clean eating
Options
Replies
-
Unless you're literally referring to the cleanliness in how it was prepared, why are you referring to food as unclean at all? Why does the metaphor make sense, and why is it a metaphor understood across all human cultures? Eating healthy could be seen as passing judgement, saying you're eating clean is almost certainly about judgement, at some level, even if the person using the term can't admit it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I find it highly illustrative that people call it cleaning eating instead of healthy eating. It tends to show the very moralization that people are putting into food. When we talk about moral disgust, the term isn't a coincidence in feelings - the part of the brain that registers moral disgust tends to also be the area that actually registers physical disgust. So now foods are clean, or they are dirty - they are morally right, or they are degenerate.
And so, people are back to full circle - using the brain center that is evolved to think diseased food disgusting, to using that center to think about morality, to using that center to moralize and think about food.
Why do you assume moral disgust at the term "clean eating" but not "healthy eating"?
I don't really see the difference either.
If someone said...
I don't eat pizza because I "eat clean".
How is that different than someone saying...
I don't eat pizza because I "eat healthy".
Both statements could be seen as passing judgment on someone else eating pizza.
I didn't use the term "unclean".
It was a comparison as to how someone might view eating pizza.
Personally...I have pizza every Friday. I have never passed judgment on whether it is "clean" or "healthy". The only judgment I have ever passed on that pizza is whether it tasted good or not.
Right, people are assuming an "unclean" (and "dirty") when none was said.
0 -
Eating a healthy diet is not an eating disorder.Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Binging on junk food is not something that all healthy eaters do.
I realize that some people here have had eating disorders. Whatever they need to do to manage them is great and what they should do. However, not everyone has an ED.
Assuming that people without EDs will suddenly develop them because they chose to eat healthy food...as if that's some foregone conclusion...it's ludicrous.
Please do not demonize healthy diets.
I don't demonize healthy diets, I demonize irrational diets that aren't based on any sound science and lead to bad relationships with food...
But you have demonized healthy diets. Your comment about how a binge is inevitable is demonizing healthy diets. "Don't become an orthorexic," you say,
Eating healthy food is not an eating disorder. It's a good, healthy thing to do and you've demonized it with your incorrect (and unscientific) statements. "...in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when."
You're demonizing healthy diets.
I'd argue that I'm not demonizing a healthy diet because a diet that cuts foods for no reason based on science isn't a healthy diet, it's an unhealthy diet.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.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »jennmpantoja wrote: »Just purchased new cookbooks. Forks Over Knives, they have an app also, it does cost, but it does help with shopping, meal planning and anything else. The food looks really yummy I can't wait to start cooking with all of this.
Good example.
If someone said "looking for someone into 'Forks Over Knives' and that way of eating" I'd know they were looking for vegan-leaning folks or people trying to cut way down on animal-based foods.
If they asked for "clean eaters" lots of people who eat tons of meat (including those who strongly disagree with the viewpoint of the documentary and think sat fat is WAY more healthy than any and all carbs) would respond.
Except the "documentary" Forks Over Knives has zero foundation in science lol. It's one thing if someone chooses to eat vegan because of moral reasons. However misguided I may believe them to be, I will not argue with them because they made a moral choice. If someone instead chooses to eat vegan because they believe it is a healthier diet, and by extension that consuming animal products is unhealthy, I will absolutely argue that point because it has no scientific backing.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Why would the word clean imply morality more than healthy? As I just said, disgust, both physical and moral, tend register in the brain in the same region. It isn't a coincidence people call it clean eating. It isn't far removed from the concepts that many societies have had of certain people as unclean and immoral.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I find it highly illustrative that people call it cleaning eating instead of healthy eating. It tends to show the very moralization that people are putting into food. When we talk about moral disgust, the term isn't a coincidence in feelings - the part of the brain that registers moral disgust tends to also be the area that actually registers physical disgust. So now foods are clean, or they are dirty - they are morally right, or they are degenerate.
And so, people are back to full circle - using the brain center that is evolved to think diseased food disgusting, to using that center to think about morality, to using that center to moralize and think about food.
Why do you assume moral disgust at the term "clean eating" but not "healthy eating"?
::laugh:: You are joking, right? I certainly hope no one thinks that! Back in the 70's when I first heard the term it meant 'clean' as in free of additives. Whole, natural. It had nothing to do with morals.
When someone says "I need to clean up my diet" I thought everyone knew they meant start eating more meals made from whole natural ingredients. My oh my, what has happened to the world?
Absolutely not a joke. I'm not saying the word choice is intentionally because the people themselves are aware of the moralizing at play - I certainly hope they're not. Yet it is about that. Are you serious in thinking there isn't a hint at all in cleaning eat about being better than other people?
Certainly some people feels superior for eating clean. As do some for eating healthy. Or for eating junk. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the posts bragging about the ice cream or pizza or candy eaten.
Diet superiority is felt by many for many reasons. I am seriously saying I don't think it's more common among those that say they eat clean than those that say they eat healthy. I think assuming that EVERYONE that uses the term is expressing insult or superiority has an air of superiority. Like maybe those that think clean eating is good are just little more stupid than those that KNOW it isn't.
I think it's incredibly common for people to express superiority for 'eating clean' or 'eating healthy', both IRL and on these forums. I've known people IRL who ate nothing but fruits and vegetables and yogurt, and talked about it all the time, as if that made them somehow better than everyone else who was eating 'regular' food. Yet most of those 'clean eaters' were still overweight. Point being that people get so hung up on the type of food and forget that it's the amount of food that makes the different. These arguments about 'clean' and 'healthy' and 'low carb' and 'paleo' and 'keto' and everything all get pretty old. When will people wake up and realize they really can eat whatever they want, whether that's nothing but veggies and fruit, or no carbs at all, or just nuts and seeds, as long as they eat in a calorie deficit? The hang ups are just ridiculous.0 -
to me it means first to eat at a calorie deficit so I lose excess weight, then it means eating macros so I feel healthiest and most energetic so that I can lift weights and do crossfit and cross county bike and work and be with my family, friends, etc., etc. This means saving most of my calories for vegies, simple proteins, healthy fats, complex carbs (including fruits). I like the term as shorthand, but it really sets some people off. Many women I know who are serious weight lifters use the term. I'm over 60, and I say that since I like to lift heavy weights, I can use what ever term I want for my food macros. No judgment on others who have their sensitivities.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »jennmpantoja wrote: »Just purchased new cookbooks. Forks Over Knives, they have an app also, it does cost, but it does help with shopping, meal planning and anything else. The food looks really yummy I can't wait to start cooking with all of this.
Good example.
If someone said "looking for someone into 'Forks Over Knives' and that way of eating" I'd know they were looking for vegan-leaning folks or people trying to cut way down on animal-based foods.
If they asked for "clean eaters" lots of people who eat tons of meat (including those who strongly disagree with the viewpoint of the documentary and think sat fat is WAY more healthy than any and all carbs) would respond.
Except the "documentary" Forks Over Knives has zero foundation in science lol.
I agree and said nothing about the merits of it.
That's simply a separate topic that seemed unnecessary to get into here.
If people who loved the documentary and want to eat that way are looking for others who think the same I get it and am not confused that they might want to hear about my roasted chicken methods.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.
How about removing healthy foods from your diet for 'healthier' choices?
0 -
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?0 -
Eh, people acting superior without reason are simply annoying, it's not more complicated than that. People brag about their diet, why? (This is why I don't have the same reaction to someone saying "I'm vegan" or "I'm low carb." That's just a statement of fact. "Clean" is not--it's a claim that their diets are purer or better or not "unclean" vs. the alternative.) If anyone is insecure about their diet it's those needing to call it by a special label when the facts have repeatedly demonstrated that there's no real difference in how they eat vs. others in these discussions. After all, under the definitions put forth pretty much everyone here could legitimately claim the term.
Also, I don't believe the term is helping people make healthier choices -- how on earth could it? It's not difficult to make healthy choices without pretending that makes you special and "cleaner."
That said, I probably should just give up on this fight and encourage everyone who believes they generally eat a healthy diet and don't eat foods that are actively bad for them (however defined) to call their diets clean.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
How about removing healthy foods from your diet for 'healthier' choices?
If you can't see what's wrong with the statement you just made, there's no point in me having a discussion with you.0 -
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.0 -
the short answer is clean eating is anything that isn't processed. Right now I am eating a processed meal because it contains white rice which has been processed, grown and then manufactured in a factory and it is YUM lol (Chinese fried rice for T which I made myself)0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »jennmpantoja wrote: »Just purchased new cookbooks. Forks Over Knives, they have an app also, it does cost, but it does help with shopping, meal planning and anything else. The food looks really yummy I can't wait to start cooking with all of this.
Good example.
If someone said "looking for someone into 'Forks Over Knives' and that way of eating" I'd know they were looking for vegan-leaning folks or people trying to cut way down on animal-based foods.
If they asked for "clean eaters" lots of people who eat tons of meat (including those who strongly disagree with the viewpoint of the documentary and think sat fat is WAY more healthy than any and all carbs) would respond.
Except the "documentary" Forks Over Knives has zero foundation in science lol. It's one thing if someone chooses to eat vegan because of moral reasons. However misguided I may believe them to be, I will not argue with them because they made a moral choice. If someone instead chooses to eat vegan because they believe it is a healthier diet, and by extension that consuming animal products is unhealthy, I will absolutely argue that point because it has no scientific backing.
Thank for this.
Forks Over Knives was poorly done.
I eat vegetarian because I am concerned about Planet Sustainability -- I do not care about the animals -- I helped raise and ate chickens, ducks, hogs, and beef on farms while I was growing up.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Why would the word clean imply morality more than healthy? As I just said, disgust, both physical and moral, tend register in the brain in the same region. It isn't a coincidence people call it clean eating. It isn't far removed from the concepts that many societies have had of certain people as unclean and immoral.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I find it highly illustrative that people call it cleaning eating instead of healthy eating. It tends to show the very moralization that people are putting into food. When we talk about moral disgust, the term isn't a coincidence in feelings - the part of the brain that registers moral disgust tends to also be the area that actually registers physical disgust. So now foods are clean, or they are dirty - they are morally right, or they are degenerate.
And so, people are back to full circle - using the brain center that is evolved to think diseased food disgusting, to using that center to think about morality, to using that center to moralize and think about food.
Why do you assume moral disgust at the term "clean eating" but not "healthy eating"?
::laugh:: You are joking, right? I certainly hope no one thinks that! Back in the 70's when I first heard the term it meant 'clean' as in free of additives. Whole, natural. It had nothing to do with morals.
When someone says "I need to clean up my diet" I thought everyone knew they meant start eating more meals made from whole natural ingredients. My oh my, what has happened to the world?
Absolutely not a joke. I'm not saying the word choice is intentionally because the people themselves are aware of the moralizing at play - I certainly hope they're not. Yet it is about that. Are you serious in thinking there isn't a hint at all in cleaning eat about being better than other people?
Certainly some people feels superior for eating clean. As do some for eating healthy. Or for eating junk. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the posts bragging about the ice cream or pizza or candy eaten.
Diet superiority is felt by many for many reasons. I am seriously saying I don't think it's more common among those that say they eat clean than those that say they eat healthy. I think assuming that EVERYONE that uses the term is expressing insult or superiority has an air of superiority. Like maybe those that think clean eating is good are just little more stupid than those that KNOW it isn't.
I think it's incredibly common for people to express superiority for 'eating clean' or 'eating healthy', both IRL and on these forums. I've known people IRL who ate nothing but fruits and vegetables and yogurt, and talked about it all the time, as if that made them somehow better than everyone else who was eating 'regular' food. Yet most of those 'clean eaters' were still overweight. Point being that people get so hung up on the type of food and forget that it's the amount of food that makes the different. These arguments about 'clean' and 'healthy' and 'low carb' and 'paleo' and 'keto' and everything all get pretty old. When will people wake up and realize they really can eat whatever they want, whether that's nothing but veggies and fruit, or no carbs at all, or just nuts and seeds, as long as they eat in a calorie deficit? The hang ups are just ridiculous.
Not everyone believes that you can eat whatever you want and remain healthy. Personally, I think that would depend greatly on what you want to eat. At my age I've seen far too many people who have never been overweight with high BP, CVD, insulin resistance, diabetes and other diseases or risk factors to think that quantity is all that matters. I absolutely believe that diet quality is quite important.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Well, what do you think they are looking for? People interested in encouraging them in the eating of whole foods and vegetables and who are interested in nutrition and cooking? By asking for "clean eaters" they exclude a huge number of these folks (like me).
Or people who ONLY eat "clean" foods (even though virtually no one who self-defines as a "clean eater" really fits in that category -- for example, I've seen "clean eaters" justifying the eating of processed meat of the sort even I don't eat and others, like I said, have simply cut down on their fast food consumption, etc.)? If this, why? It really seems as if they think there's something superior about self-defining as a "clean eater," which is especially interesting since it seems to be a term more used by people quite new to changing their diets.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.
Why would "I like to call myself a clean eater" vs. "I don't like to call myself a clean eater" be a distinguishing characteristic if you both eat pretty similarly and have similar interests in food and nutrition? It's not, unless what you really want is to be able to feel better than non "clean eaters." That's why I think it's significant that this term is used rather than a more specific one.
If someone simply wants to talk to people interested in nutrition and eating healthy, "clean eater" is more narrow than what they are looking for.
Because different people use different terms. Simple as that.0 -
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!
0 -
Pretty sure her comment about deficit was purely for weight loss, not about health in a context of you can eat anything at all and be healthy as long as you're in a deficit. You might as well say that means people will be fine starving if you're going to misinterpret it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Why would the word clean imply morality more than healthy? As I just said, disgust, both physical and moral, tend register in the brain in the same region. It isn't a coincidence people call it clean eating. It isn't far removed from the concepts that many societies have had of certain people as unclean and immoral.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I find it highly illustrative that people call it cleaning eating instead of healthy eating. It tends to show the very moralization that people are putting into food. When we talk about moral disgust, the term isn't a coincidence in feelings - the part of the brain that registers moral disgust tends to also be the area that actually registers physical disgust. So now foods are clean, or they are dirty - they are morally right, or they are degenerate.
And so, people are back to full circle - using the brain center that is evolved to think diseased food disgusting, to using that center to think about morality, to using that center to moralize and think about food.
Why do you assume moral disgust at the term "clean eating" but not "healthy eating"?
::laugh:: You are joking, right? I certainly hope no one thinks that! Back in the 70's when I first heard the term it meant 'clean' as in free of additives. Whole, natural. It had nothing to do with morals.
When someone says "I need to clean up my diet" I thought everyone knew they meant start eating more meals made from whole natural ingredients. My oh my, what has happened to the world?
Absolutely not a joke. I'm not saying the word choice is intentionally because the people themselves are aware of the moralizing at play - I certainly hope they're not. Yet it is about that. Are you serious in thinking there isn't a hint at all in cleaning eat about being better than other people?
Certainly some people feels superior for eating clean. As do some for eating healthy. Or for eating junk. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the posts bragging about the ice cream or pizza or candy eaten.
Diet superiority is felt by many for many reasons. I am seriously saying I don't think it's more common among those that say they eat clean than those that say they eat healthy. I think assuming that EVERYONE that uses the term is expressing insult or superiority has an air of superiority. Like maybe those that think clean eating is good are just little more stupid than those that KNOW it isn't.
I think it's incredibly common for people to express superiority for 'eating clean' or 'eating healthy', both IRL and on these forums. I've known people IRL who ate nothing but fruits and vegetables and yogurt, and talked about it all the time, as if that made them somehow better than everyone else who was eating 'regular' food. Yet most of those 'clean eaters' were still overweight. Point being that people get so hung up on the type of food and forget that it's the amount of food that makes the different. These arguments about 'clean' and 'healthy' and 'low carb' and 'paleo' and 'keto' and everything all get pretty old. When will people wake up and realize they really can eat whatever they want, whether that's nothing but veggies and fruit, or no carbs at all, or just nuts and seeds, as long as they eat in a calorie deficit? The hang ups are just ridiculous.
Not everyone believes that you can eat whatever you want and remain healthy. Personally, I think that would depend greatly on what you want to eat. At my age I've seen far too many people who have never been overweight with high BP, CVD, insulin resistance, diabetes and other diseases or risk factors to think that quantity is all that matters. I absolutely believe that diet quality is quite important.
Now, for people who are overweight, the general findings are that losing weight tends to trump quality of diet for improving health markers.
0 -
Begging the question. The whole point is the labeling doesn't cause people to make healthier decisions. It increases the chances of people binge eating. It increases the chances of diet failure. It is just covering a bad relationship with food until there is breaking point.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!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Why would the word clean imply morality more than healthy? As I just said, disgust, both physical and moral, tend register in the brain in the same region. It isn't a coincidence people call it clean eating. It isn't far removed from the concepts that many societies have had of certain people as unclean and immoral.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I find it highly illustrative that people call it cleaning eating instead of healthy eating. It tends to show the very moralization that people are putting into food. When we talk about moral disgust, the term isn't a coincidence in feelings - the part of the brain that registers moral disgust tends to also be the area that actually registers physical disgust. So now foods are clean, or they are dirty - they are morally right, or they are degenerate.
And so, people are back to full circle - using the brain center that is evolved to think diseased food disgusting, to using that center to think about morality, to using that center to moralize and think about food.
Why do you assume moral disgust at the term "clean eating" but not "healthy eating"?
::laugh:: You are joking, right? I certainly hope no one thinks that! Back in the 70's when I first heard the term it meant 'clean' as in free of additives. Whole, natural. It had nothing to do with morals.
When someone says "I need to clean up my diet" I thought everyone knew they meant start eating more meals made from whole natural ingredients. My oh my, what has happened to the world?
Absolutely not a joke. I'm not saying the word choice is intentionally because the people themselves are aware of the moralizing at play - I certainly hope they're not. Yet it is about that. Are you serious in thinking there isn't a hint at all in cleaning eat about being better than other people?
Certainly some people feels superior for eating clean. As do some for eating healthy. Or for eating junk. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the posts bragging about the ice cream or pizza or candy eaten.
Diet superiority is felt by many for many reasons. I am seriously saying I don't think it's more common among those that say they eat clean than those that say they eat healthy. I think assuming that EVERYONE that uses the term is expressing insult or superiority has an air of superiority. Like maybe those that think clean eating is good are just little more stupid than those that KNOW it isn't.
I think it's incredibly common for people to express superiority for 'eating clean' or 'eating healthy', both IRL and on these forums. I've known people IRL who ate nothing but fruits and vegetables and yogurt, and talked about it all the time, as if that made them somehow better than everyone else who was eating 'regular' food. Yet most of those 'clean eaters' were still overweight. Point being that people get so hung up on the type of food and forget that it's the amount of food that makes the different. These arguments about 'clean' and 'healthy' and 'low carb' and 'paleo' and 'keto' and everything all get pretty old. When will people wake up and realize they really can eat whatever they want, whether that's nothing but veggies and fruit, or no carbs at all, or just nuts and seeds, as long as they eat in a calorie deficit? The hang ups are just ridiculous.
Not everyone believes that you can eat whatever you want and remain healthy. Personally, I think that would depend greatly on what you want to eat.
This is actually right. The claim "you can eat whatever you want and remain healthy" assumes that normal people will want to eat a variety of nutrient-dense foods, an overall healthy diet, that maybe includes some lower nutrient, calorie dense foods. The implicit assumption is that people won't want to eat only "junk" (as that has been defined).
I would hope that this is usually the case and I think it's more respectful to assume this of people than that they would actually desire or choose to eat a diet of entirely low-nutrient foods, but obviously some might, there are some crazy "I'm so picky I won't eat any veggies" posts on here often enough. I tend to think that common sense should be assumed also, but maybe I shouldn't.
I'd say that if someone's issue is that eating the foods they want results in a terrible diet since they don't want/like a good balance of foods or have the common sense to focus on nutrient dense foods primarily, they have bigger issues that the debate about "clean eating" really doesn't touch on.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions