Eating clean?
Replies
-
Well, personally I'd say there's a massive difference between someone making their own bread from their own mill 100+ years ago versus someone getting a random loaf of white bread off the shelf at a commercial grocery store today. There's no question that in general (I realize there are some exceptions), the ingredient list is probably not going to be even close. And to further illustrate my point, I'll refer to this earlier post in the thread.lemurcat12 wrote: »Didn't you ever see Deadwood? Canned peaches were a treat item.
It's not uncommon for people's grandparents and great-grandparents to have bought such things from the general store (my grandfather on one side even ran the town's general store in an area where fresh food was not available much of the year). Also, given that we saw above that some claim any grains are "unclean," obviously grains were common in prior generations. My own great great great (I dunno, I'd have to look it up) grandparents even had the first mill in their Iowa county. Guess they were among the harbingers of uncleanliness in the US midwest.Here's the ingredients in Hawaiian Punch:
Ingredients: Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup And 2% Or Less of Each of The Following: Concentrated Juices (Pineapple, Orange, Passionfruit, Apple), Purees (Apricot, Papaya, Guava), Citric Acid, Natural And Artificial Flavors, Pectin, Gum Acacia, Sucralose, Glycerol Ester of Wood Rosin, Sodium Hexametaphosphate
If I was in Hawaii and wanted to make some punch, I'd probably leave out the Ester of Wood Rosin and Sodium Hexametaphosphate. If I did want to add those ingredients, I might want to visit a hardware store or the chemistry lab of a local high school. I think to do such a thing though, would make the punch very, very dirty, in comparison to, say, the homemade variety. Where the fresh fruit was pressed in a juicer with some sugar and ice cubes added.
More than likely, hardly any canned fruits and other canned foods in general would have had anything other than the "basics" in them several generations ago. Meaning, only what is necessary to achieve the finished product. Or suppose someone wanted to make Hawaiian punch 100 years ago. There was no such thing as adding the "natural/artificial flavors" ingredient that shows up in many commercial foods today, or sodium hexametaphosphate, or even high fructose corn syrup.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, personally I'd say there's a massive difference between someone making their own bread from their own mill 100+ years ago versus someone getting a random loaf of white bread off the shelf at a commercial grocery store today. There's no question that in general (I realize there are some exceptions), the ingredient list is probably not going to be even close. And to further illustrate my point, I'll refer to this earlier post in the thread.lemurcat12 wrote: »Didn't you ever see Deadwood? Canned peaches were a treat item.
It's not uncommon for people's grandparents and great-grandparents to have bought such things from the general store (my grandfather on one side even ran the town's general store in an area where fresh food was not available much of the year). Also, given that we saw above that some claim any grains are "unclean," obviously grains were common in prior generations. My own great great great (I dunno, I'd have to look it up) grandparents even had the first mill in their Iowa county. Guess they were among the harbingers of uncleanliness in the US midwest.
You do know, right, that the definition of "unclean" foods is not limited to things with lots of added ingredients of the sort you are referring to, right? I'd say if you think there's something wrong with some ingredient, don't consume it, but just assuming that it has a chemical name so must be somehow bad for you isn't sensible, IMO. I made homemade pizza a few days ago (I'm sure not clean -- it involved white flour and a bit of sugar). I could buy pretty similar pizza depending on where I purchased it (local Italian place, for example), so trying to say one is "clean" and one not is silly.
As for Hawaiian Punch, apart from "clean" or not it's way too sweet for me and seems like a drink that would appeal perhaps to kids, not adults. But the main difference between it and the homemade punch is not the preservatives, but the added sugar, which adds tons of calories, and the absence of micronutrients. Someone who craves HP likely would dump lots of added sugar in homemade punch and if so it's just as caloric and thus IMO not much of an advantage.
But go back to my mac and cheese example for a similar point that you ignored before.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »More than likely, hardly any canned fruits and other canned foods in general would have had anything other than the "basics" in them several generations ago. Meaning, only what is necessary to achieve the finished product. Or suppose someone wanted to make Hawaiian punch 100 years ago. There was no such thing as adding the "natural/artificial flavors" ingredient that shows up in many commercial foods today, or sodium hexametaphosphate, or even high fructose corn syrup.
But you are aware that as far as the body is concerned, HFCS is metabolically identical to sugar? It's not the bogeyman many have made it out to be, it's not "dirty" or "toxic" or any of those cute labels.
Research review if you're scientifically inclined: bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-talk-about-high-fructose-corn-syrup-what-it-is-and-what-it-aint-research-review.html/
Excerpt of the conclusion:Now, since I know some people will mis-interpret this piece, I want to be clear: the paper is not saying that people can or should be consuming HFCS in massive amounts. Many HFCS containing foods contain massive numbers of calories.
This is especially true of sweetened sodas and it’s interesting to note that a good bit of data suggests that such drinks can be consumed in massive amounts without signalling the body about their caloric content; but this has more to do with their fluid nature than their composition.
What I’m getting at with this research review is that the near insane over-reaction and concern to any food containing any amount of HFCS among certain groups. Folks on forums are throwing out the baby with the bathwater under the gross misunderstanding that HFCS per se is a unique evil which it clearly isn’t. Within the context of a calorically controlled diet, there is no reason to believe it will have any differential impact beyond every other sugar that has ever been used.
So stop freaking out.0 -
Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Well... this thread is entirely unhelpful to anyone. Its just a bunch of people arguing their own personal eating philosophies.
So heres the point op... decide what works best for you and do it and screw anyone who doesn't like your choices. I used to eat very clean and I am trying to get back to that. I made the same mistake you did and asked for advice on here and got all the same snarky unhelpful responses. Most people know what you mean in general. They just want to push their way as the only way. Its not. Theres all kinds of diets out there. Some better than others but unless your doing something harmful to your body, then do what works for you.
No, the actual point is that "eating clean" means whatever you want it to mean. As I said in my first post, a vegetarian, a vegan, a low-carber and a paleo dieter would all have entirely different definitions of what "clean" is - and each would differ from the other. It's like asking "how long is a piece of string?", or "what color is a car?".
So..... Basically eat whatever you want... But it is clear that most people are referring to fresh raw food in its original state prepared and cooked at home. Or so it seems, since that the types of foods mentioned the most. I'd also find it hard to believe that people don't understand what is meant by junk food or unhealthy food. You may disagree with the premise, labeling or specific foods that fall under it, but you still get it. Extremes like cutting chicken or freezing strawberries makes them unclean or not are unhelpful and frankly make those people look silly. Sure people have different ideas about specifics, but so does every diet in existence. Most people who argue it simply object to the word clean. Claiming we are somehow demonizing food by using it. Hogswash. Its just the name the guy who came up with it used.
0 -
It's really simple. Normally, food that has gone bad activates the insular cortex in the brain - the disgust center.
We got so good at preserving food in the modern era and not needing to eat the ok parts of rancid, six days left over meat compared to our ancestors who were half starved 200,000 years ago that we no longer needed our insular cortex.
However, many people miss using this part of the brain about food. Now, instead of making it work the natural way by digging through dumpsters, many have instead chose to get their food to activate the insular cortex by engaging its other function - modern man has mapped moral disgust to this same area of the brain.
So quiet simply, if you want to eat clean, think of what foods help you look down people for eating them. Avoid these, they are unclean. Be prepared for these foods to change based on whoever is the current in guru - last month soy was ok, this month look down on it, next month quinoa will finely be vilified because it reached 50% of people pronouncing it correctly. So long as you can find a way to think you're more righteous for not eating it, you're clean eating.0 -
So long as you can find a way to think you're more righteous for not eating it, you're clean eating.
This is absolutely perrrrfect. Now, I'm sure there are plenty of "clean eaters" who would argue some science backs their stance, and some of it does, but if internally you actually feel self-righteous because of what you consume, you've got some issues. Eat well. Sure, eat whole foods, fruits, veggies, and lean meats often. Whether you follow a rigid diet plan or are a flexible dieter is all good and well as long as you're not overly concerned about other people's food choices or find yourself feeling "gross" because you ate a snack size bag of doritos.
0 -
Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Well... this thread is entirely unhelpful to anyone. Its just a bunch of people arguing their own personal eating philosophies.
So heres the point op... decide what works best for you and do it and screw anyone who doesn't like your choices. I used to eat very clean and I am trying to get back to that. I made the same mistake you did and asked for advice on here and got all the same snarky unhelpful responses. Most people know what you mean in general. They just want to push their way as the only way. Its not. Theres all kinds of diets out there. Some better than others but unless your doing something harmful to your body, then do what works for you.
I have had the same experience as you, my mistake was commenting I eat as "clean" as I can when I first came on to MFP.
OP, here's what I suggest:Try to eat as healthfully as you can, and try to stay within your calorie goals; call it clean if that's what makes you happy, because really, you are the only person who matters regarding this journey of yours. Disregard anyone that makes you feel stupid or like your way is not right. ((That's not to say disregard good advice given on these boards, the forums are rich with people full of good, solid experience for us to learn from!) If your way isn't working, and you notice the trend proving that, you can always adjust "your way" until it does work. Have a plan, eat as healthfully as you can, stay consistent even when you don't see changes, and HAVE FAITH. It will happen! xo
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
In my opinion? In a dietary sense, by eating a reasonable, varied, balanced diet which provides adequate calories, macro and micronutrients. In a more broad/overall sense, by mixing in reasonable amounts of exercise, maintaining a healthy body weight/composition and a sound mental outlook on life.
Well sure, that's true. But when you hear someone say "clean eating" is that what you think you mean?
The OP's question wasn't 'what is a good philosophy for eating" or "what is a 'balanced diet'". She asked about "clean eating".0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
hehehehehehhe okay so I pick blueberries and freeze them to make storing them easier. They are now unclean?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I've always known it to mean eating natural foods. The closer a food is to it's natural state, the cleaner it is.
so frozen strawberries are less clean than ones you picked from a garden?
Do you see all foods as "clean" or "unclean"? Everything is black or white? No varying degrees of anything?
I can see how such a rigid view would make clean eating very hard to define.0 -
It's really simple. Normally, food that has gone bad activates the insular cortex in the brain - the disgust center.
We got so good at preserving food in the modern era and not needing to eat the ok parts of rancid, six days left over meat compared to our ancestors who were half starved 200,000 years ago that we no longer needed our insular cortex.
However, many people miss using this part of the brain about food. Now, instead of making it work the natural way by digging through dumpsters, many have instead chose to get their food to activate the insular cortex by engaging its other function - modern man has mapped moral disgust to this same area of the brain.
So quiet simply, if you want to eat clean, think of what foods help you look down people for eating them. Avoid these, they are unclean. Be prepared for these foods to change based on whoever is the current in guru - last month soy was ok, this month look down on it, next month quinoa will finely be vilified because it reached 50% of people pronouncing it correctly. So long as you can find a way to think you're more righteous for not eating it, you're clean eating.
Wow, talk about finding a way to look down on people! Did typing that make you feel good?0 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
In my opinion? In a dietary sense, by eating a reasonable, varied, balanced diet which provides adequate calories, macro and micronutrients. In a more broad/overall sense, by mixing in reasonable amounts of exercise, maintaining a healthy body weight/composition and a sound mental outlook on life.
Well sure, that's true. But when you hear someone say "clean eating" is that what you think you mean?
Quite often on this forum it is used as a synonym for healthy eating.
Others seem to assume that eating "clean" is how one eats healthy, so ask "is X clean" basically meaning "is this a good food to add to my diet" or "is this food bad for me or bad for my weight loss plan." The problem with that is that "clean" is (again) a self-defined term that merely refers to avoiding certain categories of food (which vary quite a bit clean eater to clean eater), so the only person who can answer whether a particular food is "clean" is the individual eater -- something that many newbie "clean eaters" seem not to understand. Trying to "eat clean" without having a good reason that you can articulate for what you are avoiding doesn't make sense to me.
And since usually the articulated reason, if any is given, relates to health and nutrition, it's worth pointing out that many processed foods may further such goals. (Especially since processed foods would include stuff like smoked salmon, plain greek yogurt, cottage cheese, whole grains, etc.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
In my opinion? In a dietary sense, by eating a reasonable, varied, balanced diet which provides adequate calories, macro and micronutrients. In a more broad/overall sense, by mixing in reasonable amounts of exercise, maintaining a healthy body weight/composition and a sound mental outlook on life.
Well sure, that's true. But when you hear someone say "clean eating" is that what you think you mean?
Quite often on this forum it is used as a synonym for healthy eating.
Others seem to assume that eating "clean" is how one eats healthy, so ask "is X clean" basically meaning "is this a good food to add to my diet" or "is this food bad for me or bad for my weight loss plan." The problem with that is that "clean" is (again) a self-defined term that merely refers to avoiding certain categories of food (which vary quite a bit clean eater to clean eater), so the only person who can answer whether a particular food is "clean" is the individual eater -- something that many newbie "clean eaters" seem not to understand.
It's not always (or maybe even usually) a self-defined term. I learned the term decades ago, but I didn't self define it. Someone else defined it and I then heard/read about it.
I doubt many people self-define the term. They read about it or are told about it and accept someone else's definition.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
In my opinion? In a dietary sense, by eating a reasonable, varied, balanced diet which provides adequate calories, macro and micronutrients. In a more broad/overall sense, by mixing in reasonable amounts of exercise, maintaining a healthy body weight/composition and a sound mental outlook on life.
Well sure, that's true. But when you hear someone say "clean eating" is that what you think you mean?
Quite often on this forum it is used as a synonym for healthy eating.
Others seem to assume that eating "clean" is how one eats healthy, so ask "is X clean" basically meaning "is this a good food to add to my diet" or "is this food bad for me or bad for my weight loss plan." The problem with that is that "clean" is (again) a self-defined term that merely refers to avoiding certain categories of food (which vary quite a bit clean eater to clean eater), so the only person who can answer whether a particular food is "clean" is the individual eater -- something that many newbie "clean eaters" seem not to understand.
It's not always (or maybe even usually) a self-defined term. I learned the term decades ago, but I didn't self define it. Someone else defined it and I then heard/read about it.
I doubt many people self-define the term. They read about it or are told about it and accept someone else's definition.
Maybe it is not self defined, but the implementation of the definition certainly varies by the individual. The context of what is and isn't clean, as @lemurcat12 points out, is almost always what the posters are getting at. And then, the subjectivity of other people's "clean rules" come into play and that's where the debate ensues.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
In my opinion? In a dietary sense, by eating a reasonable, varied, balanced diet which provides adequate calories, macro and micronutrients. In a more broad/overall sense, by mixing in reasonable amounts of exercise, maintaining a healthy body weight/composition and a sound mental outlook on life.
Well sure, that's true. But when you hear someone say "clean eating" is that what you think you mean?
Quite often on this forum it is used as a synonym for healthy eating.
Others seem to assume that eating "clean" is how one eats healthy, so ask "is X clean" basically meaning "is this a good food to add to my diet" or "is this food bad for me or bad for my weight loss plan." The problem with that is that "clean" is (again) a self-defined term that merely refers to avoiding certain categories of food (which vary quite a bit clean eater to clean eater), so the only person who can answer whether a particular food is "clean" is the individual eater -- something that many newbie "clean eaters" seem not to understand.
It's not always (or maybe even usually) a self-defined term. I learned the term decades ago, but I didn't self define it. Someone else defined it and I then heard/read about it.
I doubt many people self-define the term. They read about it or are told about it and accept someone else's definition.
Maybe it is not self defined, but the implementation of the definition certainly varies by the individual. The context of what is and isn't clean, as @lemurcat12 points out, is almost always what the posters are getting at. And then, the subjectivity of other people's "clean rules" come into play and that's where the debate ensues.
Agreed. But wouldn't the world be a nicer place if everyone just answered the question with how they define the term instead of b****ing and moaning about how it has no meaning and judging everyone that uses it?0 -
Hi all!
Im new to MFP and was wondering if someone could explain what 'clean eating' involves and do you have an open diary as i would love some support and advice.
Thank you xx
Clean eating is: arbitrarily choose a subset of foods not to eat, for whatever reason you feel is right, then don't eat those foods.
Boom. you're eating clean.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
In my opinion? In a dietary sense, by eating a reasonable, varied, balanced diet which provides adequate calories, macro and micronutrients. In a more broad/overall sense, by mixing in reasonable amounts of exercise, maintaining a healthy body weight/composition and a sound mental outlook on life.
Well sure, that's true. But when you hear someone say "clean eating" is that what you think you mean?
Quite often on this forum it is used as a synonym for healthy eating.
Others seem to assume that eating "clean" is how one eats healthy, so ask "is X clean" basically meaning "is this a good food to add to my diet" or "is this food bad for me or bad for my weight loss plan." The problem with that is that "clean" is (again) a self-defined term that merely refers to avoiding certain categories of food (which vary quite a bit clean eater to clean eater), so the only person who can answer whether a particular food is "clean" is the individual eater -- something that many newbie "clean eaters" seem not to understand.
It's not always (or maybe even usually) a self-defined term. I learned the term decades ago, but I didn't self define it. Someone else defined it and I then heard/read about it.
I doubt many people self-define the term. They read about it or are told about it and accept someone else's definition.
Maybe it is not self defined, but the implementation of the definition certainly varies by the individual. The context of what is and isn't clean, as @lemurcat12 points out, is almost always what the posters are getting at. And then, the subjectivity of other people's "clean rules" come into play and that's where the debate ensues.
Agreed. But wouldn't the world be a nicer place if everyone just answered the question with how they define the term instead of b****ing and moaning about how it has no meaning and judging everyone that uses it?
Oh come on, where's the fun in that? If we stop arguing about clean eating and we can't debate whether sugar is addictive, how will we spend our time?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
In my opinion? In a dietary sense, by eating a reasonable, varied, balanced diet which provides adequate calories, macro and micronutrients. In a more broad/overall sense, by mixing in reasonable amounts of exercise, maintaining a healthy body weight/composition and a sound mental outlook on life.
Well sure, that's true. But when you hear someone say "clean eating" is that what you think you mean?
Quite often on this forum it is used as a synonym for healthy eating.
Others seem to assume that eating "clean" is how one eats healthy, so ask "is X clean" basically meaning "is this a good food to add to my diet" or "is this food bad for me or bad for my weight loss plan." The problem with that is that "clean" is (again) a self-defined term that merely refers to avoiding certain categories of food (which vary quite a bit clean eater to clean eater), so the only person who can answer whether a particular food is "clean" is the individual eater -- something that many newbie "clean eaters" seem not to understand.
It's not always (or maybe even usually) a self-defined term. I learned the term decades ago, but I didn't self define it. Someone else defined it and I then heard/read about it.
I doubt many people self-define the term. They read about it or are told about it and accept someone else's definition.
It ends up being self-defined in practice. People claim they don't eat "processed foods" and then eat cold cuts and Chipotle and bacon and protein powder, to use a specific example I've seen on MFP.
The bigger question is when someone asks "is X clean" or "is clean eating helpful" you need to know what the person means by "clean eating," as there are various definitions. And that always causes me to wonder -- if you don't understand the rules you are eating by well enough to know if some food fits or not, why do it? I think rules can be helpful in making a transition to healthier eating, sure -- I try to get protein and vegetables at every meal, for example, and generally prefer whole grains to refined where I have a choice, I limit added sugar and high cal/low nutrient items, and prefer to cook from scratch or go to high quality restaurants, and so on -- a variety of other things, although none that are without exception such that if refined grains touched my lips I'd think they were unclean or whatever. But the point is that I have those rules for myself for reasons I could explain. And I don't think they should apply to others, necessarily, so I don't claim that eating my way is "clean" and other ways is not. There are numerous ways to eat in a healthful manner, and IMO no way of eating is "cleaner" than another.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
In my opinion? In a dietary sense, by eating a reasonable, varied, balanced diet which provides adequate calories, macro and micronutrients. In a more broad/overall sense, by mixing in reasonable amounts of exercise, maintaining a healthy body weight/composition and a sound mental outlook on life.
Well sure, that's true. But when you hear someone say "clean eating" is that what you think you mean?
Quite often on this forum it is used as a synonym for healthy eating.
Others seem to assume that eating "clean" is how one eats healthy, so ask "is X clean" basically meaning "is this a good food to add to my diet" or "is this food bad for me or bad for my weight loss plan." The problem with that is that "clean" is (again) a self-defined term that merely refers to avoiding certain categories of food (which vary quite a bit clean eater to clean eater), so the only person who can answer whether a particular food is "clean" is the individual eater -- something that many newbie "clean eaters" seem not to understand.
It's not always (or maybe even usually) a self-defined term. I learned the term decades ago, but I didn't self define it. Someone else defined it and I then heard/read about it.
I doubt many people self-define the term. They read about it or are told about it and accept someone else's definition.
Maybe it is not self defined, but the implementation of the definition certainly varies by the individual. The context of what is and isn't clean, as @lemurcat12 points out, is almost always what the posters are getting at. And then, the subjectivity of other people's "clean rules" come into play and that's where the debate ensues.
Agreed. But wouldn't the world be a nicer place if everyone just answered the question with how they define the term instead of b****ing and moaning about how it has no meaning and judging everyone that uses it?
No, because I think it's important to make the point that there is no settled meaning and to answer the question we'd need to understand how OP defines it. Often the OP seems to think there is some set meaning and that it does map on to what's healthy, such that eating "unclean" foods (foods not on whatever plan OP is following) is not consistent with good nutrition or health, and that's an idea worth disagreeing with.
But I try to say "I don't use the term and it has a variety of different meanings, so depends on what it means to you. Typically I think it means trying to mostly cook from whole foods, and if so that's something I personally like to do, although not exclusively, as I like to go to nice local restaurants and occasionally eat ethnic foods I don't know how to cook well and will use staples like dried pasta and yogurt and smoked salmon, etc." I don't think that's so horrible as a response, but YMMV, of course.0 -
JanetYellen wrote: »Is organic skim milk clean? Curious.
It depends upon whose definition of "clean" you're using. A vegan wouldn't consider milk "clean", nor would a keto person or a paleo adherent.
As Ninerbuff said, there's no real meaning to "clean eating". It's a subjective phrase based upon each person's biases/preferences.
The very vague concept of "clean" has absolutely nothing to do with vegans not consuming milk. As an ethical vegan, I don't care if milk is "clean" or not; that has absolutely nothing to do with my decision not to consume it. I do not consume dairy because I do not agree with the methods necessary to obtain milk from other animals.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
In my opinion? In a dietary sense, by eating a reasonable, varied, balanced diet which provides adequate calories, macro and micronutrients. In a more broad/overall sense, by mixing in reasonable amounts of exercise, maintaining a healthy body weight/composition and a sound mental outlook on life.
Well sure, that's true. But when you hear someone say "clean eating" is that what you think you mean?
Quite often on this forum it is used as a synonym for healthy eating.
Others seem to assume that eating "clean" is how one eats healthy, so ask "is X clean" basically meaning "is this a good food to add to my diet" or "is this food bad for me or bad for my weight loss plan." The problem with that is that "clean" is (again) a self-defined term that merely refers to avoiding certain categories of food (which vary quite a bit clean eater to clean eater), so the only person who can answer whether a particular food is "clean" is the individual eater -- something that many newbie "clean eaters" seem not to understand.
It's not always (or maybe even usually) a self-defined term. I learned the term decades ago, but I didn't self define it. Someone else defined it and I then heard/read about it.
I doubt many people self-define the term. They read about it or are told about it and accept someone else's definition.
It ends up being self-defined in practice. People claim they don't eat "processed foods" and then eat cold cuts and Chipotle and bacon and protein powder, to use a specific example I've seen on MFP.
The bigger question is when someone asks "is X clean" or "is clean eating helpful" you need to know what the person means by "clean eating," as there are various definitions. And that always causes me to wonder -- if you don't understand the rules you are eating by well enough to know if some food fits or not, why do it?
The fact that others define the term differently is no indication that the person asking the question does not have and understand their own definition. Nor is asking if X is clean. I think for many people the term is not as black and white as the poo-pooers on this site would like to think.
Take the frozen fruit that came up earlier. Is it clean? I would say it's pretty clean, though not as clean as a strawberry grown without synthetics picked straight from the vine. Others might see no difference and others might not consider it clean because there are changes to food when frozen. Yet we might all define the term in the same manner. These small differences in practice don't really mean the term is not defined or even ill defined.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
In my opinion? In a dietary sense, by eating a reasonable, varied, balanced diet which provides adequate calories, macro and micronutrients. In a more broad/overall sense, by mixing in reasonable amounts of exercise, maintaining a healthy body weight/composition and a sound mental outlook on life.
Well sure, that's true. But when you hear someone say "clean eating" is that what you think you mean?
Quite often on this forum it is used as a synonym for healthy eating.
Others seem to assume that eating "clean" is how one eats healthy, so ask "is X clean" basically meaning "is this a good food to add to my diet" or "is this food bad for me or bad for my weight loss plan." The problem with that is that "clean" is (again) a self-defined term that merely refers to avoiding certain categories of food (which vary quite a bit clean eater to clean eater), so the only person who can answer whether a particular food is "clean" is the individual eater -- something that many newbie "clean eaters" seem not to understand.
It's not always (or maybe even usually) a self-defined term. I learned the term decades ago, but I didn't self define it. Someone else defined it and I then heard/read about it.
I doubt many people self-define the term. They read about it or are told about it and accept someone else's definition.
Maybe it is not self defined, but the implementation of the definition certainly varies by the individual. The context of what is and isn't clean, as @lemurcat12 points out, is almost always what the posters are getting at. And then, the subjectivity of other people's "clean rules" come into play and that's where the debate ensues.
Agreed. But wouldn't the world be a nicer place if everyone just answered the question with how they define the term instead of b****ing and moaning about how it has no meaning and judging everyone that uses it?
Oh come on, where's the fun in that? If we stop arguing about clean eating and we can't debate whether sugar is addictive, how will we spend our time?
Being helpful and nice? ::flowerforyou::0 -
CatMoves2718 wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »Is organic skim milk clean? Curious.
It depends upon whose definition of "clean" you're using. A vegan wouldn't consider milk "clean", nor would a keto person or a paleo adherent.
As Ninerbuff said, there's no real meaning to "clean eating". It's a subjective phrase based upon each person's biases/preferences.
The very vague concept of "clean" has absolutely nothing to do with vegans not consuming milk. As an ethical vegan, I don't care if milk is "clean" or not; that has absolutely nothing to do with my decision not to consume it. I do not consume dairy because I do not agree with the methods necessary to obtain milk from other animals.
Thank you for that clarification. I thought the same but not being vegan or paleo or keto I wasn't really sure. The only people IRL I know that follow a restrictive diet are low carb or vegetarian. I've never heard any of them refer to the foods they restrict as "unclean".0 -
In my family we make a lot of things from scratch, including pizza. In terms of validating how "clean" one pizza is from another, I would look at the main components: dough, sauce, cheese, and any other toppings. If you made your own pizza dough and then put on the sauce and toppings, then based on what it sounds like you did I wouldn't necessarily call that "unclean". I'm looking at all of this from a more "complete" perspective. So with something like Hawaiian punch, I do agree that the added sugar difference you mentioned would separate one being mostly "clean" from the other, but I'd also include the other "stuff" that would be thrown in for a commercial variety today.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, personally I'd say there's a massive difference between someone making their own bread from their own mill 100+ years ago versus someone getting a random loaf of white bread off the shelf at a commercial grocery store today. There's no question that in general (I realize there are some exceptions), the ingredient list is probably not going to be even close. And to further illustrate my point, I'll refer to this earlier post in the thread.lemurcat12 wrote: »Didn't you ever see Deadwood? Canned peaches were a treat item.
It's not uncommon for people's grandparents and great-grandparents to have bought such things from the general store (my grandfather on one side even ran the town's general store in an area where fresh food was not available much of the year). Also, given that we saw above that some claim any grains are "unclean," obviously grains were common in prior generations. My own great great great (I dunno, I'd have to look it up) grandparents even had the first mill in their Iowa county. Guess they were among the harbingers of uncleanliness in the US midwest.
You do know, right, that the definition of "unclean" foods is not limited to things with lots of added ingredients of the sort you are referring to, right? I'd say if you think there's something wrong with some ingredient, don't consume it, but just assuming that it has a chemical name so must be somehow bad for you isn't sensible, IMO. I made homemade pizza a few days ago (I'm sure not clean -- it involved white flour and a bit of sugar). I could buy pretty similar pizza depending on where I purchased it (local Italian place, for example), so trying to say one is "clean" and one not is silly.
As for Hawaiian Punch, apart from "clean" or not it's way too sweet for me and seems like a drink that would appeal perhaps to kids, not adults. But the main difference between it and the homemade punch is not the preservatives, but the added sugar, which adds tons of calories, and the absence of micronutrients. Someone who craves HP likely would dump lots of added sugar in homemade punch and if so it's just as caloric and thus IMO not much of an advantage.
But go back to my mac and cheese example for a similar point that you ignored before.
With mac-and-cheese, I'm assuming you mean this post:
So, if I understand what you're saying, since mac-and-cheese is a calorie dense food, that doesn't fit in well with your macro and micro needs. But to me, it doesn't change the fact that homemade mac-and-cheese would mainly stick to the basics and not have a lot of other "stuff". Also, as a side note, homemade mac and-cheese is something that we don't do much in my family for other reasons. But even when we did to it regularly, it was never as fattening as what a typical homemade recipe would call for. I'm pretty sure we always put less cheese, even though we all thought it was plenty cheesy enough.In that I don't like Kraft mac and cheese and love homemade mac and cheese, I will agree they are different. Sadly, the stuff I like has many more calories, so homemade or not, clean or not (who knows what clean means), it still doesn't usually fit in my day. (On Thanksgiving, sure!)
I'm going to go back to the pizza example in a minute.0 -
The general idea I've gotten is eating food that's as close to unprocessed as possible. So like...nuts, fruits, vegetables, meats, eggs, etc. As opposed to prepackaged and very sugary/fatty foods like chips, cookies, frozen dinners, ice cream and things like that. It's really debatable but I thought I'd throw in my understanding since there's a lot of opinions on here.0
-
0
-
Here's the ingredients in Hawaiian Punch:
Ingredients: Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup And 2% Or Less of Each of The Following: Concentrated Juices (Pineapple, Orange, Passionfruit, Apple), Purees (Apricot, Papaya, Guava), Citric Acid, Natural And Artificial Flavors, Pectin, Gum Acacia, Sucralose, Glycerol Ester of Wood Rosin, Sodium Hexametaphosphate
If I was in Hawaii and wanted to make some punch, I'd probably leave out the Ester of Wood Rosin and Sodium Hexametaphosphate. If I did want to add those ingredients, I might want to visit a hardware store or the chemistry lab of a local high school. I think to do such a thing though, would make the punch very, very dirty, in comparison to, say, the homemade variety. Where the fresh fruit was pressed in a juicer with some sugar and ice cubes added.
This is one of the most bizarre examples I've seen put forward on MFP boards. Are there a lot of adults who drink Hawaiian punch? In Hawaii, or anywhere else in the world? Are there a lot of people trying to find a "clean" version of Hawaiian punch?0 -
SoDamnHungry wrote: »The general idea I've gotten is eating food that's as close to unprocessed as possible. So like...nuts, fruits, vegetables, meats, eggs, etc. As opposed to prepackaged and very sugary/fatty foods like chips, cookies, frozen dinners, ice cream and things like that. It's really debatable but I thought I'd throw in my understanding since there's a lot of opinions on here.
Interesting example since some nuts, if not processed, are actually toxic. Cashews I think?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
In my opinion? In a dietary sense, by eating a reasonable, varied, balanced diet which provides adequate calories, macro and micronutrients. In a more broad/overall sense, by mixing in reasonable amounts of exercise, maintaining a healthy body weight/composition and a sound mental outlook on life.
Well sure, that's true. But when you hear someone say "clean eating" is that what you think you mean?
Quite often on this forum it is used as a synonym for healthy eating.
Others seem to assume that eating "clean" is how one eats healthy, so ask "is X clean" basically meaning "is this a good food to add to my diet" or "is this food bad for me or bad for my weight loss plan." The problem with that is that "clean" is (again) a self-defined term that merely refers to avoiding certain categories of food (which vary quite a bit clean eater to clean eater), so the only person who can answer whether a particular food is "clean" is the individual eater -- something that many newbie "clean eaters" seem not to understand.
It's not always (or maybe even usually) a self-defined term. I learned the term decades ago, but I didn't self define it. Someone else defined it and I then heard/read about it.
I doubt many people self-define the term. They read about it or are told about it and accept someone else's definition.
It ends up being self-defined in practice. People claim they don't eat "processed foods" and then eat cold cuts and Chipotle and bacon and protein powder, to use a specific example I've seen on MFP.
The bigger question is when someone asks "is X clean" or "is clean eating helpful" you need to know what the person means by "clean eating," as there are various definitions. And that always causes me to wonder -- if you don't understand the rules you are eating by well enough to know if some food fits or not, why do it?
The fact that others define the term differently is no indication that the person asking the question does not have and understand their own definition.
True. That's not what I'm basing the opinion on. I'm basing it on what I often see here.Nor is asking if X is clean.
I disagree. Asking the population at large at MFP if something is clean without specifying your own definition indicates that you don't understand that there's not, in fact, a cut and dried definition of clean that people agree on, and asking if, say, "greek yogurt" is clean demonstrates that you don't actually have a firm understanding of what "clean" is, even in your own usage, and think there's some clear outside standard in which it is or not. On the other hand, if someone was simply applying standards they understood, they'd easily be able to answer that question without asking others.Take the frozen fruit that came up earlier. Is it clean? I would say it's pretty clean, though not as clean as a strawberry grown without synthetics picked straight from the vine. Others might see no difference and others might not consider it clean because there are changes to food when frozen. Yet we might all define the term in the same manner. These small differences in practice don't really mean the term is not defined or even ill defined.
What does using the term "clean" add. If someone says the definition of "clean" is "not processed," then frozen fruit is. (But it's no worse than non frozen fruit from a nutritional standpoint and might be better, depending.) If someone says it means certain additives are included, then it likely is "clean." But there's no way to know what definition is meant and the people who use it don't usually seem to really understand.
I'd add that it seems odd to call frozen fruit "unclean" but not a fruit from far away (like the banana I had this morning) or out of season (like most fruit I'd eat now where I live).
Most of the time when people talk about "clean" they either mean they are avoiding certain additives, in which case I'd be interested in which ones and why (although I do think that's the more understandable meaning of the term), OR they claim to be talking about processed foods in general, which encompass a huge range of foods. When they use the latter, they often usually seem to think (or specifically claim) that processed=unhealthful or low in nutrients and neither of those is inherently true. Smoked salmon and greek yogurt and a premade frozen dinner from whole nutrient-rich ingredients and HungryMan TV dinners and Twinkies are all processed foods, but they encompass a wide variety of differences and calling all "unclean" or trying to figure out which are "clean" and which are not doesn't seem to do anything to illuminate the real question, which has to do with nutrition, health, taste, calories (IMO). At least, when people start explaining what "clean eating" means to them, they usually do talk about these things.0 -
CatMoves2718 wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »Is organic skim milk clean? Curious.
It depends upon whose definition of "clean" you're using. A vegan wouldn't consider milk "clean", nor would a keto person or a paleo adherent.
As Ninerbuff said, there's no real meaning to "clean eating". It's a subjective phrase based upon each person's biases/preferences.
The very vague concept of "clean" has absolutely nothing to do with vegans not consuming milk. As an ethical vegan, I don't care if milk is "clean" or not; that has absolutely nothing to do with my decision not to consume it. I do not consume dairy because I do not agree with the methods necessary to obtain milk from other animals.
That may be true for you, and I appreciate your POV and honesty (the idea that dairy is bad because "unnatural" is quite common in discussions here). However, it's clear that for some vegan and clean are intertwined. From a current opening post:I've chosen to go a lot more clean this year. I've had EXTREMELY limited experiences as a vegan, and I always hoped I would return to that lifestyle when I can finally move out and away from the people I live with now, so I was hoping that this year, I would go - as I call it - 99.9% vegan. I would eat vegan, but I would also have seafood and certain types of chicken, but not all. No red meat, no more dairy (because I know what they do to cows to get that stuff). That way I'd not only be eating cleaner, and more healthy, low calorie food, but I'd also be preparing myself to go full on vegan in the future....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
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions