy eating also includes modest amounts of foods that I love, including salty snacks, chocolate, wine, ice cream. . . and yes, occasionally Froot Loops. I nearly always stay within my calories; if I go over, it was purposeful for a special occasion. And I've been able to maintain for nearly three years.
Yes this.brilliantwords wrote: »You could both lose or gain weight while eating "clean" if you're at a caloric deficit or surplus. From a nutrition and body composition standpoint eating healthily matters, but solely for weight loss? It doesn't.
I think when people say "clean eating" there's a purist mindset. Eat this, not that. Bad foods, good foods. It's not a realistic long term way to look at weight loss. That used to be me.
I used to be convinced I couldn't lose weight unless I got rid of all junk food. It just perpetuated an "all or nothing" mentality and I just kept failing because of my unrealistic expectations for myself. Now I follow IIFYM, make room for foods I like, am not constantly feeing as if Im failing, and have had a shift in mindset. I am also losing more weight now, and feel much more satisfied.
Why make it harder than you have to?
Nice post.
0 -
brilliantwords wrote: »You could both lose or gain weight while eating "clean" if you're at a caloric deficit or surplus. From a nutrition and body composition standpoint eating healthily matters, but solely for weight loss? It doesn't.
I think when people say "clean eating" there's a purist mindset. Eat this, not that. Bad foods, good foods. It's not a realistic long term way to look at weight loss. That used to be me.
I used to be convinced I couldn't lose weight unless I got rid of all junk food. It just perpetuated an "all or nothing" mentality and I just kept failing because of my unrealistic expectations for myself. Now I follow IIFYM, make room for foods I like, am not constantly feeing as if Im failing, and have had a shift in mindset. I am also losing more weight now, and feel much more satisfied.
Why make it harder than you have to?
Insert standing ovation gif here...
0 -
SherryTeach wrote: »I would classify myself as a healthy eater as opposed to a clean eater. I make sure to consume plenty of foods that are high in nutrients and i examine my food log to make sure I'm hitting my goals for protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals. But to me, healthy eating also includes modest amounts of foods that I love, including salty snacks, chocolate, wine, ice cream. . . and yes, occasionally Froot Loops. I nearly always stay within my calories; if I go over, it was purposeful for a special occasion. And I've been able to maintain for nearly three years.
And here...
0 -
We have the same taste in posts! ;-)0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »We have the same taste in posts! ;-)
I was going to rah rah yours too but I had to go pour some more cereal for my kids (cinnamon toast crunch, we are all out of froot loops...
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Everyone who says they eat clean has their own definition. There is no consensus, one agreed-upon-by-everyone definition.
I eat healthy. I have lots of fruits and veggies, no-fat dairy, whole grains, and lean, white meats. And tuna. If that fits for someone's definition of "clean", yay. If not, that's okay, too. If they don't include me in their idea of "clean," I'm not offended or hurt and wish them well with their plan.
My objective is to be healthy, not to follow a diet plan. So I eat what is right for me. Everyone should do what is right for them.
I largely agree with this and think it's a good way to look at it.
My hang up is that clean eating just really doesn't mean anything specific (as you say), so anyone who claims to be a "clean eater" is just generally saying they eat "better" than others, which of course is presumptuous and probably not true, so I find it obnoxious.
If people want to be obnoxious, their business, though. I'm trying to not be bugged.
When people speak about their own experience and are not referring to you, don't project it on you and you won't be bugged
However, I am sensitive to your feelings on this matter. You may have noticed that I don't make statements like "I am a clean eater" but rather "I don't buy foods with artificial colors" and "the less convenience foods and high glycemic load foods I eat, the better I feel."
0 -
Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Why would I eat a food that I don't eat? Where are these parties where only one food is served, and who is forcing me to eat food at the party? Why would I go to a sporting event or eating establishment during a night out, and order something that I don't eat? I'm not a clean eater, but that makes no sense no matter how you eat.
Also, do you have any studies to support your claim that all people who eat clean inevitably binge, or is that just hyperbole or an anecdotal assertion?
If you've only cut out one specific food, yea maybe you can go your whole life without ever eating it again, but the more restrictive the diet, the harder it is to avoid the restricted foods indefinitely. Studies have shown that rigid diets are associated with eating disorder, mood disturbances, and excessive concern with body size/shape
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
I imagine it would depend on your diet and lifestyle. I have no problem avoiding fast food, prepackaged meals like Stouffer's lasagna, or the above-mentioned Froot Loops. I'm not even a clean eater.
I can't see anything beyond the abstracts, but from your first link: The second strongest canonical correlation (r=0.59) associated calorie counting and conscious dieting with overeating while alone and increased body mass.
It would appear most of MFP is doomed. Doomed!
But it also states that only a small portion of the participants were dieting for weight loss, and it compares flexible dieting to calorie counting/conscious dieting, and to low dietary restraint. Does this mean calorie counting and conscious dieting is supposed to be rigid dieting? That's not the same as restricting food groups or certain foods.
From the second study: Since this was a cross sectional study, causality of eating disorder symptoms could not be addressed.
All that means is that they found a correlation, and the data collected was self-reported, which is notorious for being flawed. It's unfortunate that neither study has the full text, because they don't address what they mean by the terms "rigid dieting" "strict dieting" and "flexible dieting." You can't really extrapolate the studies to this conversation without knowing whether the definition of "strict" or "rigid" dieting is in line with clean eating.
Here's a link to a full study that I found finally.
http://www.goallab.nl/publications/documents/MeulePapiesKubler2012Appetite.pdf
Yea it's unfortunate that for some studies you can only see the abstract. It's too bad that you have to pay for scientific findings haha.
I absolutely agree that correlation studies are much weaker than something proving causation, but at the same time it can't be completely discredited.
It is true that much of the evidence for restrictive diets leading to unhealthy behavior is anecdotal, but time and time again, nutritionists and dietitians have seen the results of restrictive dieting over and over again, and that cannot be discounted. Maybe it has not been studied enough, but that does not mean it isn't occurring.
Thanks, I'll have to read it later, no time now. FTR, I don't disagree that restriction can lead to issues with binging or disordered thoughts about food, I'm just not sold on it being tied to a particular eating style as much as simply a function of the individual. I think people who go overboard with restricting food items would be just as likely to go overboard with something like calorie counting or exercise, especially if they have obsessive tendencies initially.
I thought I saw something about obsessive yesterday but it turned out to be impulsive. Never-the-less, as you were discussing eating disorders and personality, I'll include it.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8130552_Rigid_and_flexible_control_of_eating_behavior_in_a_college_population
In addition to the traditional weight, eating, and affective measurements, the current study included a measure of impulsivity. This was added because impulsivity may be a risk factor for eating disorders (Lowe & Eldredge, 1993), and impulsivity and rigid control (RC) show similar patterns with regard to eating behavior and eating disorder symptomology (Pudel & Westenhoefer, 1998). In regard to RC and FC, it was hypothesized that high levels of impulsivity would be correlated with higher levels of RC, as individuals with higher levels of RC are the ones believed to be more prone to engage in disinhibited eating. Furthermore, impulsivity is partially defined as the lack of ability to plan (Barratt, 1993), hence, lower levels of impulsivity were hypothesized to be associated with higher levels of FC, as individuals high in FC tend to plan for periods of increased consumption and self-regulate better than those individuals high in RC (Westenhoefer et al., 1994).
*******
In order to eat the way I want to eat, which includes avoiding convenience foods and working larger meals into my calorie budget, I utilize planning skills extensively.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I have seen many people state clean eating does not work. I'm just curious, how do you define clean eating? In your opinion, what is it's successes, or failures. What is it's opposite dirty eating?
When you say it doesn't work - in what way?? to nourish the body and to keep the person alive??
Clean eating is whatever you want it to be. I'm not sure there is any particular or definitive guide.
I'm sure it's just a better and healthier way of eating to the standard diet.
This pinpoints what annoys me about the "clean eating" claim. I suspect most of us -- including those of us who don't go on and on about how we are "clean eaters" or think our diets deserve special labels -- try to eat healthy and likely eat better than the standard diet (which in the US anyway has plenty of issues). So when someone claims they are a "clean eater," I see them as saying their diet is "better and healthier" than those who aren't clean eaters, and of course that's not true often.
More to the point, their food is not actually "cleaner," so that choice of word seems designed to be rude and to insult others by calling their food not clean.
I understand about the labeling and agree that they are necessary. I am confused at times why someone calls losing weight or what eating plan they choose...a lifestyle. I believe however that people can call things whatever they choose...most if not all the times those things don't affect me.
I think however...while it might not be important to me to have a label...it is important to others. It gives them a plan...a structured way of thinking...guidelines to follow. I get it even if it is not something that I find applicable to myself.
One other thing that I will say...while I too have seen "clean eaters"...vegans...vegetarians...paleoists (sp) that appear to think they are better than others...I have also see some "IIFYM" type eaters that think that their way is superior and that everyone else are just idots that have no self-control and that it is all in their heads. I have also seen them brag about eating ice cream every night as if somehow that makes them superior over those that have chosen to cut it from their diets.
Now could my own diet be healthier...probably. Have I given up the majority of "processed"..."convenience"..."fast food"...yes. Am I willing to cut even more of those types of food...probably not unless for some specific health reason.
Anyway...that is my rant for the day...I can live in peace now.
0 -
According to...
United States Code, 2010 Edition
Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 9 - FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
SUBCHAPTER II - DEFINITIONS
(gg) The term “processed food” means any food other than a raw agricultural commodity and includes any raw agricultural commodity that has been subject to processing, such as canning, cooking, freezing, dehydration, or milling.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title21/html/USCODE-2010-title21-chap9-subchapII.htm
Yes, that's the government's definition, but in a layman's discussion about clean eating, when people say "processed foods" they are generally referring to "convenience foods."
Convenience food, or tertiary processed food, is food that is commercially prepared (often through processing) to optimize ease of consumption. Such food is usually ready to eat without further preparation. It may also be easily portable, have a long shelf life, or offer a combination of such convenient traits. Although restaurant meals meet this definition, the term is seldom applied to them. Convenience foods include ready-to-eat dry goods, frozen foods such as TV dinners, shelf-stable foods, prepared mixes such as cake mix, and snack foods.
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