clean eating
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I researched the definition of clean...yea I know...I need a life. One definition of clean was...free from contaminants. Would that better fit "clean eating" say from "non-processed"?
See, this definition - free from contaminants - is more in line with what I've always known "clean eating" to mean. Processing wasn't so much a factor as additives. An apple is clean, even if you chop it and cook it. Even if you add natural sugar to it and cook it. But a can of cooked apples with added perservatives would not be clean. It's been "contaminated" by the additives.
Would added preservatives be an actual contaminant?
Contaminant
"Something that makes a place or a substance (such as water, air, or food) no longer suitable for use : something that contaminates a place or substance"
Maybe (depending on the person) it could be considered not preferable, but contaminated?
Depends on what you deem suitable. Not suitable doesn't have to mean deadly or poisonous or even harmful. If you put dirt in my water I'd deem it not suitable for drinking, though it probably wouldn't hurt me to do so.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I just love how sensitive some people are to how their diet choice is perceived! It's pure butthurt!
I choose low carb because it's a tool that works for me and suits my food choices so for me is more sustainable than moderation!
But when someone tells me they are eating clean, or eating in moderation, or veggie or vegan, I just think good on ya! Not for one moment do I have insecurity in my own diet choice to think that someone else thinks their choice is more superior or if they do think that, so what????
If the term clean eating is helping people make healthier choices in the food they eat - that's a good thing isn't it?
Yea, this has basically already been addressed, no problem with people choosing vegan, veggie, keto, low carb, whatever. The problem is labeling a diet as clean, or foods as clean because it implies all other foods not included in their diet are unclean or dirty, and that is just ignorant and factually inaccurate on it's face. Many people don't realize how important context is in a diet. Without a context, foods cannot be judged.
What does it matter? If labeling foods in this way helps people make better and healthier decisions to maybe what they were previously eating how is that a problem?
If watching what they eat and eating less 'junk food' possibly gets them eating less calories or focuses them more on there micro nutritional intake - good on em!
Maybe if we were all happy with our food choices, we would be less sensitive to peoples analysis of them!
What does it matter? Because it's factually incorrect. If you're trying to argue that walking around spewing factually incorrect things is totally fine, then I honestly don't know how to respond to you. Clean is a concrete term and has a definition: "free from dirt, marks, or stains". If you refer to a type of eating as clean eating, that would mean that you only eat food that isn't dirty, has marks, or is stained. I'm all for that type of eating and I do it every day.
The problem with labeling foods as clean and dirty is, first it's just factually inaccurate. Second, when you label foods as dirty, by extension how can you not look down upon, or feel a false sense of pity for people willing to eat the food you've labeled as dirty? I don't see how you can't, and I've seen examples of that countless times with the attitude of superiority from clean eaters. I've even had a clean eater ask me how I can eat certain foods and still respect myself and my body. It's unreal honestly.
But again, I don't think many people who label their diet "clean" label other diets or food "dirty". That is most often an extrapolation by those who don't like the term "clean eating".
Can something be not clean but also not dirty?
Sure. It could be immoral.
Or just "less clean".
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I researched the definition of clean...yea I know...I need a life. One definition of clean was...free from contaminants. Would that better fit "clean eating" say from "non-processed"?
See, this definition - free from contaminants - is more in line with what I've always known "clean eating" to mean. Processing wasn't so much a factor as additives. An apple is clean, even if you chop it and cook it. Even if you add natural sugar to it and cook it. But a can of cooked apples with added perservatives would not be clean. It's been "contaminated" by the additives.
Would added preservatives be an actual contaminant?
Contaminant
"Something that makes a place or a substance (such as water, air, or food) no longer suitable for use : something that contaminates a place or substance"
Maybe (depending on the person) it could be considered not preferable, but contaminated?
Depends on what you deem suitable. Not suitable doesn't have to mean deadly or poisonous or even harmful. If you put dirt in my water I'd deem it not suitable for drinking, though it probably wouldn't hurt me to do so.
If there was dirt in my water, and I was about to pass out from dehydration, it would be suitable. Probably is not preferable, but suitable all the same.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I just love how sensitive some people are to how their diet choice is perceived! It's pure butthurt!
I choose low carb because it's a tool that works for me and suits my food choices so for me is more sustainable than moderation!
But when someone tells me they are eating clean, or eating in moderation, or veggie or vegan, I just think good on ya! Not for one moment do I have insecurity in my own diet choice to think that someone else thinks their choice is more superior or if they do think that, so what????
If the term clean eating is helping people make healthier choices in the food they eat - that's a good thing isn't it?
Yea, this has basically already been addressed, no problem with people choosing vegan, veggie, keto, low carb, whatever. The problem is labeling a diet as clean, or foods as clean because it implies all other foods not included in their diet are unclean or dirty, and that is just ignorant and factually inaccurate on it's face. Many people don't realize how important context is in a diet. Without a context, foods cannot be judged.
What does it matter? If labeling foods in this way helps people make better and healthier decisions to maybe what they were previously eating how is that a problem?
If watching what they eat and eating less 'junk food' possibly gets them eating less calories or focuses them more on there micro nutritional intake - good on em!
Maybe if we were all happy with our food choices, we would be less sensitive to peoples analysis of them!
What does it matter? Because it's factually incorrect. If you're trying to argue that walking around spewing factually incorrect things is totally fine, then I honestly don't know how to respond to you. Clean is a concrete term and has a definition: "free from dirt, marks, or stains". If you refer to a type of eating as clean eating, that would mean that you only eat food that isn't dirty, has marks, or is stained. I'm all for that type of eating and I do it every day.
The problem with labeling foods as clean and dirty is, first it's just factually inaccurate. Second, when you label foods as dirty, by extension how can you not look down upon, or feel a false sense of pity for people willing to eat the food you've labeled as dirty? I don't see how you can't, and I've seen examples of that countless times with the attitude of superiority from clean eaters. I've even had a clean eater ask me how I can eat certain foods and still respect myself and my body. It's unreal honestly.
But again, I don't think many people who label their diet "clean" label other diets or food "dirty". That is most often an extrapolation by those who don't like the term "clean eating".
Can something be not clean but also not dirty?
I used to believe so, about my house, but my Mother In Law (RIP) told me I was wrong. "Just because you call your house "not clean but not dirty" doesn't make it true. If it isn't clean, it is dirty".
She was very much like Marie Barone on Everybody Loves Raymond. I sure miss her nagging me about my cleaning now....
0 -
Here is one food that I choose to eliminate. I don't view it has healthy/unhealthy/clean/dirty. I like them actually. I just don't think that they are worth the calorie count. There are many other foods that will be more filling that these things are.
I would eat two packages for a total of 620 calories plus a serving of chips for 160. That meal was 780 calories for not much food. I think that I can do better.
I am not sad about it.0 -
Here is one food that I choose to eliminate. I don't view it has healthy/unhealthy/clean/dirty. I like them actually. I just don't think that they are worth the calorie count. There are many other foods that will be more filling that these things are.
I would eat two packages for a total of 620 calories plus a serving of chips for 160. That meal was 780 calories for not much food. I think that I can do better.
I am not sad about it.
What's not worth the calories is a burger king XL double cheese burger (with bacon) and small fries 1337 cals.
The burger clings to your throat on the way down.
0 -
Here is one food that I choose to eliminate. I don't view it has healthy/unhealthy/clean/dirty. I like them actually. I just don't think that they are worth the calorie count. There are many other foods that will be more filling that these things are.
I would eat two packages for a total of 620 calories plus a serving of chips for 160. That meal was 780 calories for not much food. I think that I can do better.
I am not sad about it.
4 cheeseburgers + chips? That's a feast! Not enough protein for me though.0 -
lol at all the comments about preservatives being not 'clean'. Do some research... despite all the long chemical names, most preservatives are just salt.0
-
Here is one food that I choose to eliminate. I don't view it has healthy/unhealthy/clean/dirty. I like them actually. I just don't think that they are worth the calorie count. There are many other foods that will be more filling that these things are.
I don't personally care if people eliminate things, but I also don't consider deciding it's not worth the calorie count to be eliminating them. For example, I used to get lunch at a place called Potbelly's and get a turkey sandwich (my preferred one is about 300 calories) and an oatmeal chocolate chip cookie (420 calories). I like the cookies, but don't get them anymore, because they never seem worth trying to fit in my day.
I haven't eliminated them, though, because it's not impossible I might decide they are worth it some day. I haven't cut them out of my diet; I simply never eat them.
Or a different kind of example, I don't really like most fast food, so I don't eat it. But I haven't eliminated it; not eating something you don't care for isn't elimination in my mind.
To me elimination means you really really want something but don't eat it because you have a personal rule that it's bad for you or off-limits. Often people who say they've cut something out also say they don't want it anymore, and to me that's like me not eating fast food or (except in gumbo) okra. If you really don't want it, why bother cutting it out? You won't eat it anyway.0 -
Not worth it is comparative think, not directly restrictive thinking. There is a difference. What you're doing is saying I have other positive desires to meet. Saying you can't eat it because it is forbidden, too glycemic (if you don't have diabetes), has gluten (and you're not celiac), it is dirty, or it is processed is problematic.Here is one food that I choose to eliminate. I don't view it has healthy/unhealthy/clean/dirty. I like them actually. I just don't think that they are worth the calorie count. There are many other foods that will be more filling that these things are.
I would eat two packages for a total of 620 calories plus a serving of chips for 160. That meal was 780 calories for not much food. I think that I can do better.
I am not sad about it.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Here is one food that I choose to eliminate. I don't view it has healthy/unhealthy/clean/dirty. I like them actually. I just don't think that they are worth the calorie count. There are many other foods that will be more filling that these things are.
I would eat two packages for a total of 620 calories plus a serving of chips for 160. That meal was 780 calories for not much food. I think that I can do better.
I am not sad about it.
4 cheeseburgers + chips? That's a feast! Not enough protein for me though.
You do realize that they are so small that they are only about 4 bites each?
At the end of that meal I was thinking...what's next?
0 -
This is where I think at times the conversations become garbled somewhat...we each have our own usage of words.
This is how I view the definition of elimination..." the act or process of excluding or getting rid of " according to Webster.
That is what I did with those burgers...excluded...got rid of from my diet.0 -
Did we just go from "food that isn't clean doesn't mean it's dirty" to "food that isn't clean is contaminated"?0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I researched the definition of clean...yea I know...I need a life. One definition of clean was...free from contaminants. Would that better fit "clean eating" say from "non-processed"?
See, this definition - free from contaminants - is more in line with what I've always known "clean eating" to mean. Processing wasn't so much a factor as additives. An apple is clean, even if you chop it and cook it. Even if you add natural sugar to it and cook it. But a can of cooked apples with added perservatives would not be clean. It's been "contaminated" by the additives.
Would added preservatives be an actual contaminant?
Contaminant
"Something that makes a place or a substance (such as water, air, or food) no longer suitable for use : something that contaminates a place or substance"
Maybe (depending on the person) it could be considered not preferable, but contaminated?
Depends on what you deem suitable. Not suitable doesn't have to mean deadly or poisonous or even harmful. If you put dirt in my water I'd deem it not suitable for drinking, though it probably wouldn't hurt me to do so.
If there was dirt in my water, and I was about to pass out from dehydration, it would be suitable. Probably is not preferable, but suitable all the same.
Well, yeah sure. I'm sure I'd drink urine rather than pass out from dehydration. But generally, I deem urine not suitable for drinking.0 -
Did we just go from "food that isn't clean doesn't mean it's dirty" to "food that isn't clean is contaminated"?
Yep. I mean that's closer to the definition I'm familiar with. Not that it's necessarily harmful, just that it's been comtaminated with some type of additive. Processing also can affect how clean a food is, but additives are the biggy.0 -
LMAO!!!Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I researched the definition of clean...yea I know...I need a life. One definition of clean was...free from contaminants. Would that better fit "clean eating" say from "non-processed"?
See, this definition - free from contaminants - is more in line with what I've always known "clean eating" to mean. Processing wasn't so much a factor as additives. An apple is clean, even if you chop it and cook it. Even if you add natural sugar to it and cook it. But a can of cooked apples with added perservatives would not be clean. It's been "contaminated" by the additives.
Would added preservatives be an actual contaminant?
Contaminant
"Something that makes a place or a substance (such as water, air, or food) no longer suitable for use : something that contaminates a place or substance"
Maybe (depending on the person) it could be considered not preferable, but contaminated?
Depends on what you deem suitable. Not suitable doesn't have to mean deadly or poisonous or even harmful. If you put dirt in my water I'd deem it not suitable for drinking, though it probably wouldn't hurt me to do so.
If there was dirt in my water, and I was about to pass out from dehydration, it would be suitable. Probably is not preferable, but suitable all the same.
Well, yeah sure. I'm sure I'd drink urine rather than pass out from dehydration. But generally, I deem urine not suitable for drinking.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I researched the definition of clean...yea I know...I need a life. One definition of clean was...free from contaminants. Would that better fit "clean eating" say from "non-processed"?
See, this definition - free from contaminants - is more in line with what I've always known "clean eating" to mean. Processing wasn't so much a factor as additives. An apple is clean, even if you chop it and cook it. Even if you add natural sugar to it and cook it. But a can of cooked apples with added perservatives would not be clean. It's been "contaminated" by the additives.
Would added preservatives be an actual contaminant?
Contaminant
"Something that makes a place or a substance (such as water, air, or food) no longer suitable for use : something that contaminates a place or substance"
Maybe (depending on the person) it could be considered not preferable, but contaminated?
Depends on what you deem suitable. Not suitable doesn't have to mean deadly or poisonous or even harmful. If you put dirt in my water I'd deem it not suitable for drinking, though it probably wouldn't hurt me to do so.
If there was dirt in my water, and I was about to pass out from dehydration, it would be suitable. Probably is not preferable, but suitable all the same.
Well, yeah sure. I'm sure I'd drink urine rather than pass out from dehydration. But generally, I deem urine not suitable for drinking.
I think there are videos online that start with this scenario...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
I never said I think that, but for some people I imagine it probably is beneficial. Allergies, obviously. But, it could also be beneficial to cut trigger foods (foods that you just can't seem to stop eating once you start) from your diet. Even if you do eventually cave and binge on them, it's got to be better than doing it on a regular basis.
And then there are foods that you might cut simply because you don't think they are worth the calories. I stopped eating fast food years ago. In the past couple of decades I've had fast food maybe 2-3 times when traveling and it was all that was available. I can't even remember the last time I ate it.
Limiting foods from your diet, and removing foods from your diet are two different things. I think that largely removing foods from a diet because one thinks they are unhealthy is an unhealthy attitude to have. I can definitely agree with you that something needs to be done about trigger foods, but attempting to completely remove them from your diet is the wrong move. That doesn't address the main issue, but I guess people deal with things in their own way.
If I understand your post...
If I choose to eliminate a food instead of moderating the consumption of that food that I must have other issues that need to be dealt with?
Why is it the wrong move to eliminate a food if I so choose to?
Why do you believe that everyone has to moderate every food?
To be honest...I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently. I didn't eliminate them because I passed some judgment that they were "unclean" or even "unhealthy". I eliminated them because quite honestly they didn't fit what I wanted as an eating plan...one that I believe will work for me long term.
According to your post though this surely must indicate that I have issues that need to be dealt with.
Long story short...
What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
So at the minimum there's a straw man fallacy in your argument, maybe even a non sequitur.
Apparently you don't understand my post.
I said that largely eliminating foods from your diet on a permanent basis is unhealthy. Temporary limiting foods can be a useful tool, especially while cutting on a small calorie intake. There are plenty of examples of foods that I severely limit in my diet but don't eliminate, and by severely limit, I mean I'll eat it once every two or three months because it's a delicious, large, calorie dense treat, but there's no need to completely eliminate it from my diet on a permanent basis for the rest of my life.
Why do I believe that everyone has to moderate every food? I never said that, you implied that, and that's a misrepresentation.
So there are foods that you believe will never fit in your eating plan again for the rest of your life? That sounds like a rigid eating plan, and sounds rather sad to be honest.What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
Oh wait, there's one more! This is a false dichotomy. That's 3 logical fallacies in one post, that's pretty impressive. No that's not what I said at all, already explained it.
First line of my post...
If I understand your post...
A simple "no you didn't understand what I was saying" or "no that is not what I meant at all".
Next thing that I said in my post...
I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently.
Notice the bold...never said anything about believing that I would never fit them back in.
Exactly, you said "maybe permanently. There's no reason to ever permanently eliminate foods from your diet that you enjoy, sure you can severely limit them, but there's no reason to eliminate them. When you say "maybe permanently" that means there's a possibility that you will never fit them back in, so you did say that.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I just love how sensitive some people are to how their diet choice is perceived! It's pure butthurt!
I choose low carb because it's a tool that works for me and suits my food choices so for me is more sustainable than moderation!
But when someone tells me they are eating clean, or eating in moderation, or veggie or vegan, I just think good on ya! Not for one moment do I have insecurity in my own diet choice to think that someone else thinks their choice is more superior or if they do think that, so what????
If the term clean eating is helping people make healthier choices in the food they eat - that's a good thing isn't it?
Yea, this has basically already been addressed, no problem with people choosing vegan, veggie, keto, low carb, whatever. The problem is labeling a diet as clean, or foods as clean because it implies all other foods not included in their diet are unclean or dirty, and that is just ignorant and factually inaccurate on it's face. Many people don't realize how important context is in a diet. Without a context, foods cannot be judged.
What does it matter? If labeling foods in this way helps people make better and healthier decisions to maybe what they were previously eating how is that a problem?
If watching what they eat and eating less 'junk food' possibly gets them eating less calories or focuses them more on there micro nutritional intake - good on em!
Maybe if we were all happy with our food choices, we would be less sensitive to peoples analysis of them!
What does it matter? Because it's factually incorrect. If you're trying to argue that walking around spewing factually incorrect things is totally fine, then I honestly don't know how to respond to you. Clean is a concrete term and has a definition: "free from dirt, marks, or stains". If you refer to a type of eating as clean eating, that would mean that you only eat food that isn't dirty, has marks, or is stained. I'm all for that type of eating and I do it every day.
The problem with labeling foods as clean and dirty is, first it's just factually inaccurate. Second, when you label foods as dirty, by extension how can you not look down upon, or feel a false sense of pity for people willing to eat the food you've labeled as dirty? I don't see how you can't, and I've seen examples of that countless times with the attitude of superiority from clean eaters. I've even had a clean eater ask me how I can eat certain foods and still respect myself and my body. It's unreal honestly.
But again, I don't think many people who label their diet "clean" label other diets or food "dirty". That is most often an extrapolation by those who don't like the term "clean eating".
They may not specifically label foods dirty, but they do label foods as "not clean" which is exactly the same thing. "Oh I can't eat donuts because they're not clean and I only eat clean". There's not really a difference.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I just love how sensitive some people are to how their diet choice is perceived! It's pure butthurt!
I choose low carb because it's a tool that works for me and suits my food choices so for me is more sustainable than moderation!
But when someone tells me they are eating clean, or eating in moderation, or veggie or vegan, I just think good on ya! Not for one moment do I have insecurity in my own diet choice to think that someone else thinks their choice is more superior or if they do think that, so what????
If the term clean eating is helping people make healthier choices in the food they eat - that's a good thing isn't it?
Yea, this has basically already been addressed, no problem with people choosing vegan, veggie, keto, low carb, whatever. The problem is labeling a diet as clean, or foods as clean because it implies all other foods not included in their diet are unclean or dirty, and that is just ignorant and factually inaccurate on it's face. Many people don't realize how important context is in a diet. Without a context, foods cannot be judged.
What does it matter? If labeling foods in this way helps people make better and healthier decisions to maybe what they were previously eating how is that a problem?
If watching what they eat and eating less 'junk food' possibly gets them eating less calories or focuses them more on there micro nutritional intake - good on em!
Maybe if we were all happy with our food choices, we would be less sensitive to peoples analysis of them!
What does it matter? Because it's factually incorrect. If you're trying to argue that walking around spewing factually incorrect things is totally fine, then I honestly don't know how to respond to you. Clean is a concrete term and has a definition: "free from dirt, marks, or stains". If you refer to a type of eating as clean eating, that would mean that you only eat food that isn't dirty, has marks, or is stained. I'm all for that type of eating and I do it every day.
The problem with labeling foods as clean and dirty is, first it's just factually inaccurate. Second, when you label foods as dirty, by extension how can you not look down upon, or feel a false sense of pity for people willing to eat the food you've labeled as dirty? I don't see how you can't, and I've seen examples of that countless times with the attitude of superiority from clean eaters. I've even had a clean eater ask me how I can eat certain foods and still respect myself and my body. It's unreal honestly.
But again, I don't think many people who label their diet "clean" label other diets or food "dirty". That is most often an extrapolation by those who don't like the term "clean eating".
They may not specifically label foods dirty, but they do label foods as "not clean" which is exactly the same thing. "Oh I can't eat donuts because they're not clean and I only eat clean". There's not really a difference.
Perhaps not, other then personal inference.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
I never said I think that, but for some people I imagine it probably is beneficial. Allergies, obviously. But, it could also be beneficial to cut trigger foods (foods that you just can't seem to stop eating once you start) from your diet. Even if you do eventually cave and binge on them, it's got to be better than doing it on a regular basis.
And then there are foods that you might cut simply because you don't think they are worth the calories. I stopped eating fast food years ago. In the past couple of decades I've had fast food maybe 2-3 times when traveling and it was all that was available. I can't even remember the last time I ate it.
Limiting foods from your diet, and removing foods from your diet are two different things. I think that largely removing foods from a diet because one thinks they are unhealthy is an unhealthy attitude to have. I can definitely agree with you that something needs to be done about trigger foods, but attempting to completely remove them from your diet is the wrong move. That doesn't address the main issue, but I guess people deal with things in their own way.
If I understand your post...
If I choose to eliminate a food instead of moderating the consumption of that food that I must have other issues that need to be dealt with?
Why is it the wrong move to eliminate a food if I so choose to?
Why do you believe that everyone has to moderate every food?
To be honest...I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently. I didn't eliminate them because I passed some judgment that they were "unclean" or even "unhealthy". I eliminated them because quite honestly they didn't fit what I wanted as an eating plan...one that I believe will work for me long term.
According to your post though this surely must indicate that I have issues that need to be dealt with.
Long story short...
What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
So at the minimum there's a straw man fallacy in your argument, maybe even a non sequitur.
Apparently you don't understand my post.
I said that largely eliminating foods from your diet on a permanent basis is unhealthy. Temporary limiting foods can be a useful tool, especially while cutting on a small calorie intake. There are plenty of examples of foods that I severely limit in my diet but don't eliminate, and by severely limit, I mean I'll eat it once every two or three months because it's a delicious, large, calorie dense treat, but there's no need to completely eliminate it from my diet on a permanent basis for the rest of my life.
Why do I believe that everyone has to moderate every food? I never said that, you implied that, and that's a misrepresentation.
So there are foods that you believe will never fit in your eating plan again for the rest of your life? That sounds like a rigid eating plan, and sounds rather sad to be honest.What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
Oh wait, there's one more! This is a false dichotomy. That's 3 logical fallacies in one post, that's pretty impressive. No that's not what I said at all, already explained it.
First line of my post...
If I understand your post...
A simple "no you didn't understand what I was saying" or "no that is not what I meant at all".
Next thing that I said in my post...
I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently.
Notice the bold...never said anything about believing that I would never fit them back in.
Exactly, you said "maybe permanently. There's no reason to ever permanently eliminate foods from your diet that you enjoy, sure you can severely limit them, but there's no reason to eliminate them. When you say "maybe permanently" that means there's a possibility that you will never fit them back in, so you did say that.
No reason? Personal choice isn't good enough?0 -
That poster doesn't need a reason. Their diet doesn't have to be justified and it's okay if you don't like their diet.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
I never said I think that, but for some people I imagine it probably is beneficial. Allergies, obviously. But, it could also be beneficial to cut trigger foods (foods that you just can't seem to stop eating once you start) from your diet. Even if you do eventually cave and binge on them, it's got to be better than doing it on a regular basis.
And then there are foods that you might cut simply because you don't think they are worth the calories. I stopped eating fast food years ago. In the past couple of decades I've had fast food maybe 2-3 times when traveling and it was all that was available. I can't even remember the last time I ate it.
Limiting foods from your diet, and removing foods from your diet are two different things. I think that largely removing foods from a diet because one thinks they are unhealthy is an unhealthy attitude to have. I can definitely agree with you that something needs to be done about trigger foods, but attempting to completely remove them from your diet is the wrong move. That doesn't address the main issue, but I guess people deal with things in their own way.
If I understand your post...
If I choose to eliminate a food instead of moderating the consumption of that food that I must have other issues that need to be dealt with?
Why is it the wrong move to eliminate a food if I so choose to?
Why do you believe that everyone has to moderate every food?
To be honest...I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently. I didn't eliminate them because I passed some judgment that they were "unclean" or even "unhealthy". I eliminated them because quite honestly they didn't fit what I wanted as an eating plan...one that I believe will work for me long term.
According to your post though this surely must indicate that I have issues that need to be dealt with.
Long story short...
What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
So at the minimum there's a straw man fallacy in your argument, maybe even a non sequitur.
Apparently you don't understand my post.
I said that largely eliminating foods from your diet on a permanent basis is unhealthy. Temporary limiting foods can be a useful tool, especially while cutting on a small calorie intake. There are plenty of examples of foods that I severely limit in my diet but don't eliminate, and by severely limit, I mean I'll eat it once every two or three months because it's a delicious, large, calorie dense treat, but there's no need to completely eliminate it from my diet on a permanent basis for the rest of my life.
Why do I believe that everyone has to moderate every food? I never said that, you implied that, and that's a misrepresentation.
So there are foods that you believe will never fit in your eating plan again for the rest of your life? That sounds like a rigid eating plan, and sounds rather sad to be honest.What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
Oh wait, there's one more! This is a false dichotomy. That's 3 logical fallacies in one post, that's pretty impressive. No that's not what I said at all, already explained it.
First line of my post...
If I understand your post...
A simple "no you didn't understand what I was saying" or "no that is not what I meant at all".
Next thing that I said in my post...
I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently.
Notice the bold...never said anything about believing that I would never fit them back in.
Exactly, you said "maybe permanently. There's no reason to ever permanently eliminate foods from your diet that you enjoy, sure you can severely limit them, but there's no reason to eliminate them. When you say "maybe permanently" that means there's a possibility that you will never fit them back in, so you did say that.
If someone wants to eliminate Oreos for now - or for life - that's okay!
Neither your blessing or your permission is required.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No reason? Personal choice isn't good enough?
No reason to eliminate foods you enjoy. You would not eliminate a food you enjoy because of personal choice...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
I never said I think that, but for some people I imagine it probably is beneficial. Allergies, obviously. But, it could also be beneficial to cut trigger foods (foods that you just can't seem to stop eating once you start) from your diet. Even if you do eventually cave and binge on them, it's got to be better than doing it on a regular basis.
And then there are foods that you might cut simply because you don't think they are worth the calories. I stopped eating fast food years ago. In the past couple of decades I've had fast food maybe 2-3 times when traveling and it was all that was available. I can't even remember the last time I ate it.
Limiting foods from your diet, and removing foods from your diet are two different things. I think that largely removing foods from a diet because one thinks they are unhealthy is an unhealthy attitude to have. I can definitely agree with you that something needs to be done about trigger foods, but attempting to completely remove them from your diet is the wrong move. That doesn't address the main issue, but I guess people deal with things in their own way.
If I understand your post...
If I choose to eliminate a food instead of moderating the consumption of that food that I must have other issues that need to be dealt with?
Why is it the wrong move to eliminate a food if I so choose to?
Why do you believe that everyone has to moderate every food?
To be honest...I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently. I didn't eliminate them because I passed some judgment that they were "unclean" or even "unhealthy". I eliminated them because quite honestly they didn't fit what I wanted as an eating plan...one that I believe will work for me long term.
According to your post though this surely must indicate that I have issues that need to be dealt with.
Long story short...
What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
So at the minimum there's a straw man fallacy in your argument, maybe even a non sequitur.
Apparently you don't understand my post.
I said that largely eliminating foods from your diet on a permanent basis is unhealthy. Temporary limiting foods can be a useful tool, especially while cutting on a small calorie intake. There are plenty of examples of foods that I severely limit in my diet but don't eliminate, and by severely limit, I mean I'll eat it once every two or three months because it's a delicious, large, calorie dense treat, but there's no need to completely eliminate it from my diet on a permanent basis for the rest of my life.
Why do I believe that everyone has to moderate every food? I never said that, you implied that, and that's a misrepresentation.
So there are foods that you believe will never fit in your eating plan again for the rest of your life? That sounds like a rigid eating plan, and sounds rather sad to be honest.What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
Oh wait, there's one more! This is a false dichotomy. That's 3 logical fallacies in one post, that's pretty impressive. No that's not what I said at all, already explained it.
First line of my post...
If I understand your post...
A simple "no you didn't understand what I was saying" or "no that is not what I meant at all".
Next thing that I said in my post...
I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently.
Notice the bold...never said anything about believing that I would never fit them back in.
Exactly, you said "maybe permanently. There's no reason to ever permanently eliminate foods from your diet that you enjoy, sure you can severely limit them, but there's no reason to eliminate them. When you say "maybe permanently" that means there's a possibility that you will never fit them back in, so you did say that.
I think she's just saying she doesn't know if she's ever end up adding it back in. It's entirely possible she won't want it again.0 -
That poster doesn't need a reason. Their diet doesn't have to be justified and it's okay if you don't like their diet.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
I never said I think that, but for some people I imagine it probably is beneficial. Allergies, obviously. But, it could also be beneficial to cut trigger foods (foods that you just can't seem to stop eating once you start) from your diet. Even if you do eventually cave and binge on them, it's got to be better than doing it on a regular basis.
And then there are foods that you might cut simply because you don't think they are worth the calories. I stopped eating fast food years ago. In the past couple of decades I've had fast food maybe 2-3 times when traveling and it was all that was available. I can't even remember the last time I ate it.
Limiting foods from your diet, and removing foods from your diet are two different things. I think that largely removing foods from a diet because one thinks they are unhealthy is an unhealthy attitude to have. I can definitely agree with you that something needs to be done about trigger foods, but attempting to completely remove them from your diet is the wrong move. That doesn't address the main issue, but I guess people deal with things in their own way.
If I understand your post...
If I choose to eliminate a food instead of moderating the consumption of that food that I must have other issues that need to be dealt with?
Why is it the wrong move to eliminate a food if I so choose to?
Why do you believe that everyone has to moderate every food?
To be honest...I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently. I didn't eliminate them because I passed some judgment that they were "unclean" or even "unhealthy". I eliminated them because quite honestly they didn't fit what I wanted as an eating plan...one that I believe will work for me long term.
According to your post though this surely must indicate that I have issues that need to be dealt with.
Long story short...
What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
So at the minimum there's a straw man fallacy in your argument, maybe even a non sequitur.
Apparently you don't understand my post.
I said that largely eliminating foods from your diet on a permanent basis is unhealthy. Temporary limiting foods can be a useful tool, especially while cutting on a small calorie intake. There are plenty of examples of foods that I severely limit in my diet but don't eliminate, and by severely limit, I mean I'll eat it once every two or three months because it's a delicious, large, calorie dense treat, but there's no need to completely eliminate it from my diet on a permanent basis for the rest of my life.
Why do I believe that everyone has to moderate every food? I never said that, you implied that, and that's a misrepresentation.
So there are foods that you believe will never fit in your eating plan again for the rest of your life? That sounds like a rigid eating plan, and sounds rather sad to be honest.What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
Oh wait, there's one more! This is a false dichotomy. That's 3 logical fallacies in one post, that's pretty impressive. No that's not what I said at all, already explained it.
First line of my post...
If I understand your post...
A simple "no you didn't understand what I was saying" or "no that is not what I meant at all".
Next thing that I said in my post...
I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently.
Notice the bold...never said anything about believing that I would never fit them back in.
Exactly, you said "maybe permanently. There's no reason to ever permanently eliminate foods from your diet that you enjoy, sure you can severely limit them, but there's no reason to eliminate them. When you say "maybe permanently" that means there's a possibility that you will never fit them back in, so you did say that.
If someone wants to eliminate Oreos for now - or for life - that's okay!
Neither your blessing or your permission is required.
True, but eliminating something because you want to and eliminating something because you think you have to are 2 different things...
0 -
My impression is that some people use "eliminate" to mean "don't eat" even when it's less a hard and fast rule and more a matter of something just never fitting in or seeming like the most desirable choice.
For example, I have no hard and fast rules. I also used to occasionally get these quesadillas from a chain taco place near my office. I never get them anymore and probably won't again, because the nutrition/calories don't really fit what I want from a lunch currently and when I thought about it I realized that they really aren't that good. I used to waste calories in the dumbest ways sometimes.
That said, I haven't eliminated them, since if for some reason (although I doubt it will happen) I really crave one, I'll fit it in.
Much more likely I'll go to a really good Mexican place for dinner that week, however, and make the calories worth while (even if they end up being more).0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No reason? Personal choice isn't good enough?
No reason to eliminate foods you enjoy. You would not eliminate a food you enjoy because of personal choice...
Yes I would. I enjoy cheesecake. I haven't had it in years, probably decades. It's so high calorie that when presented with the opportunity, I choose not to eat it. I mean, it's just food. It's not like I'm eliminating a friend from my life.0 -
That poster doesn't need a reason. Their diet doesn't have to be justified and it's okay if you don't like their diet.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
I never said I think that, but for some people I imagine it probably is beneficial. Allergies, obviously. But, it could also be beneficial to cut trigger foods (foods that you just can't seem to stop eating once you start) from your diet. Even if you do eventually cave and binge on them, it's got to be better than doing it on a regular basis.
And then there are foods that you might cut simply because you don't think they are worth the calories. I stopped eating fast food years ago. In the past couple of decades I've had fast food maybe 2-3 times when traveling and it was all that was available. I can't even remember the last time I ate it.
Limiting foods from your diet, and removing foods from your diet are two different things. I think that largely removing foods from a diet because one thinks they are unhealthy is an unhealthy attitude to have. I can definitely agree with you that something needs to be done about trigger foods, but attempting to completely remove them from your diet is the wrong move. That doesn't address the main issue, but I guess people deal with things in their own way.
If I understand your post...
If I choose to eliminate a food instead of moderating the consumption of that food that I must have other issues that need to be dealt with?
Why is it the wrong move to eliminate a food if I so choose to?
Why do you believe that everyone has to moderate every food?
To be honest...I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently. I didn't eliminate them because I passed some judgment that they were "unclean" or even "unhealthy". I eliminated them because quite honestly they didn't fit what I wanted as an eating plan...one that I believe will work for me long term.
According to your post though this surely must indicate that I have issues that need to be dealt with.
Long story short...
What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
So at the minimum there's a straw man fallacy in your argument, maybe even a non sequitur.
Apparently you don't understand my post.
I said that largely eliminating foods from your diet on a permanent basis is unhealthy. Temporary limiting foods can be a useful tool, especially while cutting on a small calorie intake. There are plenty of examples of foods that I severely limit in my diet but don't eliminate, and by severely limit, I mean I'll eat it once every two or three months because it's a delicious, large, calorie dense treat, but there's no need to completely eliminate it from my diet on a permanent basis for the rest of my life.
Why do I believe that everyone has to moderate every food? I never said that, you implied that, and that's a misrepresentation.
So there are foods that you believe will never fit in your eating plan again for the rest of your life? That sounds like a rigid eating plan, and sounds rather sad to be honest.What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
Oh wait, there's one more! This is a false dichotomy. That's 3 logical fallacies in one post, that's pretty impressive. No that's not what I said at all, already explained it.
First line of my post...
If I understand your post...
A simple "no you didn't understand what I was saying" or "no that is not what I meant at all".
Next thing that I said in my post...
I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently.
Notice the bold...never said anything about believing that I would never fit them back in.
Exactly, you said "maybe permanently. There's no reason to ever permanently eliminate foods from your diet that you enjoy, sure you can severely limit them, but there's no reason to eliminate them. When you say "maybe permanently" that means there's a possibility that you will never fit them back in, so you did say that.
If someone wants to eliminate Oreos for now - or for life - that's okay!
Neither your blessing or your permission is required.
True, but eliminating something because you want to and eliminating something because you think you have to are 2 different things...
Agree with this.0 -
I'm sorry but that is so sad. Why not just have it once in a while if you enjoy it? Life is too short to forgo the things we enjoy. We just can't eat as much of them as we would like to...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No reason? Personal choice isn't good enough?
No reason to eliminate foods you enjoy. You would not eliminate a food you enjoy because of personal choice...
Yes I would. I enjoy cheesecake. I haven't had it in years, probably decades. It's so high calorie that when presented with the opportunity, I choose not to eat it. I mean, it's just food. It's not like I'm eliminating a friend from my life.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No reason? Personal choice isn't good enough?
No reason to eliminate foods you enjoy. You would not eliminate a food you enjoy because of personal choice...
Yes I would. I enjoy cheesecake. I haven't had it in years, probably decades. It's so high calorie that when presented with the opportunity, I choose not to eat it. I mean, it's just food. It's not like I'm eliminating a friend from my life.
I think I agree with you on this one. There are some foods that I enjoyed eating in the past, but honestly, there is just some reason I don't make the choice to eat them anymore, whether it's calories or something else.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
- 426 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