clean eating
Options
Replies
-
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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
Well I guess according to you it's a good thing that I still eat pizza...some processed...fast food once in awhile.
Oh...and then there was this banana split that I had last week.
I don't got no list except for...cottage cheese...liver...boiled okra. I guess that means that I will binge on one of those...I am doomed.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
I don't think I've ever seen anyone who supports the concept of "clean" eating identify foods they don't eat as "dirty." I certainly don't. I call them "foods I avoid."
Like artificial colors. I don't buy foods with artificial colors, but when faced with a cake with artificial colors at a birthday party, I can certainly have one serving and get on with my life.
I don't notice you using the term "clean eating" and wouldn't have classified you as a "clean eater."
However, if some foods are "clean" that means that some are "unclean" or "not clean." There's simply no way around it. It's a usage chosen to be insulting, period.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I would suggest that the people who get argumentative about what someone else chooses to call their diet, or what foods they choose to include or exclude, are the ones with the issue.
I think discussions about word choice are totally valid and occasionally interesting ones. Why is this question off-limits when we are talking about a word used for a way of eating?
It's a choice to say "I eat clean" or "I don't eat unclean foods" vs. the many other more neutral ways of describing the same thing.Just the other day was a discussion on the forums about feeling pressured to by family to eat certain foods at a family event, and the general consensus was that it's no one else's business what you put in your mouth. So if that's the case, then no one should be asking anyone to justify their choices or reasoning in eating the food they eat, the way they want to eat it.
Questioning the label "clean eating" has nothing to do with questioning how others eat, let along asking them to justify anything.
Indeed, if someone doesn't want to be questioned about how they eat and whether it's really as "clean" as they claim (since virtually everyone who insists that she doesn't eat 'processed' food does too), maybe it would make sense to not claim you eat "cleaner" than others.
Saying everyone that defines their way of eating is guaranteed to binge eat is going just a smidge beyond questioning the label itself, don't ya think?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
And now we start the debate on nutritional value and try to define things that make no sense. Like calling pizza junk food, but lasagna with very similar ingredients is not...kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
I don't think I've ever seen anyone who supports the concept of "clean" eating identify foods they don't eat as "dirty." I certainly don't. I call them "foods I avoid."
Like artificial colors. I don't buy foods with artificial colors, but when faced with a cake with artificial colors at a birthday party, I can certainly have one serving and get on with my life.
I agree with this. I'm pretty old and I've heard the term clean eating all my life. I can't remember ever hearing the term 'dirty eating' or 'dirty foods' until I joined this site.
Ditto. I've definitely only heard 'dirty eating' here, and I think only from people who are negative on the idea of 'clean eating.'
What you typically here from the "clean eaters" are terms like junk, garbage, poison, crap etc...
I see it a lot.
What's odd about people on a weight loss site wanting to reduce junk food, aka "food that has low nutritional value"?
Both pizza and lasagna are more cooking methods than recipes with set ingredients. Both could be poor nutritionally and both could be good nutritionally. Though I doubt either would often be described as "packaged snacks".
Which shows the shortcomings of trying to define such subjective terms, as the last time I questioned whether all pizza was "junk food" I was told that I was basically an idiot for doing so, because pizza was obviously "junk food."
For the record, I'm not much bothered by the term "junk food." I don't call what others are eating that unless I know they would, since I would perceive that as rude, but I'll refer to stuff I eat as such and think it's such a commonly used and understood term that most (off MFP anyway) wouldn't perceive it as having an insulting connotation. My preferred definition is "low nutrient and high calorie."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
I don't think I've ever seen anyone who supports the concept of "clean" eating identify foods they don't eat as "dirty." I certainly don't. I call them "foods I avoid."
Like artificial colors. I don't buy foods with artificial colors, but when faced with a cake with artificial colors at a birthday party, I can certainly have one serving and get on with my life.
I don't notice you using the term "clean eating" and wouldn't have classified you as a "clean eater."
However, if some foods are "clean" that means that some are "unclean" or "not clean." There's simply no way around it. It's a usage chosen to be insulting, period.
Not clean is not the same as dirty. Clean is just an adjective. While there certainly are some clean eaters with an air of superiority, insult is often how you choose to infer the term.
Which is more insulting? To say "I eat clean" or to say "Do your research, there are no clean foods."?0 -
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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
Well I guess according to you it's a good thing that I still eat pizza...some processed...fast food once in awhile.
Oh...and then there was this banana split that I had last week.
I don't got no list except for...cottage cheese...liver...boiled okra. I guess that means that I will binge on one of those...I am doomed.
You and I can binge on boiled okra together!
(I actually quite like liver and cottage cheese.)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I would suggest that the people who get argumentative about what someone else chooses to call their diet, or what foods they choose to include or exclude, are the ones with the issue.
I think discussions about word choice are totally valid and occasionally interesting ones. Why is this question off-limits when we are talking about a word used for a way of eating?
It's a choice to say "I eat clean" or "I don't eat unclean foods" vs. the many other more neutral ways of describing the same thing.Just the other day was a discussion on the forums about feeling pressured to by family to eat certain foods at a family event, and the general consensus was that it's no one else's business what you put in your mouth. So if that's the case, then no one should be asking anyone to justify their choices or reasoning in eating the food they eat, the way they want to eat it.
Questioning the label "clean eating" has nothing to do with questioning how others eat, let along asking them to justify anything.
Indeed, if someone doesn't want to be questioned about how they eat and whether it's really as "clean" as they claim (since virtually everyone who insists that she doesn't eat 'processed' food does too), maybe it would make sense to not claim you eat "cleaner" than others.
Saying everyone that defines their way of eating is guaranteed to binge eat is going just a smidge beyond questioning the label itself, don't ya think?
Yes, and I wouldn't do that (and don't think it's true).
kgeyser's comments were not limited to that.0 -
You are funny...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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
Well I guess according to you it's a good thing that I still eat pizza...some processed...fast food once in awhile.
Oh...and then there was this banana split that I had last week.
I don't got no list except for...cottage cheese...liver...boiled okra. I guess that means that I will binge on one of those...I am doomed.
I like cottage cheese and liver... not so much the boiled okra...
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I would suggest that the people who get argumentative about what someone else chooses to call their diet, or what foods they choose to include or exclude, are the ones with the issue.
I think discussions about word choice are totally valid and occasionally interesting ones. Why is this question off-limits when we are talking about a word used for a way of eating?
It's a choice to say "I eat clean" or "I don't eat unclean foods" vs. the many other more neutral ways of describing the same thing.Just the other day was a discussion on the forums about feeling pressured to by family to eat certain foods at a family event, and the general consensus was that it's no one else's business what you put in your mouth. So if that's the case, then no one should be asking anyone to justify their choices or reasoning in eating the food they eat, the way they want to eat it.
Questioning the label "clean eating" has nothing to do with questioning how others eat, let along asking them to justify anything.
Indeed, if someone doesn't want to be questioned about how they eat and whether it's really as "clean" as they claim (since virtually everyone who insists that she doesn't eat 'processed' food does too), maybe it would make sense to not claim you eat "cleaner" than others.
Who does this? I see people talking about their own experiences or asking questions. If when I say "I don't buy foods with artificial colors," you mentally add on a "and therefore I eat cleaner than you" or other things I didn't say, that's on you.
Lots of people workout more than I do. In fact, everyone who goes to the gym goes to the gym more than I do, because I don't currently have a gym membership. I don't hear them talk about their own workouts and mentally tack on a "and since you don't, you're lazy" which seems to be exactly the sort of thing you do when people talk about their own clean eating - you seem to think people who are talking about their own experiences are somehow making a value judgment about yours, which I just don't see happening.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
I don't think I've ever seen anyone who supports the concept of "clean" eating identify foods they don't eat as "dirty." I certainly don't. I call them "foods I avoid."
Like artificial colors. I don't buy foods with artificial colors, but when faced with a cake with artificial colors at a birthday party, I can certainly have one serving and get on with my life.
I don't notice you using the term "clean eating" and wouldn't have classified you as a "clean eater."
However, if some foods are "clean" that means that some are "unclean" or "not clean." There's simply no way around it. It's a usage chosen to be insulting, period.
Not clean is not the same as dirty.
I didn't mention "dirty." It certainly could mean that, though.Clean is just an adjective.
So is fat, pig-like, disgusting, ugly, etc. What does that have to do with anything?While there certainly are some clean eaters with an air of superiority, insult is often how you choose to infer the term.
When there are numerous ways to say what is typically meant that are both better at conveying what is actually meant -- people mean quite different things by "clean" and under some people's definitions I would be a "clean eater" and under others I would not, and same with everyone -- AND have the virtue of not being insulting of how others eat or being tainted with an inherent air of superiority, the choice to use this particular word is significant, IMO.Which is more insulting? To say "I eat clean" or to say "Do your research, there are no clean foods."?
Both are somewhat insulting.
For the record, I do not assume that people who use the term "clean" intend it as an insult. Most people don't think through their word choice that carefully. But the continued insistence on using the term after being aware of how others perceive it, and after being aware that it doesn't actually communicate well any particular way of eating (again, I fail to see how the typical "clean eater" eats much differently than I do), is what strikes me as being chosen to be insulting or to claim superiority. This has been crystalized by how often "clean eaters" have claimed that the rest of us eat mainly McD's and Twinkies.
Therefore, whereas I do not believe I am rude about it, I do think it's important to continue to explain my objection to the term and why I find it unhelpful and rather rude when the topic comes up.
I always answer whatever the question is too, especially if it's looking for food/cooking ideas or nutrition discussions, since I am quite interested in how people put together a healthy diet and try to myself.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »If when I say "I don't buy foods with artificial colors," you mentally add on a "and therefore I eat cleaner than you" or other things I didn't say, that's on you.
Um, like I said, I don't consider you a "clean eater."
I don't think giving factual information about your food choices says anything about your assumptions about others.
I think applying a label to your way of eating suggests that you are distinguishing it from how others eat. If the label is "clean" and is based on you not eating certain foods, then you ARE saying that people who eat those foods are less clean. For example, if I said -- and I never, ever would -- that I consider myself a "clean eater" because I get my meat and eggs from local farms, I would be implicitly also saying that eating meat and eggs from other sources was less clean or even "unclean."
It's unnecessary and rude.0 -
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?
You can eat "clean" (insert 1 gazillion different definitions/interpretations) and still gain weight or not lose weight...eating clean or not really has nothing to do with weight management. If you eat in a surplus of energy, even if it's "clean", you will gain weight.
I eat what I consider to be a pretty "clean" diet...I"m most definitely a whole foods/minimally processed foods advocate and most of what I eat is prepared from such ingredients. During the winter I was eating roughly 3,200 calories per day of this "clean" food...guess what? I gained weight (deliberately). During the spring I ate around 2300 calories per day of this "clean" food...guess what? Lost weight. The difference wasn't the composition of my diet, it was my energy consumption.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
Well I guess according to you it's a good thing that I still eat pizza...some processed...fast food once in awhile.
Oh...and then there was this banana split that I had last week.
I don't got no list except for...cottage cheese...liver...boiled okra. I guess that means that I will binge on one of those...I am doomed.
You and I can binge on boiled okra together!
(I actually quite like liver and cottage cheese.)
Well since you eat cottage cheese and liver...I will be nice but that boiled okra is..."dirty"!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
I don't think I've ever seen anyone who supports the concept of "clean" eating identify foods they don't eat as "dirty." I certainly don't. I call them "foods I avoid."
Like artificial colors. I don't buy foods with artificial colors, but when faced with a cake with artificial colors at a birthday party, I can certainly have one serving and get on with my life.
I don't notice you using the term "clean eating" and wouldn't have classified you as a "clean eater."
However, if some foods are "clean" that means that some are "unclean" or "not clean." There's simply no way around it. It's a usage chosen to be insulting, period.
Not clean is not the same as dirty.
I didn't mention "dirty." It certainly could mean that, though.Clean is just an adjective.
So is fat, pig-like, disgusting, ugly, etc. What does that have to do with anything?While there certainly are some clean eaters with an air of superiority, insult is often how you choose to infer the term.
When there are numerous ways to say what is typically meant that are both better at conveying what is actually meant -- people mean quite different things by "clean" and under some people's definitions I would be a "clean eater" and under others I would not, and same with everyone -- AND have the virtue of not being insulting of how others eat or being tainted with an inherent air of superiority, the choice to use this particular word is significant, IMO.Which is more insulting? To say "I eat clean" or to say "Do your research, there are no clean foods."?
Both are somewhat insulting.
For the record, I do not assume that people who use the term "clean" intend it as an insult. Most people don't think through their word choice that carefully. But the continued insistence on using the term after being aware of how others perceive it, and after being aware that it doesn't actually communicate well any particular way of eating (again, I fail to see how the typical "clean eater" eats much differently than I do), is what strikes me as being chosen to be insulting or to claim superiority. This has been crystalized by how often "clean eaters" have claimed that the rest of us eat mainly McD's and Twinkies.
Therefore, whereas I do not believe I am rude about it, I do think it's important to continue to explain my objection to the term and why I find it unhelpful and rather rude when the topic comes up.
I always answer whatever the question is too, especially if it's looking for food/cooking ideas or nutrition discussions, since I am quite interested in how people put together a healthy diet and try to myself.
Are you seriously suggesting that if you don't like a term others shouldn't use it, and if they do it's an obvious insult to you?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
Well I guess according to you it's a good thing that I still eat pizza...some processed...fast food once in awhile.
Oh...and then there was this banana split that I had last week.
I don't got no list except for...cottage cheese...liver...boiled okra. I guess that means that I will binge on one of those...I am doomed.
You and I can binge on boiled okra together!
(I actually quite like liver and cottage cheese.)
Well since you eat cottage cheese and liver...I will be nice but that boiled okra is..."dirty"!
Boiled okra is divine in gumbo.0 -
Okay, let me try to state my issue with the term "clean eating" as neutrally as possible and I really am interested in the responses to this from those who disagree.
Some of you claim that "clean eating" is a term you were familiar with pre MFP. I wasn't, except in the paleo context (meaning eating paleo vs. not -- eating grains would be "not clean" in that context). Upon further understanding, it seems hopelessly ambiguous -- women's magazines and bodybuilding seems to use it for eating healthy, lots of fruits and veggies, no sweets, mainly protein and veg, a variety of things like that. Other more countercultural (hippy, woo, whatever) approaches seem to use it to mean organic or no additives. Some on MFP use it to mean not as much fast food as I used to eat.
So when people say "I am looking for clean eaters," what are they looking for? Just people who like to call themselves clean eaters? Or are they looking for people who have common interests and want to talk about stuff like "ideas to use this new vegetable I haven't cooked yet"? I like to assume the latter and as such I assume I might be someone the person is interested in talking to, and I am interested in talking to people who share my interests in nutrition and cooking and seasonal produce and stuff like that.
But if what they really want are people who self-define as "clean eaters," there doesn't seem to be any actual commonality or reason to seek out those folks EXCEPT as a way of distinguishing yourself from others, and, yes, making a claim about you being "cleaner" than others.
Choosing a different term or being clearer about what is meant would be less exclusionary and allow for better discussions. Do people really think those in the "clean eating" group are the only ones with interesting things to say about cooking a chicken or the like? I suspect not.
As for weight loss, I gained weight during my most extreme "all natural, all the time" phase and I simply don't see why giving up processed foods like plain greek yogurt and store-bought smoked salmon, etc. would be helpful in losing weight whereas obviously a less processed food like, well, a whole chicken has more calories than it's processed counterpart the skinless, boneless chicken breast. (I'm always going to prefer the whole chicken, though--I just won't pretend it's for any reason but taste.)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
I don't think I've ever seen anyone who supports the concept of "clean" eating identify foods they don't eat as "dirty." I certainly don't. I call them "foods I avoid."
Like artificial colors. I don't buy foods with artificial colors, but when faced with a cake with artificial colors at a birthday party, I can certainly have one serving and get on with my life.
I don't notice you using the term "clean eating" and wouldn't have classified you as a "clean eater."
However, if some foods are "clean" that means that some are "unclean" or "not clean." There's simply no way around it. It's a usage chosen to be insulting, period.
Not clean is not the same as dirty.
I didn't mention "dirty." It certainly could mean that, though.Clean is just an adjective.
So is fat, pig-like, disgusting, ugly, etc. What does that have to do with anything?While there certainly are some clean eaters with an air of superiority, insult is often how you choose to infer the term.
When there are numerous ways to say what is typically meant that are both better at conveying what is actually meant -- people mean quite different things by "clean" and under some people's definitions I would be a "clean eater" and under others I would not, and same with everyone -- AND have the virtue of not being insulting of how others eat or being tainted with an inherent air of superiority, the choice to use this particular word is significant, IMO.Which is more insulting? To say "I eat clean" or to say "Do your research, there are no clean foods."?
Both are somewhat insulting.
For the record, I do not assume that people who use the term "clean" intend it as an insult. Most people don't think through their word choice that carefully. But the continued insistence on using the term after being aware of how others perceive it, and after being aware that it doesn't actually communicate well any particular way of eating (again, I fail to see how the typical "clean eater" eats much differently than I do), is what strikes me as being chosen to be insulting or to claim superiority. This has been crystalized by how often "clean eaters" have claimed that the rest of us eat mainly McD's and Twinkies.
Therefore, whereas I do not believe I am rude about it, I do think it's important to continue to explain my objection to the term and why I find it unhelpful and rather rude when the topic comes up.
I always answer whatever the question is too, especially if it's looking for food/cooking ideas or nutrition discussions, since I am quite interested in how people put together a healthy diet and try to myself.
Are you seriously suggesting that if you don't like a term others shouldn't use it, and if they do it's an obvious insult to you?
Nope. I have never suggested that others should take my advice in the words they choose. And it's not really about me (the people using the term would usually call my diet "clean") -- it's more of a general principle.
IMO, if you use a word that has no particular communication advantages and that does have negative, insulting connotations after being aware of this (i.e., not "I never thought about the derivation of X"), then I think that's relevant when considering why the person chooses to use the term.
(I don't bother commenting on the term outside of discussions of it in threads about it. If a friend says "I'm trying to eat clean" I might sigh inwardly, but I don't bother questioning it. But if you make it a topic of discussion or start with the premise that there's a "clean eating" thing that is distinguishable from how others eat, then yeah I am interested in what it's supposed to be and why the word choice, etc.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
Well I guess according to you it's a good thing that I still eat pizza...some processed...fast food once in awhile.
Oh...and then there was this banana split that I had last week.
I don't got no list except for...cottage cheese...liver...boiled okra. I guess that means that I will binge on one of those...I am doomed.
You and I can binge on boiled okra together!
(I actually quite like liver and cottage cheese.)
Well since you eat cottage cheese and liver...I will be nice but that boiled okra is..."dirty"!
I prefer "slimy." Not "clean," however! ;-)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Oddly enough in my experience it is the opposite. The people who give their diets names like clean, paleo, south beach etc are the ones who have the issue. They can not control themselves around what you would call "dirty" foods so they choose diets that eliminates them altogether. That way, the thinking is taken out of the equation. The food is on the bad list so I don't eat it. If that is what you require to succeed then great! You have found what works for you. But make no mistake, it's not the food that is the problem, it is your inability to just have a serving, and go on with your life...
Well I guess according to you it's a good thing that I still eat pizza...some processed...fast food once in awhile.
Oh...and then there was this banana split that I had last week.
I don't got no list except for...cottage cheese...liver...boiled okra. I guess that means that I will binge on one of those...I am doomed.
You and I can binge on boiled okra together!
(I actually quite like liver and cottage cheese.)
Well since you eat cottage cheese and liver...I will be nice but that boiled okra is..."dirty"!
Boiled okra is divine in gumbo.
Yeah, the one exception.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Okay, let me try to state my issue with the term "clean eating" as neutrally as possible and I really am interested in the responses to this from those who disagree.
Some of you claim that "clean eating" is a term you were familiar with pre MFP. I wasn't, except in the paleo context (meaning eating paleo vs. not -- eating grains would be "not clean" in that context). Upon further understanding, it seems hopelessly ambiguous -- women's magazines and bodybuilding seems to use it for eating healthy, lots of fruits and veggies, no sweets, mainly protein and veg, a variety of things like that. Other more countercultural (hippy, woo, whatever) approaches seem to use it to mean organic or no additives. Some on MFP use it to mean not as much fast food as I used to eat.
So when people say "I am looking for clean eaters," what are they looking for? Just people who like to call themselves clean eaters? Or are they looking for people who have common interests and want to talk about stuff like "ideas to use this new vegetable I haven't cooked yet"? I like to assume the latter and as such I assume I might be someone the person is interested in talking to, and I am interested in talking to people who share my interests in nutrition and cooking and seasonal produce and stuff like that.
But if what they really want are people who self-define as "clean eaters," there doesn't seem to be any actual commonality or reason to seek out those folks EXCEPT as a way of distinguishing yourself from others, and, yes, making a claim about you being "cleaner" than others.
Choosing a different term or being clearer about what is meant would be less exclusionary and allow for better discussions. Do people really think those in the "clean eating" group are the only ones with interesting things to say about cooking a chicken or the like? I suspect not.
As for weight loss, I gained weight during my most extreme "all natural, all the time" phase and I simply don't see why giving up processed foods like plain greek yogurt and store-bought smoked salmon, etc. would be helpful in losing weight whereas obviously a less processed food like, well, a whole chicken has more calories than it's processed counterpart the skinless, boneless chicken breast. (I'm always going to prefer the whole chicken, though--I just won't pretend it's for any reason but taste.)
Just like most terms related to diet or weight control - paleo, low carb, low fat, IIFYM, etc. - clean eating can indeed have many definitions. But, like those other terms, there are also many commonalities. When people say they are looking for other clean eaters with which to become friends or share info I don't see why it would be viewed as an insult any more than someone else asking for friends of a certain age or sex or who share a medical condition or follow low carb or low fat or IIFYM or paleo or any other method of eating. I imagine if they find their definition is very different from another person they will simply unfriend them or leave their group.
It's common for people to like to share experiences with others with whom they feel they have something in common. Just as it's common for other people to like to meet others who are very different from them.
This is why MFP has both open forums and forum groups. Different strokes for different folks. It's not insulting. It's just personal preferences and differences.
I've known many people who say they eat clean or eat clean most of the time (I often say the latter). I know more or less what they mean. The fact that one would not consider oatmeal clean and the other would seems inconsequential to me.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