Can we please settle on at least a loose definition of...

BeachIron

Pointless semantics discussions are pointless.

JossFit

Why do you need a definition? I truly could not care less what anyone thinks of my diet, and I do not make my food choices based on some random definition of what's good or bad or clean or processed. I make them based on what I enjoy eating, what fits my calorie and macro targets, and what improves my performance in the gym. I eat lots of red meat. I eat lots of chocolate. I eat lots of ice cream. I lose weight, I lift heavy stuff, and I'm happy. Anyone who has a negative opinion about my diet can go pound sand, as far as I'm concerned.

but how do you REALLY feel ?:)

I totally agree with her. I don't hate on anyone else for choosing to label their diet in any way, but I refuse to label mine in order to fit into some box or be accepted in some way by anyone else. I am HAPPY with what I eat, and I'm lucky enough not to have any medical issues that cause me to limit my diet.

I have my own ideas with what constitutes an acceptable addition to my diet, and it would be sad to cut out something I love just so that it will fit into one of those neat little boxes.

Meg_Shirley_86

No

Haha! There is definitely something to be said for answers like this!
What I was getting at in my original post, I guess, is that I wonder if people do have the same general idea, which it seems they really do. We all seem to have a definition that isn't all that different, and acknowledge that there is room for interpretation. That's pretty good for MFP opinions, if I do say so myself.

rml_16

I see where you are coming from, but it's never going to happen. To a vegan, beef is going to be 'dirty' but to someone eating a Paleo style diet grains are 'dirty'.

Wouldn't it be easier to stop using arbitrary labels? Who cares if your food is "clean" or not? Just eat what YOU want to eat.

This rational thought of yours has no place here!

Joocey

In my experience, most people are hostile to any type of diet are the type that feel anyone who doesn't indulge in their own vices is somehow judging them.

But isn't the person who's doing the judging the one who sets arbitrary "clean" vs "dirty" distinctions?

If you think all the food I eat is "dirty", aren't YOU actually the one who is judging ME?

Because as far as I know, anything "dirty" is bad. Except for Dirty's Potato Chips because those are delicious. :laugh:

FWIW I'm not hostile to the clean/dirty/processed distinction, I just think it's sort of silly. Especially when there's an actual objective reason to avoid most "processed" foods. The sodium content.

JossFit

'Processed' food, to me, is definitely not just ANYTHING that's been packaged (veggies in a bag for example), that's just a ridiculous assertion made by people who are bothered by the fact that you don't eat the way they think you should eat. Or people who just like an argument for the sake of it. 'Processed' quite clearly implies foods such as microwave meals, foods with a bunch of random chemicals thrown in etc, food that has gone through a significant amount of processing to add in extra ingredients... not just putting something natural in a bag!

I think the definitions of 'clean' and 'processed' are extremely clear, and it's basically common sense which is which. People just can't seem to pass up the opportunity for an argument... as much as I can't stand it, I guess that's the nature of the internet

I understand what you are saying here, but how do items like organic microwave meals (Amy's for example) fit into the definition? From Amy's Website:

Amy’s food tastes so good because it’s made from the kind of real food ingredients that people use in their own kitchens…no additives, no preservatives, no GMOs. If a child can’t pronounce it, you won’t find it on an Amy’s label.

It is definitely more than just putting vegetables in a bag and freezing them, and it is microwavable, but I could make something similar to their food at home without needing to buy a bag (vial?) of Polysorbate 80, etc.

I am genuinely curious as I think it is a major grey area... it is the kind of food that I would consider non- or minimally- processed but others would avoid.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about this one actually. As a relatively clean eater I wouldn't have a problem eating packaged meals like that. It probably wouldn't be my first choice of meal, but I wouldn't kick up a fuss if I had to eat it. I think foods like that just come down to personal preference - if you consider it to be within your own definition of clean, then by all means include it in your diet. If I looked at the label and saw that everything on it was real food and there were no additives then I wouldn't have a problem eating it and I would probably consider it 'clean'! I wasn't aware you actually got organic microwave meals like that - I might actually look into trying some of them! It'd be a hell of a lot easier than cooking everything from scratch all the time!! :P

I just had one of Amy's meals, and they're great! I had a huge pile of broccoli and chicken, and then topped it with the Enchilada Dinner Meal; corn, black beans, and a cheese enchilada. I was delicious, filling, and IMO healthy.

ldrosophila

Probably not I see eating food that is contaminated with less than the FDA recommendation of allowable fecal particulates as clean, and I consider cutting up vegetables as processing food.

rybo

It's the interwebs. People love to argue and nit pick.
The sky is blue...No it's powder blue...that depends, it's pale blue....but in the mornings sometimes it's purpleish. At night its navy blue or black.

99.9% of hte time people know exactly what you mean when you say whole foods vs processed foods vs clean eating. They just like to be argumentative.

skullshank

*LOSE

oh, wait.....no, you're right.

Meg_Shirley_86

I don't think we have a definition section here.

I find "clean eating" to be a really obnoxious term. It implies that anything else is "dirty".

I tend to agree with you. It doesn't really annoy me, but I'm not convinced that it means much either. I think labels like this make the "others" more likely to feel defensive about their choices. I cop to being a vegan on here, because I like to be open about my bias, rather than hide it. (I REALLY, REALLY don't care what you eat, I have way more in my life to be concerned about than that.)

In person though, you have to pretty much pry it out of me as to my diet choices. I know veg people are known for being obnoxious about it, making omnis defensive, which makes them attack veg people, which makes the veg people more obnoxious. It seems like this is pretty similar.

csuhar

The challenge is that not only will people have different definitions of these larger topics, but also of the component parts. Much fo that is a matter of splitting hairs, which is difficult if not impossible to control.

For instance, we have the category of "canned goods". While I avoid Chef Boyardee products, most of the tomatoes in my pantry are in cans. Even the "buy things from the perimiter of your grocery store" guidance can be called into question. While most people can understand the issue, *technically* speaking, the perimiters of the grocery stores in my town also include bakeries with all kinds of goodies that probably shouldn't be considered as being in the same league as vegetables, fruits, and fresh meats.

Sometimes, there are differing views on practicality. I would argue that the most natural, least processed meats would come from fishing and hunting- no farms, no slaughterhouses, no factories, just plucked straight from nature. But I don't have the time for that, so my definitions regarding processed meat are changed to fit the kinds of meat accessible to me. The same goes for other foods. I prefer to use the lemons from the tree in my yard, but I just don't have time to plant every kind of fruit and vegetable that I eat, so I'm stuck adjusting my definitions to fit the produce others grow and make accessible to me.

So what happens is people want to defend their personal definition by attacking gaps in other definitions via technicalities.

The best bet is to take time, do some digging on your own, and figure out what things like "eating clean", "processed foods", and the like mean for YOU and YOUR lifestyle.

kirstyfairhead

I think the answer to your question is No we can't.

For me logic and sense would say that a reasonable loose definition would be 'the less ingredients it has and the closer to it's original state it is then the cleaner it is, the more that has been done to it and the more that has been added to it the dirtier it is'

Walk into a field, pick a wild strawberry and eat it and that's pretty clean (well after you washed it of course... in your processed tap water!!)

However a ton of people would disagree with me and lots of them would have perfectly valid points to make!

And of course the only really valid argument is that, since when did logic or sense have any place on an internet forum!!!!

sullus

I think the answer to your question is No we can't.

For me logic and sense would say that a reasonable loose definition would be 'the less ingredients it has and the closer to it's original state it is then the cleaner it is, the more that has been done to it and the more that has been added to it the dirtier it is'

Walk into a field, pick a wild strawberry and eat it and that's pretty clean (well after you washed it of course... in your processed tap water!!)

However a ton of people would disagree with me and lots of them would have perfectly valid points to make!

And of course the only really valid argument is that, since when did logic or sense have any place on an internet forum!!!!

It's most definitely a continuum, and not a binary distinction.

Meg_Shirley_86

I really would like to rephrase my subject line now. What I was aiming for is the type of discussion we are having.
I was very hangry at the time, and I am having a pregnancy craving for avocados that may cause me to be a bit more petulant the normal.

AnvilHead

The best discussion I've ever seen on MFP about "clean eating", courtesy of Sidesteel:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/822501-halp-my-sandwich-isn-t-clean

BeachIron

I know this is TL:DR, but let me try to explain, in my opinion, why this discussion is pointless and a waste of time. The very premise of this approach is that "clean eating" necessarily means "healthy eating." That assumption is built into any discussion of this subject and each person is going to bring their own beliefs to their attempt at providing a definition of "clean". So ask yourself, is there a definition of clean eating that I can agree to that includes unhealthy foods? If not, then why bother with the definition of "clean" and just simply agree to use "healthy?" This at least avoids the semantic arguments that seem to only add to the length of these threads.

We often also see an added premise in between "clean = healthy" and instead we see "clean = unprocessed = healthy." And, of course, we have the same problem with the definition of "processed" as no one pushing this approach is going to agree to a definition of the word "processed" that includes healthy foods. I think it also just tends to confuse people as once you agree that "processed = unhealthy" then you see the arguments against things like whole wheat pasta and canned tomatoes, get reduced to "well it is processed therefore it must be bad for you." Again, nothing is added to the discussion of healthy foods with these terms.

Next, there is the problem with discussing healthy "food." No individual food is healthy or unhealthy unless you consider how it fits into one's overall diet. Is fruit healthy? Is pasta healthy? Are vegetables healthy? As part of a balanced diet, yes, of course, but we don't advocate eating only vegetables anymore than we advocate eating only ice cream. The mix of foods is what matters.

The reality is it is very difficult to reduce any discussion of healthy eating to a point where it does not include a discussion of macronutrients, fiber and micronutrients. Personally, I think IIFYM and flexible dieting are a step in the right direction, but I do worry more than just my macros. I like the idea though that it doesn't demonize food, and instead focuses on a person's overall diet, and I'm sorry but that is a step so many people just seem to refuse to make to their own detriment.

iAMsmiling

You can't have a definition because of the emotions involved.

People are incredibly emotionally invested in their perceptions of what got them unhealthy and what needs to be done to become healthy. The simple answers of "you were not disciplined enough in how much you ate and how much you exercised" is too near to home for many to accept.
It's much easier on the self esteem to demonize specific foods and groups of foods as well as eateries and food corporations than it is to just own up to our own weaknesses.

So, to contradict myself, I guess my definition of "clean food" would be "Whatever scapegoat food is needed to soothe my self-esteem and provide hope that avoiding those food demons will allow me to get where I want to be."

Disclaimer--I'm not a psychologist and I don't even play one on TV....

Meg_Shirley_86

I know this is TL:DR, but let me try to explain, in my opinion, why this discussion is pointless and a waste of time. The very premise of this approach is that "clean eating" necessarily means "healthy eating." That assumption is built into any discussion of this subject and each person is going to bring their own beliefs to their attempt at providing a definition of "clean". So ask yourself, is there a definition of clean eating that I can agree to that includes unhealthy foods? If not, then why bother with the definition of "clean" and just simply agree to use "healthy?" This at least avoids the semantic arguments that seem to only add to the length of these threads.

We often also see an added premise in between "clean = healthy" and instead we see "clean = unprocessed = healthy." And, of course, we have the same problem with the definition of "processed" as no one pushing this approach is going to agree to a definition of the word "processed" that includes healthy foods. I think it also just tends to confuse people as once you agree that "processed = unhealthy" then you see the arguments against things like whole wheat pasta and canned tomatoes, get reduced to "well it is processed therefore it must be bad for you." Again, nothing is added to the discussion of healthy foods with these terms.

Next, there is the problem with discussing healthy "food." No individual food is healthy or unhealthy unless you consider how it fits into one's overall diet. Is fruit healthy? Is pasta healthy? Are vegetables healthy? As part of a balanced diet, yes, of course, but we don't advocate eating only vegetables anymore than we advocate eating only ice cream. The mix of foods is what matters.

The reality is it is very difficult to reduce any discussion of healthy eating to a point where it does not include a discussion of macronutrients, fiber and micronutrients. Personally, I think IIFYM and flexible dieting are a step in the right direction, but I do worry more than just my macros. I like the idea though that it doesn't demonize food, and instead focuses on a person's overall diet, and I'm sorry but that is a step so many people just seem to refuse to make to their own detriment.

I think this is a very valid point. However, is it wrong to have a discussion about it? I find other people's point of views to be interesting. As in any conversation someone may not be interested in having with me, they have the choice not to participate. I think the actual advice I have seen you give is blunt, but wise. I'm no delicate flower, so I can appreciate that.
But I can not wrap my head around something:
The only reason I remember who you are is because I've seen so many of your posts, and you continuously say that whatever thread you're in is pointless. Why. are. you. there? I really don't get it. It seems like you are consistently annoyed. Why punish yourself? Why punish others? I think many threads are meaningless too..... so, I just don't read further.

conniedj

*LOSE

oh, wait.....no, you're right.

Totally lol.......wait--what? oh...that IS right!

To the OP--I agree with the other peeps who say that they define clean as foods in as natural state as possible. I like to cook everything from scratch...but when I don't have time to make my own ice cream, I seek out a brand that has 5 or less ingredients. To hear anyone say that what we eat doesn't matter--really just blows me away. At some point if all you feed your body is junk--then your body will begin to break down. I call it "critical mass".....

For me I reached critical mass when I was 42....I had just weaned my youngest child, was feeling tired worn out, and felt like I was going to die if I couldn't get a nap in. All test came back normal. Decided to take an alternative approach. Found out I had some issues with deficiencies that my dr. didn't test for. Went on a healing/building program. Felt normal after about a year. 2 years of being sick sucked!!!

Now? I look at what I put into my body as an investment. I don't want to take chances with food that has so many chemicals and preservatives and mystery flavors. My body deserves better. I don't want my children to be diagnosed with "a really rare cancer" like my friends who have children that have been. When you feed the body correctly--it stands a chance at healing when it is constantly assaulted with chemicals, toxins, and foods without adequate nutrition. My children deserve better.
I am just glad that I got a second chance to clean up my act!

conniedj

I know this is TL:DR, but let me try to explain, in my opinion, why this discussion is pointless and a waste of time. The very premise of this approach is that "clean eating" necessarily means "healthy eating." That assumption is built into any discussion of this subject and each person is going to bring their own beliefs to their attempt at providing a definition of "clean". So ask yourself, is there a definition of clean eating that I can agree to that includes unhealthy foods? If not, then why bother with the definition of "clean" and just simply agree to use "healthy?" This at least avoids the semantic arguments that seem to only add to the length of these threads.

We often also see an added premise in between "clean = healthy" and instead we see "clean = unprocessed = healthy." And, of course, we have the same problem with the definition of "processed" as no one pushing this approach is going to agree to a definition of the word "processed" that includes healthy foods. I think it also just tends to confuse people as once you agree that "processed = unhealthy" then you see the arguments against things like whole wheat pasta and canned tomatoes, get reduced to "well it is processed therefore it must be bad for you." Again, nothing is added to the discussion of healthy foods with these terms.

Next, there is the problem with discussing healthy "food." No individual food is healthy or unhealthy unless you consider how it fits into one's overall diet. Is fruit healthy? Is pasta healthy? Are vegetables healthy? As part of a balanced diet, yes, of course, but we don't advocate eating only vegetables anymore than we advocate eating only ice cream. The mix of foods is what matters.

The reality is it is very difficult to reduce any discussion of healthy eating to a point where it does not include a discussion of macronutrients, fiber and micronutrients. Personally, I think IIFYM and flexible dieting are a step in the right direction, but I do worry more than just my macros. I like the idea though that it doesn't demonize food, and instead focuses on a person's overall diet, and I'm sorry but that is a step so many people just seem to refuse to make to their own detriment.

I think this is a very valid point. However, is it wrong to have a discussion about it? I find other people's point of views to be interesting. As in any conversation someone may not be interested in having with me, they have the choice not to participate. I think the actual advice I have seen you give is blunt, but wise. I'm no delicate flower, so I can appreciate that.
But I can not wrap my head around something:
The only reason I remember who you are is because I've seen so many of your posts, and you continuously say that whatever thread you're in is pointless. Why. are. you. there? I really don't get it. It seems like you are consistently annoyed. Why punish yourself? Why punish others? I think many threads are meaningless too..... so, I just don't read further.

Can I get an Amen for my sister???