Clean Eating v Organic
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
Right, people can label all they want for themselves, but the minute it comes on to a public forum, it is no longer only about you. I'm not a fan of GM cars cause I've had some bad luck. That doesn't mean that I think all GM cars in all situations are "bad". They just didn't work for me. So if I was on a GM forum, I would give my story, but wouldn't insist to the entire forum that they are "bad". That's what happens here. People don't just give their story...they argue that stuff is "bad".
Which people?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
Right, people can label all they want for themselves, but the minute it comes on to a public forum, it is no longer only about you. I'm not a fan of GM cars cause I've had some bad luck. That doesn't mean that I think all GM cars in all situations are "bad". They just didn't work for me. So if I was on a GM forum, I would give my story, but wouldn't insist to the entire forum that they are "bad". That's what happens here. People don't just give their story...they argue that stuff is "bad".
Which people?
Bad people!
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
Right, people can label all they want for themselves, but the minute it comes on to a public forum, it is no longer only about you. I'm not a fan of GM cars cause I've had some bad luck. That doesn't mean that I think all GM cars in all situations are "bad". They just didn't work for me. So if I was on a GM forum, I would give my story, but wouldn't insist to the entire forum that they are "bad". That's what happens here. People don't just give their story...they argue that stuff is "bad".
Which people?
People that are being discussed in this thread? I thought that was obvious. I'm not singling anyone out.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
do I need to use a hypothetical political opinion to demonstrate?
0 -
Well I am sure there is at least one person on the forum that eats Doritos and doesn't want to be thought of as bad just for eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
do I need to use a hypothetical political opinion to demonstrate?
I don't know. Give it a try.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
No, it doesn't impact the world. Nothing on here is impacting the world. It's still a wrong statement so of course people will disagree.
0 -
Politics and religion will definitely make this thread come together over arguing over clean food.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
do I need to use a hypothetical political opinion to demonstrate?
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
Because your personal decision is clearly offensive to others.0 -
Well I am sure there is at least one person on the forum that eats Doritos and doesn't want to be thought of as bad just for eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
Luckily thinking Dortios is bad food is not even close to being the same as thinking someone that eats Dortios is bad.0 -
Well I am sure there is at least one person on the forum that eats Doritos and doesn't want to be thought of as bad just for eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
Surely that person would need to let a child starve first before they should be offended???
Have you and be honest??
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I didn't jump on OP, and if I'd had an opportunity to respond to OP before the thread had become about other things I'd have said (nicely) that organic means what kgeyser said and that "clean eating" doesn't really seem to have a common definition and people use it differently but quite often it incorporates the two claims I mentioned above, which with I disagree. I'd probably also have said something positive about focusing on nutrition and whole foods and vegetables, since I favor that stuff.
What I found worth responding to in this thread was kgeyser's suggestion that "clean eating" is defined by, essentially, one form of the moderation position -- that we should eat a generally nutrient dense diet focusing on whole and minimally processed foods. Since that is how I like to eat, I certainly don't agree that's what "clean eating" is, when clean eaters are always telling me I don't care about nutrition since I don't cut out all processed foods or sugar.
I think you just made my point.
How so? Do you find my hypothetical "what I would have said to OP" to be somehow offensive?
No, nor would that have anything to do with my point. You said you don't care what others think about food. Yet you felt you had no opportunity to repond to the OP because of an overwhelming need to respond to a reply, yet that reply did not preach anything. That suggests you do care, even when it's not preached.
I didn't say that that's the only thing I cared about -- it's just the only reason I'd debate the merits of processed food.
I thought kgeyser's post was factually incorrect and was wrongly suggesting that what distinguished clean eaters was focusing on cooking from whole foods, and since I am someone who fits her definition and yet am (obviously) not a clean eater, I thought it was important to correct the claim and identify what I've found actually does distinguish "clean eating" from the rest of us -- if anything.
If kgeyser had said "clean eating means lots of different things depending on who uses it, and for many it means focusing on eating a nutrient dense diet made up of whole and minimally processed foods -- which is what many people who don't call themselves clean eaters also do, of course" I wouldn't have felt compelled to disagree.
Why do I care? Because liking to cook from whole and minimally processed foods is not at all unique to clean eaters, and neither is caring about nutrition. That's a lie that some clean eaters like to tell, that's all, and related to how they will claim that not being a clean eater means saying it's cool to eat only Twinkies.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Well I am sure there is at least one person on the forum that eats Doritos and doesn't want to be thought of as bad just for eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
Luckily thinking Dortios is bad food is not even close to being the same as thinking someone that eats Dortios is bad.
And someone who thinks murder is bad is not the same as saying someone who commits murder is bad... oh wait...
0 -
From the research I've done organic is worth it for some foods and not for others. I had a vegetable garden for a couple of years and did everything organic which was great...but as far as farms and things goes I've read that even though a farm may not use pesticides and such a lot of those things can actually blow in from other farms in the area. So while it is designated as organic there's always a chance it's not.
Ultimately, around here at least, organic food is incredibly expensive and I usually don't worry about it.
As for clean eating -- I think that term gets overused but ultimately the way I look at it is something along the lines of "eat lots of fruits, veggies, grains, meat, etc. Generally the clean eating people don't eat anything "processed" -- personally I think there's a place for just about anything in a healthy diet as long as its in moderation.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Well I am sure there is at least one person on the forum that eats Doritos and doesn't want to be thought of as bad just for eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
Luckily thinking Dortios is bad food is not even close to being the same as thinking someone that eats Dortios is bad.
And someone who thinks murder is bad is not the same as saying someone who commits murder is bad... oh wait...
Hello, strawman. About time you showed up.0 -
Politics and religion will definitely make this thread come together over arguing over clean food.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
do I need to use a hypothetical political opinion to demonstrate?
abortion would be an easy one. I could state an opinion that would "judge" everyone who has ever had an abortion, or those who think it shouldn't be legal. It would be my internal opinion, and thus "not affect anyone else" yet, would stir debate.
If I were to state that opinion would it be ok if I just said it and kept posting over and over that "you should just respect my opinion and not say anything about it as it is just my opinion?"
Or would be ok to keep posting that someone "misconstrued" what I said when they made a reasonable assumption based off the opinion?0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
Because your personal decision is clearly offensive to others.
But it is all about decisions and surely the people who feel offended are choosing to feel offended.
I hear someone call food clean, or refer to other food as bad - I choose 'not' to feel offended and merrily go about my day.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Well I am sure there is at least one person on the forum that eats Doritos and doesn't want to be thought of as bad just for eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
Luckily thinking Dortios is bad food is not even close to being the same as thinking someone that eats Dortios is bad.
And someone who thinks murder is bad is not the same as saying someone who commits murder is bad... oh wait...
Did you really just equate Doritos and murder. ::noway:: Wow, and you have a problem with me calling them "bad"?? Um, okay you win. I'm speechless.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Well I am sure there is at least one person on the forum that eats Doritos and doesn't want to be thought of as bad just for eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
Luckily thinking Dortios is bad food is not even close to being the same as thinking someone that eats Dortios is bad.
And someone who thinks murder is bad is not the same as saying someone who commits murder is bad... oh wait...
Did you really just equate Doritos and murder. ::noway:: Wow, and you have a problem with me calling them "bad"?? Um, okay you win. I'm speechless.
The two go hand in hand.
Have you never heard the expression 'I could murder a bag of doritos'.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Well I am sure there is at least one person on the forum that eats Doritos and doesn't want to be thought of as bad just for eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
Luckily thinking Dortios is bad food is not even close to being the same as thinking someone that eats Dortios is bad.
And someone who thinks murder is bad is not the same as saying someone who commits murder is bad... oh wait...
Did you really just equate Doritos and murder. ::noway:: Wow, and you have a problem with me calling them "bad"?? Um, okay you win. I'm speechless.
bad is bad...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Well I am sure there is at least one person on the forum that eats Doritos and doesn't want to be thought of as bad just for eating it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
Luckily thinking Dortios is bad food is not even close to being the same as thinking someone that eats Dortios is bad.
And someone who thinks murder is bad is not the same as saying someone who commits murder is bad... oh wait...
Did you really just equate Doritos and murder. ::noway:: Wow, and you have a problem with me calling them "bad"?? Um, okay you win. I'm speechless.
Yes, that's what I did. I think calling Doritos bad and murder are the same thing. You aren't that dense are you? Of course I didn't equate them together. It was just a point, a strawman point...yes... but it has connection and shows why some would/could be offended.
FTR, I don't get offended by anything...
0 -
Politics and religion will definitely make this thread come together over arguing over clean food.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
do I need to use a hypothetical political opinion to demonstrate?
abortion would be an easy one. I could state an opinion that would "judge" everyone who has ever had an abortion, or those who think it shouldn't be legal. It would be my internal opinion, and thus "not affect anyone else" yet, would stir debate.
If I were to state that opinion would it be ok if I just said it and kept posting over and over that "you should just respect my opinion and not say anything about it as it is just my opinion?"
Or would be ok to keep posting that someone "misconstrued" what I said when they made a reasonable assumption based off the opinion?
My godness, this is getting pretty out there. My opinion on Dortios judges no one so I don't see the similarity.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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'!
Has anyone here (as in involved with this thread) done that?
Personally, I have NEVER said that anyone else must eat in moderation or must not limit carbs. (In that I've limited carbs from time to time -- and still will turn them down to meet my protein or fat goals or my calorie goal -- and don't eat certain foods (although I generally don't want them either), that would be awfully hypocritical, and hypocrisy is one of the things I'm arguing against here. Specifically, the hypocrisy of someone who eats processed foods preaching to others about how all processed foods are bad.)
Actually most of the threads I've read are where the OP explains how bad they believe processed food to be and that is why 'THEY' are limiting or avoiding them.
We must be reading different threads, as almost all either have an OP giving general rules that say WE ALL should limit processed foods or complaining that others here aren't as focused on nutrition since they eat BAD foods.
Sometimes OP seems worried about how to cut out foods and there I think it's worth seeing if she really wants to or has just read that one must to lose weight. Quite often these OP's are happy to learn they don't have to, and others have been successful without.
And more often than not the OP asks an innocuous question and gets helpful responses and then someone swoops in and tells her that she MUST cut out sugar or fruit or carbs or processed foods. Those are the ones that I seem to end up in most often lately.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10235669/clean-eating
- asking if anyone would like to join her (not saying they have to or even need to)
And generally not negative posts, although lots asking what she meant. Unsurprisingly, not a thread that blew up (the ones I mentioned are the ones which blow up).http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10246844/transition-to-clean-eating-with-a-family-involved
- again not telling anyone to clean eat. She is asking for clean eating advice
And again generally helpful, non-negative responses and not a thread that blew up.
Generally the same, with one person harsher re the "clean eating" concept and one pushing it.
Did you think I was claiming that everyone who mentioned "clean eating" was saying others needed to do it? I was saying those are the one that start the big debates on "clean eating." It looks like most -- like me -- don't get bothered responding otherwise.
Of course, those are also the ones that get deleted, but here's one: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10020547/if-eating-trash-makes-us-sick-why-do-we-keep-eating-it/p1
This has lots of assertions that are supposed to be generally applicable.
There was also the charming one where OP posted about how all her friends eat "crap."
And the recent ones about the horrors of "boxed foods" and giving us rules to live by from the self-proclaimed fitness model, among many many others.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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'!
Has anyone here (as in involved with this thread) done that?
Personally, I have NEVER said that anyone else must eat in moderation or must not limit carbs. (In that I've limited carbs from time to time -- and still will turn them down to meet my protein or fat goals or my calorie goal -- and don't eat certain foods (although I generally don't want them either), that would be awfully hypocritical, and hypocrisy is one of the things I'm arguing against here. Specifically, the hypocrisy of someone who eats processed foods preaching to others about how all processed foods are bad.)
Actually most of the threads I've read are where the OP explains how bad they believe processed food to be and that is why 'THEY' are limiting or avoiding them.
We must be reading different threads, as almost all either have an OP giving general rules that say WE ALL should limit processed foods or complaining that others here aren't as focused on nutrition since they eat BAD foods.
Sometimes OP seems worried about how to cut out foods and there I think it's worth seeing if she really wants to or has just read that one must to lose weight. Quite often these OP's are happy to learn they don't have to, and others have been successful without.
And more often than not the OP asks an innocuous question and gets helpful responses and then someone swoops in and tells her that she MUST cut out sugar or fruit or carbs or processed foods. Those are the ones that I seem to end up in most often lately.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10235669/clean-eating
- asking if anyone would like to join her (not saying they have to or even need to)
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10246844/transition-to-clean-eating-with-a-family-involved
- again not telling anyone to clean eat. She is asking for clean eating advice
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10191201/clean-eating
- just asking for advice.
I did a quick search on Clean Eating for the forum and these are three examples from the last couple of months. Couldn't find any that told anyone else they should be clean eating.
Maybe you can share the links if you can find them.
And luckily no one in any of those threads said that they MUSTN'T eat clean or that they MUST use a moderation/IIFYM technique. The closest that I was was one poster who advised that they ditch the clean eating label, but still follow the general overall concept by eating mostly whole, nutrient-dense foods.
Thus, reinforcing my perception of the rarity of such comments0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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'!
Has anyone here (as in involved with this thread) done that?
Personally, I have NEVER said that anyone else must eat in moderation or must not limit carbs. (In that I've limited carbs from time to time -- and still will turn them down to meet my protein or fat goals or my calorie goal -- and don't eat certain foods (although I generally don't want them either), that would be awfully hypocritical, and hypocrisy is one of the things I'm arguing against here. Specifically, the hypocrisy of someone who eats processed foods preaching to others about how all processed foods are bad.)
Actually most of the threads I've read are where the OP explains how bad they believe processed food to be and that is why 'THEY' are limiting or avoiding them.
We must be reading different threads, as almost all either have an OP giving general rules that say WE ALL should limit processed foods or complaining that others here aren't as focused on nutrition since they eat BAD foods.
Sometimes OP seems worried about how to cut out foods and there I think it's worth seeing if she really wants to or has just read that one must to lose weight. Quite often these OP's are happy to learn they don't have to, and others have been successful without.
And more often than not the OP asks an innocuous question and gets helpful responses and then someone swoops in and tells her that she MUST cut out sugar or fruit or carbs or processed foods. Those are the ones that I seem to end up in most often lately.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10235669/clean-eating
- asking if anyone would like to join her (not saying they have to or even need to)
And generally not negative posts, although lots asking what she meant. Unsurprisingly, not a thread that blew up (the ones I mentioned are the ones which blow up).http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10246844/transition-to-clean-eating-with-a-family-involved
- again not telling anyone to clean eat. She is asking for clean eating advice
And again generally helpful, non-negative responses and not a thread that blew up.
Generally the same, with one person harsher re the "clean eating" concept and one pushing it.
Did you think I was claiming that everyone who mentioned "clean eating" was saying others needed to do it? I was saying those are the one that start the big debates on "clean eating." It looks like most -- like me -- don't get bothered responding otherwise.
Of course, those are also the ones that get deleted, but here's one: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10020547/if-eating-trash-makes-us-sick-why-do-we-keep-eating-it/p1
This has lots of assertions that are supposed to be generally applicable.
There was also the charming one where OP posted about how all her friends eat "crap."
And the recent ones about the horrors of "boxed foods" and giving us rules to live by from the self-proclaimed fitness model, among many many others.
The boxed food thread is a great examle. The OP in that one never preached that anyone else should eat the way he does. He just asked if others avoided the same things as he.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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'!
Has anyone here (as in involved with this thread) done that?
Personally, I have NEVER said that anyone else must eat in moderation or must not limit carbs. (In that I've limited carbs from time to time -- and still will turn them down to meet my protein or fat goals or my calorie goal -- and don't eat certain foods (although I generally don't want them either), that would be awfully hypocritical, and hypocrisy is one of the things I'm arguing against here. Specifically, the hypocrisy of someone who eats processed foods preaching to others about how all processed foods are bad.)
Actually most of the threads I've read are where the OP explains how bad they believe processed food to be and that is why 'THEY' are limiting or avoiding them.
We must be reading different threads, as almost all either have an OP giving general rules that say WE ALL should limit processed foods or complaining that others here aren't as focused on nutrition since they eat BAD foods.
Sometimes OP seems worried about how to cut out foods and there I think it's worth seeing if she really wants to or has just read that one must to lose weight. Quite often these OP's are happy to learn they don't have to, and others have been successful without.
And more often than not the OP asks an innocuous question and gets helpful responses and then someone swoops in and tells her that she MUST cut out sugar or fruit or carbs or processed foods. Those are the ones that I seem to end up in most often lately.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10235669/clean-eating
- asking if anyone would like to join her (not saying they have to or even need to)
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10246844/transition-to-clean-eating-with-a-family-involved
- again not telling anyone to clean eat. She is asking for clean eating advice
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10191201/clean-eating
- just asking for advice.
I did a quick search on Clean Eating for the forum and these are three examples from the last couple of months. Couldn't find any that told anyone else they should be clean eating.
Maybe you can share the links if you can find them.
And luckily no one in any of those threads said that they MUSTN'T eat clean or that they MUST use a moderation/IIFYM technique. The closest that I was was one poster who advised that they ditch the clean eating label, but still follow the general overall concept by eating mostly whole, nutrient-dense foods.
Thus, reinforcing my perception of the rarity of such comments
Except for the third response down in the last link:
OP - I am going to give you the following advice.
1. ditch the clean eating it is necessary for nothing and impossible to define.
2. enter your stats into MFP and set it for one pound per week loss.
3. get a food scale and weigh all solids
4. make sure you are using accurate MFP database entries
5. log everything that you eat
6. realize that no foods are bad/clean/good/whatever; you can eat the foods you like on a daily basis like cookies, ice cream, processed foods, etc; however, make sure that the majority of your foods are nutrient dense
7. make sure you hit micros/macors
8. find a form of exercise you like and do it < not necessary but is good for overall health.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Politics and religion will definitely make this thread come together over arguing over clean food.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
do I need to use a hypothetical political opinion to demonstrate?
abortion would be an easy one. I could state an opinion that would "judge" everyone who has ever had an abortion, or those who think it shouldn't be legal. It would be my internal opinion, and thus "not affect anyone else" yet, would stir debate.
If I were to state that opinion would it be ok if I just said it and kept posting over and over that "you should just respect my opinion and not say anything about it as it is just my opinion?"
Or would be ok to keep posting that someone "misconstrued" what I said when they made a reasonable assumption based off the opinion?
My godness, this is getting pretty out there. My opinion on Dortios judges no one so I don't see the similarity.
If you said "wow, that Trump sure has some smart ideas about [insert whatever here]," that would not affect me, but it's hardly surprising that people would feel it was important to respond -- either to correct what they saw as incorrect or to prevent bystanders from assuming they (and everyone else here) agreed.
Same with assertions like "wow, eating food out of boxes is disgusting, as that food has been robbed of all nutrients!"
And, no, I don't think Trump=boxed food.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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'!
Has anyone here (as in involved with this thread) done that?
Personally, I have NEVER said that anyone else must eat in moderation or must not limit carbs. (In that I've limited carbs from time to time -- and still will turn them down to meet my protein or fat goals or my calorie goal -- and don't eat certain foods (although I generally don't want them either), that would be awfully hypocritical, and hypocrisy is one of the things I'm arguing against here. Specifically, the hypocrisy of someone who eats processed foods preaching to others about how all processed foods are bad.)
Actually most of the threads I've read are where the OP explains how bad they believe processed food to be and that is why 'THEY' are limiting or avoiding them.
We must be reading different threads, as almost all either have an OP giving general rules that say WE ALL should limit processed foods or complaining that others here aren't as focused on nutrition since they eat BAD foods.
Sometimes OP seems worried about how to cut out foods and there I think it's worth seeing if she really wants to or has just read that one must to lose weight. Quite often these OP's are happy to learn they don't have to, and others have been successful without.
And more often than not the OP asks an innocuous question and gets helpful responses and then someone swoops in and tells her that she MUST cut out sugar or fruit or carbs or processed foods. Those are the ones that I seem to end up in most often lately.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10235669/clean-eating
- asking if anyone would like to join her (not saying they have to or even need to)
And generally not negative posts, although lots asking what she meant. Unsurprisingly, not a thread that blew up (the ones I mentioned are the ones which blow up).http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10246844/transition-to-clean-eating-with-a-family-involved
- again not telling anyone to clean eat. She is asking for clean eating advice
And again generally helpful, non-negative responses and not a thread that blew up.
Generally the same, with one person harsher re the "clean eating" concept and one pushing it.
Did you think I was claiming that everyone who mentioned "clean eating" was saying others needed to do it? I was saying those are the one that start the big debates on "clean eating." It looks like most -- like me -- don't get bothered responding otherwise.
Of course, those are also the ones that get deleted, but here's one: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10020547/if-eating-trash-makes-us-sick-why-do-we-keep-eating-it/p1
This has lots of assertions that are supposed to be generally applicable.
There was also the charming one where OP posted about how all her friends eat "crap."
And the recent ones about the horrors of "boxed foods" and giving us rules to live by from the self-proclaimed fitness model, among many many others.
The boxed food thread is a great examle. The OP in that one never preached that anyone else should eat the way he does. He just asked if others avoided the same things as he.
I'm with you. You're getting beaten down by a bunch of bullies who think anyone who does/says anything different is automatically wrong. Been there. Don't get sucked into their stupidity any further, you're better.-2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Politics and religion will definitely make this thread come together over arguing over clean food.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Rice? Rice isn't the enemy. Look at Uncle Ben. He's not giving you junk.tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Rice isn't the enemy - no-one is saying it is.
Possibly that's the problem! Just because I don't rate somethings as being beneficial to my diet I don't immediately think of it as destructive.
I don't watch 'The Voice' on TV, but I don't hate the program.
It's okay for things to be thought of a neutral.
Why isn't it okay for things to be thought of as bad? Bad doesn't make something the enemy. I think Doritos are delicious but I still think of them as a bad food. That doesn't make them an enemy. It makes them a food I don't eat often. I don't like a lot of bad in my life. I like to eat mostly good food.
That's my issue. There is no reason to think of them as bad so what's the point of labeling them that? How about a starving child in a random country who hasn't had food in 3 days. Are those Doritos bad for him when compared to starvation? That's an extreme obviously, but it makes my point on why it's ridiculous to arbitrarily label something "bad".
I'm not labeling them for a starving child, I'm labeling them for me. I don't think what I choose to call food has any global ramifications. And my label isn't arbirtrary.
but it immediately becomes more than internal as soon as one posts their opinion in a public forum.
Sorry, not sure what your point is. Do you think there are starving children on here that will offended. Or that someone will let a child starve because all they have to offer is a Dorito and I called them bad? How is my personal label impacting the world once I post it here?
do I need to use a hypothetical political opinion to demonstrate?
abortion would be an easy one. I could state an opinion that would "judge" everyone who has ever had an abortion, or those who think it shouldn't be legal. It would be my internal opinion, and thus "not affect anyone else" yet, would stir debate.
If I were to state that opinion would it be ok if I just said it and kept posting over and over that "you should just respect my opinion and not say anything about it as it is just my opinion?"
Or would be ok to keep posting that someone "misconstrued" what I said when they made a reasonable assumption based off the opinion?
My godness, this is getting pretty out there. My opinion on Dortios judges no one so I don't see the similarity.
If you said "wow, that Trump sure has some smart ideas about [insert whatever here]," that would not affect me, but it's hardly surprising that people would feel it was important to respond -- either to correct what they saw as incorrect or to prevent bystanders from assuming they (and everyone else here) agreed.
Same with assertions like "wow, eating food out of boxes is disgusting, as that food has been robbed of all nutrients!"
And, no, I don't think Trump=boxed food.
I could see the coorelation if boxed food were running for office, but otherwise...0 -
JustMissTracy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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'!
Has anyone here (as in involved with this thread) done that?
Personally, I have NEVER said that anyone else must eat in moderation or must not limit carbs. (In that I've limited carbs from time to time -- and still will turn them down to meet my protein or fat goals or my calorie goal -- and don't eat certain foods (although I generally don't want them either), that would be awfully hypocritical, and hypocrisy is one of the things I'm arguing against here. Specifically, the hypocrisy of someone who eats processed foods preaching to others about how all processed foods are bad.)
Actually most of the threads I've read are where the OP explains how bad they believe processed food to be and that is why 'THEY' are limiting or avoiding them.
We must be reading different threads, as almost all either have an OP giving general rules that say WE ALL should limit processed foods or complaining that others here aren't as focused on nutrition since they eat BAD foods.
Sometimes OP seems worried about how to cut out foods and there I think it's worth seeing if she really wants to or has just read that one must to lose weight. Quite often these OP's are happy to learn they don't have to, and others have been successful without.
And more often than not the OP asks an innocuous question and gets helpful responses and then someone swoops in and tells her that she MUST cut out sugar or fruit or carbs or processed foods. Those are the ones that I seem to end up in most often lately.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10235669/clean-eating
- asking if anyone would like to join her (not saying they have to or even need to)
And generally not negative posts, although lots asking what she meant. Unsurprisingly, not a thread that blew up (the ones I mentioned are the ones which blow up).http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10246844/transition-to-clean-eating-with-a-family-involved
- again not telling anyone to clean eat. She is asking for clean eating advice
And again generally helpful, non-negative responses and not a thread that blew up.
Generally the same, with one person harsher re the "clean eating" concept and one pushing it.
Did you think I was claiming that everyone who mentioned "clean eating" was saying others needed to do it? I was saying those are the one that start the big debates on "clean eating." It looks like most -- like me -- don't get bothered responding otherwise.
Of course, those are also the ones that get deleted, but here's one: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10020547/if-eating-trash-makes-us-sick-why-do-we-keep-eating-it/p1
This has lots of assertions that are supposed to be generally applicable.
There was also the charming one where OP posted about how all her friends eat "crap."
And the recent ones about the horrors of "boxed foods" and giving us rules to live by from the self-proclaimed fitness model, among many many others.
The boxed food thread is a great examle. The OP in that one never preached that anyone else should eat the way he does. He just asked if others avoided the same things as he.
I'm with you. You're getting beaten down by a bunch of bullies who think anyone who does/says anything different is automatically wrong. Been there. Don't get sucked into their stupidity any further, you're better.
Heh, she's the one who first asked you if you really thought all boxed foods were unclean, like dried pasta. The very same thing that caused you to claim I was "on your case."
If that was mean -- and of course it was not -- she was as mean as I was.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions