Clean Eating v Organic
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Because it isn't bad. Water isn't nutritious food, lettuce isn't terribly nutritious either, and so on.
If you're calling some food clean, you're implying what isn't clean is unclean/dirty, and those words have negative connotations if you like it or not.
The moderates or however you want to call us, eat mostly nutritious stuff to fill our quotas and leave the rest for whatever, be that more nutritious food or food that's not as nutritous, because there's nothing wrong with food that's not nutritious as long as your overall diet is. Food that's not nutritious is not anti-nutritious, it doesn't take away from the nutrition you already had
Yet we have oh so very often in threads talking about clean eating, or low carb, or this or that people saying "You HAVE to cut x out", "stop eating Y", "z is the reason we have an obesity epidemic" etc. etc. etc.. That is talking as if the inclusion of those unclean/bad foods was actively detrimental to your health and goals, despite whatever else you may eat in your diet.
Then they go on talking as if everyone talking about moderation was eating nothing but cake all day every day and gulping it down with a gallon of coke.
This happens all the time, and not even always by people with like 4 posts who are never coming back either.
If I say clean and you infer unclean/dirty that's all you man. Not me. I've often heard and used the phrase "eat clean" for over 30 years. I never heard anyone call food unclean or dirty until last year when I joined MFP, and in that year have only seen it assigned by someone poo-pooing the phrase "clean eating".
My junk is my junk and my clean is my clean. You can claim I meant whatever you want, but it is still you claiming it, not me.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This ^^^^^
It should be a stock answer to all clean eating threads! Then the thread should be closed.
So much so,,, It was a decent answer to a legitimate question. It didn't promote one way or the other,didn't get lost in semantics,didn't spew a bunch of moralistic BS..
The very concepts of "clean" eating and "junk" or "bad" food are inheretly moralistic. They imply value, which food cannot have outside of the context of an individual's entire diet.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Because it isn't bad. Water isn't nutritious food, lettuce isn't terribly nutritious either, and so on.
If you're calling some food clean, you're implying what isn't clean is unclean/dirty, and those words have negative connotations if you like it or not.
The moderates or however you want to call us, eat mostly nutritious stuff to fill our quotas and leave the rest for whatever, be that more nutritious food or food that's not as nutritous, because there's nothing wrong with food that's not nutritious as long as your overall diet is. Food that's not nutritious is not anti-nutritious, it doesn't take away from the nutrition you already had
Yet we have oh so very often in threads talking about clean eating, or low carb, or this or that people saying "You HAVE to cut x out", "stop eating Y", "z is the reason we have an obesity epidemic" etc. etc. etc.. That is talking as if the inclusion of those unclean/bad foods was actively detrimental to your health and goals, despite whatever else you may eat in your diet.
Then they go on talking as if everyone talking about moderation was eating nothing but cake all day every day and gulping it down with a gallon of coke.
This happens all the time, and not even always by people with like 4 posts who are never coming back either.
If I say clean and you infer unclean/dirty that's all you man. Not me. I've often heard and used the phrase "eat clean" for over 30 years. I never heard anyone call food unclean or dirty until last year when I joined MFP, and in that year have only seen it assigned by someone poo-pooing the phrase "clean eating".
My junk is my junk and my clean is my clean. You can claim I meant whatever you want, but it is still you claiming it, not me.
Yeah, no. It's not just me, that's just basic understanding of language. When I call your room clean you know it's not dirty. If something causes your room to not be clean, that means it's dirty/unclean.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Because it isn't bad. Water isn't nutritious food, lettuce isn't terribly nutritious either, and so on.
If you're calling some food clean, you're implying what isn't clean is unclean/dirty, and those words have negative connotations if you like it or not.
The moderates or however you want to call us, eat mostly nutritious stuff to fill our quotas and leave the rest for whatever, be that more nutritious food or food that's not as nutritous, because there's nothing wrong with food that's not nutritious as long as your overall diet is. Food that's not nutritious is not anti-nutritious, it doesn't take away from the nutrition you already had
Yet we have oh so very often in threads talking about clean eating, or low carb, or this or that people saying "You HAVE to cut x out", "stop eating Y", "z is the reason we have an obesity epidemic" etc. etc. etc.. That is talking as if the inclusion of those unclean/bad foods was actively detrimental to your health and goals, despite whatever else you may eat in your diet.
Then they go on talking as if everyone talking about moderation was eating nothing but cake all day every day and gulping it down with a gallon of coke.
This happens all the time, and not even always by people with like 4 posts who are never coming back either.
If I say clean and you infer unclean/dirty that's all you man. Not me. I've often heard and used the phrase "eat clean" for over 30 years. I never heard anyone call food unclean or dirty until last year when I joined MFP, and in that year have only seen it assigned by someone poo-pooing the phrase "clean eating".
My junk is my junk and my clean is my clean. You can claim I meant whatever you want, but it is still you claiming it, not me.
Bull****. What is food that does not meet your definition of clean? Words have meanings and, surprisingly, those meanings antonyms. That's how language works.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This ^^^^^
It should be a stock answer to all clean eating threads! Then the thread should be closed.
So much so,,, It was a decent answer to a legitimate question. It didn't promote one way or the other,didn't get lost in semantics,didn't spew a bunch of moralistic BS..
The very concepts of "clean" eating and "junk" or "bad" food are inheretly moralistic. They imply value, which food cannot have outside of the context of an individual's entire diet.
So do you want to buy all the junk I have in my fridge ? Gota warn you though some of it is pass the expiration dates , So that would be bad, spoiled no good food. Either way I ain't eating it.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This ^^ 100%
All the rest is usually just arguing over a personal dislike of a phrase.
I identified two substantial claims that I think distinguish "clean eating" as it is usually defined on MFP from moderation or how I choose to eat (which also involves emphasizing whole foods). Therefore, I do not agree that it's merely semantic.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This ^^^^^
It should be a stock answer to all clean eating threads! Then the thread should be closed.
So much so,,, It was a decent answer to a legitimate question. It didn't promote one way or the other,didn't get lost in semantics,didn't spew a bunch of moralistic BS..
The very concepts of "clean" eating and "junk" or "bad" food are inheretly moralistic. They imply value, which food cannot have outside of the context of an individual's entire diet.
So do you want to buy all the junk I have in my fridge ? Gota warn you though some of it is pass the expiration dates , So that would be bad, spoiled no good food. Either way I ain't eating it.
I didn't think I needed to specifically exclude food which was rotten. Should I also point out that one should not eat a hamburger if it falls into a pile of dog poo?0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
This.
Is perfect!0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Because it isn't bad. Water isn't nutritious food, lettuce isn't terribly nutritious either, and so on.
If you're calling some food clean, you're implying what isn't clean is unclean/dirty, and those words have negative connotations if you like it or not.
The moderates or however you want to call us, eat mostly nutritious stuff to fill our quotas and leave the rest for whatever, be that more nutritious food or food that's not as nutritous, because there's nothing wrong with food that's not nutritious as long as your overall diet is. Food that's not nutritious is not anti-nutritious, it doesn't take away from the nutrition you already had
Yet we have oh so very often in threads talking about clean eating, or low carb, or this or that people saying "You HAVE to cut x out", "stop eating Y", "z is the reason we have an obesity epidemic" etc. etc. etc.. That is talking as if the inclusion of those unclean/bad foods was actively detrimental to your health and goals, despite whatever else you may eat in your diet.
Then they go on talking as if everyone talking about moderation was eating nothing but cake all day every day and gulping it down with a gallon of coke.
This happens all the time, and not even always by people with like 4 posts who are never coming back either.
If I say clean and you infer unclean/dirty that's all you man. Not me. I've often heard and used the phrase "eat clean" for over 30 years. I never heard anyone call food unclean or dirty until last year when I joined MFP, and in that year have only seen it assigned by someone poo-pooing the phrase "clean eating".
My junk is my junk and my clean is my clean. You can claim I meant whatever you want, but it is still you claiming it, not me.
Bull****. What is food that does not meet your definition of clean? Words have meanings and, surprisingly, those meanings antonyms. That's how language works.
exactly, as I pointed out before. Clean and dirty both have meanings which are very clear. Then they get applied to 'food' and everyone starts arguing about what that means. Any new person who asked about diets gets confused and left out of the conversation as the arguments continue.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods."
Not on MFP or many other places.
It seems to me that a lot of us who aren't "clean eaters" tend to have a diet with an emphasis on whole or minimally-processed foods. What sets aside the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" is that they assert that they eat "no processed foods" or "no foods from a box" or the like which is -- of course -- almost always not actually true.
Specifically, the claims of "clean eaters" on MFP seem to be:
(1) That including even a minimal amount of non-clean food (however that's defined) makes a diet less "healthy" than diets that include these foods.
(2) That "processing" in and of itself makes food less nutritious even though (of course) in the absence of processing most of us would have far less access to foods that promote health like produce in the off-season or fish that is not local or leaner cuts of meat or many dairy products, not to mention whole grains and convenience foods like canned beans or tomatoes.
It is because I disagree with these claims that I am not a "clean eater," and these two claims are what are being debated in the clean eating debates on MFP.
It's rather misleading to suggest that the issue is focusing on whole foods, as many many more people besides self-proclaimed clean eaters do that. The evidence of this is all the "clean eaters" who want special "clean eating" cook books when of course the vast majority of normal cookbooks involve cooking from whole foods. (I have literally hundreds of regular cookbooks, and all focus on whole foods.)
Yes, on MFP. There are over 19k members of the Clean Eating group here on MFP. They all have varying approaches, but that seems to be a common theme.
Then how is what they do different than what I or PeachyCarol or the many others here who emphasis scratch cooking from whole foods do?
The only way is that those who claim to be "clean eaters" assert that they try to or actually do avoid ALL processed foods, and that this is an ideal. That's what the argument between "clean eating" and "moderation" is. To claim that moderates inherently do not focus on whole foods (or care about nutrition, as some claim) is not accurate.
I peeked into the clean eating group just the other day and saw Ang (who doesn't seem to actually identify as a "clean eater") asking about the "no boxes or bags" claim, since as she pointed out stuff like dried beans and pasta and oatmeal comes in boxes or bags, and she was responded to by someone who seemed confused about the difference between "clean eating" and "paleo" and suggested that pasta was a "recipe for fat." But there most certainly did seem to be the position strongly expressed that avoiding ALL packaged and processed foods was the idea. Not simply generally preferring to focus on whole and minimally-processed foods (which I did when I was gaining weight as well as losing it).0 -
Seeing as you felt the need to call my statement ridiculous, I have to wonder who you think is actually insecure?accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
I can actually back up the assertion that call things clean in contexts where it doesn't belong has to do with most of our reactionary morality coming out of the disgust center of the brain. Which makes it ironic that an area designed to judge food, has gone to judging morals, and via morals, back to judging food. Poor insular cortex must be confused.
There are metaphors that are universal because evolution doesn't create new things, it works on existing structures, so a lot of metaphorical things get mapped to actual sensory processing areas of the brain. You'll find every culture has a concept of moral disgust, and every culture has a concept of warm/cold people, and neither is coincidental.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
I agree with you on the "junk" thing and I don't care much about the "bad" thing unless someone seems to be using it in a way that suggests she is beating herself up -- seeing herself as "bad" when she eats "bad food." I've seen this often enough that I worry about it and think it's best to focus on factual elements about food (the nutritional content, what it adds and what it does not) and not labels like "bad" and "good." But if you are someone who can happily eat food you consider "bad," I wouldn't think it was a harmful label for you or care all that much. It's guilt and shame attached to eating decisions that I find damaging.
(Junk is such a normalized term that I expect most of us could say we eat junk food occasionally -- however we define it -- without it seeming a slam on ourselves. I'm just never sure if something like homemade pie is or is not included in a particular person's definition of "junk" food. I suppose I'd include it if it's about micronutrient per calorie.)
My issue with "clean eating" isn't that some foods don't contribute more than others -- of course they do. It's the idea that being "processed" makes something "bad" or "junk" independent of its actual nutritional profile. Or that eating ANY processed food makes a diet less healthful (and is apparently akin to eating only Twinkies, from how these discussions usually go).0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
That's pretty funny. I'd say it's those who eat basically the same as others here but feel the need to congratulate themselves by claiming to be "clean eaters" because they cut down the number of times they go to McD's or the like are the ones who are insecure. Feeling a need for a special label is ridiculous.
That's for those who -- as kgeyser says -- eat basically the same way as most of the rest of us (preferring a nutrient dense diet, largely focusing on whole or minimally processed foods, using other foods as it fits our goals or in moderation). This probably is the majority of those who claim to be "clean eaters" on MFP.
But when I ask for a definition I am often given the two criteria I identified above, and those really are substantial and factual claims and therefore are worth discussion. So if you are someone who really practices moderation but just really gets off on calling yourself a "clean eater" -- never mind.
If you do, in fact, believe the "clean eating" claims that would distinguish someone from the rest of us (ALL processed foods are bad, context doesn't matter), then I'd love to discuss those differences, as I think the clean eating position is just factually incorrect as a matter of nutrition.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
I agree with you on the "junk" thing and I don't care much about the "bad" thing unless someone seems to be using it in a way that suggests she is beating herself up -- seeing herself as "bad" when she eats "bad food." I've seen this often enough that I worry about it and think it's best to focus on factual elements about food (the nutritional content, what it adds and what it does not) and not labels like "bad" and "good." But if you are someone who can happily eat food you consider "bad," I wouldn't think it was a harmful label for you or care all that much. It's guilt and shame attached to eating decisions that I find damaging.
(Junk is such a normalized term that I expect most of us could say we eat junk food occasionally -- however we define it -- without it seeming a slam on ourselves. I'm just never sure if something like homemade pie is or is not included in a particular person's definition of "junk" food. I suppose I'd include it if it's about micronutrient per calorie.)
My issue with "clean eating" isn't that some foods don't contribute more than others -- of course they do. It's the idea that being "processed" makes something "bad" or "junk" independent of its actual nutritional profile. Or that eating ANY processed food makes a diet less healthful (and is apparently akin to eating only Twinkies, from how these discussions usually go).
But why do you care so much that others think processed food is bad? I can understand not agreeing. I can't understand the need to try and stop others from thinking it. Why is it such a big deal?0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)0 -
No one cares what any one of us chooses to eat or not to eat personally. Frankly, none of us are that interesting to the group as a whole.
People DO tend to care when people preach what other people MUST eat or (more commonly) MUST NOT eat.
Why this seems to constantly be a mystery to other long-time posters of this board baffles me.0 -
You should call them boxed food because apparently no good food comes from a box.lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
I agree with you on the "junk" thing and I don't care much about the "bad" thing unless someone seems to be using it in a way that suggests she is beating herself up -- seeing herself as "bad" when she eats "bad food." I've seen this often enough that I worry about it and think it's best to focus on factual elements about food (the nutritional content, what it adds and what it does not) and not labels like "bad" and "good." But if you are someone who can happily eat food you consider "bad," I wouldn't think it was a harmful label for you or care all that much. It's guilt and shame attached to eating decisions that I find damaging.
(Junk is such a normalized term that I expect most of us could say we eat junk food occasionally -- however we define it -- without it seeming a slam on ourselves. I'm just never sure if something like homemade pie is or is not included in a particular person's definition of "junk" food. I suppose I'd include it if it's about micronutrient per calorie.)
My issue with "clean eating" isn't that some foods don't contribute more than others -- of course they do. It's the idea that being "processed" makes something "bad" or "junk" independent of its actual nutritional profile. Or that eating ANY processed food makes a diet less healthful (and is apparently akin to eating only Twinkies, from how these discussions usually go).
But why do you care so much that others think processed food is bad? I can understand not agreeing. I can't understand the need to try and stop others from thinking it. Why is it such a big deal?
I don't care unless they tell others that they shouldn't eat "processed foods" or that doing so is not healthy. When they make the latter claim it's a factual assertion that I think should be countered.
It's is true that if someone says that they don't eat processed food I assume they are lying or using a dishonest definition of "processed" and it affects my opinion of them, but I don't say anything unless they seem to be bragging or condemning others -- like an OP who starts a thread saying "I don't eat processed food--why don't the rest of you eat real food like me!" or "I'm disgusted by the fact that no one here cares about nutrition or cuts out processed foods."
I am not bothered at all by personal decisions to cut out foods, even ones I would never cut out barring an allergy or sensitivity (like legumes). If someone says they are paleo and asks for help I usually just steer them to some recipe sites or the like.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
0 -
Nah. I actually break into the houses of clean eaters and secretly inject their vegetables with ice cream, crushed dorito powder, and enough artificial sweetener to kill an ant hive.ceoverturf wrote: »No one cares what any one of us chooses to eat or not to eat personally. Frankly, none of us are that interesting to the group as a whole.
People DO tend to care when people preach what other people MUST eat or (more commonly) MUST NOT eat.
Why this seems to constantly be a mystery to other long-time posters of this board baffles me.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
IRL if someone was coming to dinner I would ask for clarification if they mentioned a confusing dietary restriction. What I wouldn't do is go into a rant about how they shouldn't use a word that confuses me to describe this or that.
On the forums, I may or may not ask for clarification. Still wouldn't rant about what terms I think they should or should not use.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
I agree with you on the "junk" thing and I don't care much about the "bad" thing unless someone seems to be using it in a way that suggests she is beating herself up -- seeing herself as "bad" when she eats "bad food." I've seen this often enough that I worry about it and think it's best to focus on factual elements about food (the nutritional content, what it adds and what it does not) and not labels like "bad" and "good." But if you are someone who can happily eat food you consider "bad," I wouldn't think it was a harmful label for you or care all that much. It's guilt and shame attached to eating decisions that I find damaging.
(Junk is such a normalized term that I expect most of us could say we eat junk food occasionally -- however we define it -- without it seeming a slam on ourselves. I'm just never sure if something like homemade pie is or is not included in a particular person's definition of "junk" food. I suppose I'd include it if it's about micronutrient per calorie.)
My issue with "clean eating" isn't that some foods don't contribute more than others -- of course they do. It's the idea that being "processed" makes something "bad" or "junk" independent of its actual nutritional profile. Or that eating ANY processed food makes a diet less healthful (and is apparently akin to eating only Twinkies, from how these discussions usually go).
But why do you care so much that others think processed food is bad? I can understand not agreeing. I can't understand the need to try and stop others from thinking it. Why is it such a big deal?
I don't care unless they tell others that they shouldn't eat "processed foods" or that doing so is not healthy. When they make the latter claim it's a factual assertion that I think should be countered.
It's is true that if someone says that they don't eat processed food I assume they are lying or using a dishonest definition of "processed" and it affects my opinion of them, but I don't say anything unless they seem to be bragging or condemning others -- like an OP who starts a thread saying "I don't eat processed food--why don't the rest of you eat real food like me!" or "I'm disgusted by the fact that no one here cares about nutrition or cuts out processed foods."
I am not bothered at all by personal decisions to cut out foods, even ones I would never cut out barring an allergy or sensitivity (like legumes). If someone says they are paleo and asks for help I usually just steer them to some recipe sites or the like.
Sorry, I don't buy this. This thread being a perfect example.0 -
jokerNotSureIfSerious.jpgtennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
You know there are people who consider vegetarianism clean eating, right?
You do know most bacon has more nitrogen added than an underground street racing car?0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."0 -
jokerNotSureIfSerious.jpgtennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
You know there are people who consider vegetarianism clean eating, right?
You do know most bacon has more nitrogen added than an underground street racing car?
the big question as it relates to "clean" hot dog weenies is whether the nitrogen added to bacon is worse than nitrogen that is added in the form of celery powder, which is added to the weenies to provide nitrogen and still be able to put "no added nitrogen" on the food label....0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »No one cares what any one of us chooses to eat or not to eat personally. Frankly, none of us are that interesting to the group as a whole.
People DO tend to care when people preach what other people MUST eat or (more commonly) MUST NOT eat.
Why this seems to constantly be a mystery to other long-time posters of this board baffles me.
Yep I find it annoying when people preach that others MUST eat in moderation and MUST NOT limit carbs, especially when the OP has expressed an interest in eating a way that is not 'portion restricted'!
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
IRL if someone was coming to dinner I would ask for clarification if they mentioned a confusing dietary restriction. What I wouldn't do is go into a rant about how they shouldn't use a word that confuses me to describe this or that.
On the forums, I may or may not ask for clarification. Still wouldn't rant about what terms I think they should or should not use.
I don't think I rant about "junk food" being used, but feel free to find a counterexample.
I don't even think I rant about "clean eating" being used, although I do like debating whether or not it is a useful term and speculating about the motivations behind people's desire to use it (especially for diets that are essentially like mine).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Organic food is designated organic based on growing practices; if you see something labeled "organic" in the grocery store, it means that it has met certain standards to have that label (although you should check what the standards are for the label, your definition of "organic" could be different from what the actual law states as acceptable practices and limits).
Clean eating is not a designation, but an eating style. People's definitions of the term vary, however the most general definition would probably be "a diet with an emphasis of whole or minimally-processed foods, which minimizes or avoids heavily-processed or prepackaged convenience foods." That seems to be the most frequent explanation I've seen clean eaters have in common, and even that general definition is tweaked based on the individual. Each person seems to have their own comfort levels in regards to foods, levels of processing, and frequency of consumption. If someone asked for clean eating recipes, I would probably ask them to clarify the specifics of their diet, just like I would a vegetarian, simply because there seems to be a myriad of different styles within that umbrella term (much like there is with vegetarians).
If you're interested in learning more about clean eating, there's a pretty active group here on MFP, they would probably be a good resource to explain that way of eating and what different individuals include in their diet.
This.
Ignore the ridiculous statements about clean eating as a moral position. That has to do with the insecurity of the offended parties and nothing to do with food...
and this would be how "religious" level arguments get perpetuated. The dumbest thing about all these threads is that we end up agreeing that eating mostly nutritious food, with care for the overall nutrition in the diet is what matters most, and NOT "good or bad" in the individual foods that make up the diet.
But it's just personal vocabulary preference. "mostly nutritious food" implies that other food is not nutritious. Some people (including me) choose to call the not nutritious stuff bad or junk. So what?
If I want to say I need to clean up my diet and quit eating so much junk, that's my biz. It has nothing at all to do with you or religion or morality. It's just the way I choose to talk. It's a big world man. People don't all use the same phrases.
Exactly. That's the problem with using these bland phrases that don't have a defined meaning to everyone. People ask, over and over, what they mean, and everyone argues about it. Clean means one thing as a word by itself, but when you put it together with another word, it starts to define that other word in ways that become somehow undefineable. Healthy is another word that does that. Junk is another. If we just keep 'eating' and 'food' defined as they are, without throwing a bunch of kitschy bull in with them, we all know what we mean and just eat and leave the whole mess alone.
Or, we could just let people be who they are and talk as they like without trying to force them into a predefined mold.
Who doesn't know what "junk" is? Junk is something we all have but don't want too much of. Whether it's junk in your attic, your closet or your diet. We all have junk we just can't seem to let go of, but no one wants too much junk around. It's doesn't really matter if I think X is junk and you think X is not junk. One man's junk is another man's treasure.
Problem being when trying to help new people who are struggling, they are vilifying their own food, and that's not a healthy mindset. It leads to disordered thinking and possibly eating. If we can catch people right at the start, and help them understand that it's not the food that's the problem, it's how they think and eat, we've solved so much. Labeling is something to avoid. Food is just food and we can skip labeling it. Look at how many threads in this very forum devolve into arguments and the original point gets lost because of food labeling. That's a terrible thing.
for example, lets take something that most would agree is "junk". A white flour biscuit. As far as calories go, you have wheat and fat, and next to no micronutrition and almost no fiber.
Lets say the biscuit is a quite large at about 600 calories.
For someone who is only taking in about 1500 calories, that's a pretty high % of the diet that is now filled with "junk". Probably not the best choice for this person as it will now be harder to get adequate nutrition out of food that is palatable in 900 calories.
But, take a larger man doing lots of exercise in a day who may eat 3500-4000 calories to maintain their weight. Suddenly that biscuit could be seen as beneficial, because if the rest of the diet is whole food, you have 600 calories of easily accessible calories that doesn't overly bulk up the rest of the diet, as this person likely would eat plenty of healthy calories in the 3000ish left.
Suddenly what was "junk" put in context becomes beneficial.
That is the first time I have ever seen a white flour biscuit (homemade or otherwise) classified as "junk", and this is the perfect example of something @lemurcat12 is pointing out. You are saying we can all agree this is "junk". What about that would anyone ever think is junk, let alone the majority of people? A homemade biscuit? A delicious vehicle for butter, jam, honey, or gravy? Junk?
I will admit that things like a bag of doritos or something like that has a more universally accepted classification of junk, even though I don't classify them that way I understand when someone else labels doritos as junk. But a biscuit?
The term junk food is a great one - it saves me time having to list all the foods I am choosing to limit in my diet.
Biscuits, jam and honey are all junk food.
I don't avoid them, but they are limited and do not make up the main part of my diet.
It's all about being efficient - in this instance I am able to use two words instead of four!
Don't you think it's confusing to use a term that means entirely different things to different people? Someone will say they are limiting "junk food" and mean bacon, you will say that and mean homemade whole-grain bread.
I don't find the term junk food bothersome, but it is slightly annoying that there's not a better common definition. As WinoGelato said, I generally assume Doritos are included or a Twinkie, and often fast food (even if it has protein) or bacon (same), and I guess homemade sweets, but I wouldn't have assumed homemade starch courses, even when relatively low in nutrients. And someone just yesterday insisted that potatoes were in this category. If someone told me they didn't eat meat, I'd know not to have lamb when they come over for dinner, but if someone says they avoid "junk food," I would not know to leave out the roasted potatoes. (Which I consider nutritious, for the record.)
Who would classify 'bacon' as junk food??????
The US government claims it's a major contributor of "empty calories." The same argument was used here to defend a claim that "pizza" is always junk food. Therefore, the USA.
Joking aside, I think it fits the definition as well as many things called "junk food."
Yep it probably does classify as that for many people. I would add to my list: Rice, Pasta, Bread, Mash Potato.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 428 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions