Eating clean?
Options
Replies
-
lNeed2Exerc1se 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?
5 bucks for a puny 200g punnet, I have no choice but to stick with the frozen kind!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »Is organic skim milk clean? Curious.
It would probably be easier to start a list of what 'isn't' clean.
And that list would be totally subjective and most likely completely ignore the concepts of context and dosage within a well-rounded diet. Orthorexics would have a field day with it, though.
Why would context and dosage matter?
Because there's nothing "unclean" or unhealthy about eating a slice of pizza or a candy bar (or whatever other "unclean" food is your favorite object of loathing) occasionally within the context of a healthy, well-rounded diet. Barring a medical condition/allergy, calling something "unclean" or "unhealthy" is ridiculous and unnecessary when it's eaten/drank in sane amounts and has the proper context in the diet.
A bowl of ice cream or a couple pieces of chocolate for dessert will have no deleterious effects upon your health, weight loss or body composition. Subsisting entirely (or even mostly) upon ice cream and chocolate would certainly have deleterious effects upon your health, weight loss and body composition.
Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
Everyone has different definitions of "clean eating" which is why it is an unhelpful term, in my opinion. I know you were asking @AnvilHead but to me, the health figures in because many people associate "clean" foods with "healthier" foods, ignoring the fact that there are plenty of "unclean" or "processed" foods which provide many nutrititional benefits. As discussed here - frozen fruits and vegetables, or greek yogurt, steel cut oats, etc are all good examples of foods which are processed by definition, and someone who is rigorously adhering to a "clean" diet, may forgo them.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »Is organic skim milk clean? Curious.
It would probably be easier to start a list of what 'isn't' clean.
And that list would be totally subjective and most likely completely ignore the concepts of context and dosage within a well-rounded diet. Orthorexics would have a field day with it, though.
Why would context and dosage matter?
Because there's nothing "unclean" or unhealthy about eating a slice of pizza or a candy bar (or whatever other "unclean" food is your favorite object of loathing) occasionally within the context of a healthy, well-rounded diet. Barring a medical condition/allergy, calling something "unclean" or "unhealthy" is ridiculous and unnecessary when it's eaten/drank in sane amounts and has the proper context in the diet.
A bowl of ice cream or a couple pieces of chocolate for dessert will have no deleterious effects upon your health, weight loss or body composition. Subsisting entirely (or even mostly) upon ice cream and chocolate would certainly have deleterious effects upon your health, weight loss and body composition.
Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
Everyone has different definitions of "clean eating" which is why it is an unhelpful term, in my opinion. I know you were asking @AnvilHead but to me, the health figures in because many people associate "clean" foods with "healthier" foods, ignoring the fact that there are plenty of "unclean" or "processed" foods which provide many nutrititional benefits. As discussed here - frozen fruits and vegetables, or greek yogurt, steel cut oats, etc are all good examples of foods which are processed by definition, and someone who is rigorously adhering to a "clean" diet, may forgo them.
So you are using "healthy" and "clean" interchangeably when it comes to food?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »Is organic skim milk clean? Curious.
It would probably be easier to start a list of what 'isn't' clean.
And that list would be totally subjective and most likely completely ignore the concepts of context and dosage within a well-rounded diet. Orthorexics would have a field day with it, though.
Why would context and dosage matter?
Because there's nothing "unclean" or unhealthy about eating a slice of pizza or a candy bar (or whatever other "unclean" food is your favorite object of loathing) occasionally within the context of a healthy, well-rounded diet. Barring a medical condition/allergy, calling something "unclean" or "unhealthy" is ridiculous and unnecessary when it's eaten/drank in sane amounts and has the proper context in the diet.
A bowl of ice cream or a couple pieces of chocolate for dessert will have no deleterious effects upon your health, weight loss or body composition. Subsisting entirely (or even mostly) upon ice cream and chocolate would certainly have deleterious effects upon your health, weight loss and body composition.
Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
Everyone has different definitions of "clean eating" which is why it is an unhelpful term, in my opinion. I know you were asking @AnvilHead but to me, the health figures in because many people associate "clean" foods with "healthier" foods, ignoring the fact that there are plenty of "unclean" or "processed" foods which provide many nutrititional benefits. As discussed here - frozen fruits and vegetables, or greek yogurt, steel cut oats, etc are all good examples of foods which are processed by definition, and someone who is rigorously adhering to a "clean" diet, may forgo them.
So you are using "healthy" and "clean" interchangeably when it comes to food?
I'm not, because I don't use the word clean to describe food. It's a meaningless word. Many people think those two words are synonyms though.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »Is organic skim milk clean? Curious.
It would probably be easier to start a list of what 'isn't' clean.
And that list would be totally subjective and most likely completely ignore the concepts of context and dosage within a well-rounded diet. Orthorexics would have a field day with it, though.
Why would context and dosage matter?
Because there's nothing "unclean" or unhealthy about eating a slice of pizza or a candy bar (or whatever other "unclean" food is your favorite object of loathing) occasionally within the context of a healthy, well-rounded diet. Barring a medical condition/allergy, calling something "unclean" or "unhealthy" is ridiculous and unnecessary when it's eaten/drank in sane amounts and has the proper context in the diet.
A bowl of ice cream or a couple pieces of chocolate for dessert will have no deleterious effects upon your health, weight loss or body composition. Subsisting entirely (or even mostly) upon ice cream and chocolate would certainly have deleterious effects upon your health, weight loss and body composition.
Um, okay. We obviously have very different definitions of "clean eating" so I guess I need a little context. How does health figure in?
Everyone has different definitions of "clean eating" which is why it is an unhelpful term, in my opinion. I know you were asking @AnvilHead but to me, the health figures in because many people associate "clean" foods with "healthier" foods, ignoring the fact that there are plenty of "unclean" or "processed" foods which provide many nutrititional benefits. As discussed here - frozen fruits and vegetables, or greek yogurt, steel cut oats, etc are all good examples of foods which are processed by definition, and someone who is rigorously adhering to a "clean" diet, may forgo them.
So you are using "healthy" and "clean" interchangeably when it comes to food?
I'm not, because I don't use the word clean to describe food. It's a meaningless word. Many people think those two words are synonyms though.
Agreed on both counts. I don't ascribe the tags of "clean/unclean" or "healthy/unhealthy" to any particular food or food group, because I don't view them in a vacuum. It's a phrase that can mean nothing or various things, depending on whose definition you're using. I'd feel a little more comfortable making such a judgment upon one's overall diet, viewed over a sustained period of time, than based upon one meal they ate on one day.
And yes, I think most people's definition of "clean" and "healthy" are synonymous. They think eating "clean" will avoid taking in, or rid their body of, whichever "toxins" they've chosen to demonize and make them more "healthy".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.0 -
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.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?".0 -
hehehehehehhe okay so I pick blueberries and freeze them to make storing them easier. They are now unclean? Why does this just like religion? If I have someone speak Yiddish over the blueberries before consuming them can I claim they are clean?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?
0 -
Your great-grandparents ate all of kinds of foods out of a box??? I find that very hard to believe, unless you're referring to them eating those foods very late in life. As an example, Kraft mac-and-cheese didn't come out until 1937, and a lot of those other foods didn't really become popular in commercialized form until well into the 20th century. Anyone over the age of 40 would have great-grandparents who would have been born roughly a century ago (at least). So, they would have grown up prior to World War II, when many of those foods were certainly not nearly as widespread in households as they are now.Our general rule of thumb for "eating clean" is would our great grandfathers recognize/pronounce these ingredients.
So:
Homemade mac & cheese - clean; Kraft blue box - not clean
Homemade bread - clean; in a plastic sleeve - not clean
etc etc.
We of course don't always achieve it, but we at least try.
I always get a kick out of the "grandparents" definition. My grandparents and great-grandparents ate all kinds of things out of boxes and bags: snack cakes, candy, white bread, kielbasi, pudding, macaroni and cheese, etc.
Does that means these foods are "clean?"0 -
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.0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions