The Clean Eating Delusion...
Replies
-
BioLayne Video Log 12 - Clean Eating vs IIFYM (If it fits your macros)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6H2edyPLU8 0 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »I keep laughing every time I read the "Food babe" part. I'm so stealing that saying
0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
ETA: From their website:
"Every person and every organization has a value system and a set of beliefs. PragerU is no different. We believe in the principles that have made America great. We believe in economic and religious freedom, in a strong military that protects our allies and in the religious values that inform Western civilization, also known as Judeo-Christian values"
In other words:
"I discard the facts presented to me because the people who made the video are Christians who love America."
Ok.
But still nobody's told me if I can eat processed bread and still lose weight...0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
ETA: From their website:
"Every person and every organization has a value system and a set of beliefs. PragerU is no different. We believe in the principles that have made America great. We believe in economic and religious freedom, in a strong military that protects our allies and in the religious values that inform Western civilization, also known as Judeo-Christian values"
In other words:
"I discard the facts presented to me because the people who made the video are Christians who love America."
Ok.
But still nobody's told me if I can eat processed bread and still lose weight...
No. It sounds more like "these are not facts because the people presenting them as facts are not qualified to do so." Believe it or not, someone loving American and being Christian is not automatically a trustworthy source of scientific facts.0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields
Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
You're an attorney but you aren't a patent attorney, are you? Patent law is the one legally recognized legal specialty. There is no legal recognition of copyright lawyer. And while intellectual property is a phrase, that's the point - it is one construction of language that has come about to legitimize a school of thought in owning thoughts. That somehow imagining how something could be done is a possession the same way that a toothbrush is a possession.
And the Percy wasn't accidental contamination. How are you an attorney and you couldn't follow that case? He was found guilty because he had a field that was 70% RoundUp ready - he discovered his crops had the RR trait and intentionally sprayed those ones, and save them. There was no accident involved.
As far as your "faith" response, actually, nature has species cross genes all the time. You owe your existence to it. You have genes in your body right now from bacteria and sea life that you allow you to efficiently process carbs. Evolution itself produces random mutations that we can't know the consequences of either, but you have to accept that you can't anticipate all consequences. I do know the consequences of abandoning GMO technology: more population, and worse conditions for the poorest of human beings.
I'm not a patent attorney. Are you? I am licensed to practice law. Are you? I'm not going to argue with you about terms about patent law/intellectual property/copyright/trademark when the point is the same- a person can own the legal rights to a gene code. That's the problem I am pointing out.
How can I be an attorney and "not follow the case"?? Easy. I WORK.
So admittedly, you're ignorant of the actual facts of what you're linking to, assuming it supports your claim, but then condescending towards me because I know more about it even though you're the lawyer?
If you have a moral problem with owning genes, you're better off fighting pharmaceutical and medical industries than the dozen or so novel genes patented in food production. Also already said, patenting genes isn't even necessary for agriculture, it has been possible to patent traits side the 1920s before transgenic was a term. Lumping patent lawyer with other parts of the law is part of the problem that lends ethical legitimacy to those claims.youngmomtaz wrote: »So, why have other countries gone so far as banning gmo, actually burning the crops, and outlawing many of the chemicals we use? If they are banning based on small studies showing unfavourable results in rats, if they are banning simply to do more research and have a wider timeframe to look at, I find those acceptable and smart reasons.
I cannot remove all things processed. And sometimes eat them despite what I feel is "good for me" but for the most part, I will choose the least processed, lab created, altered foods possible.
I will continue to buy local when possible, organic when possible, as unprocessed as possible(eg. I grind my own flour for my family from organic wheat grown by good friends) and I will feel good about it. I temper that by eating out and occasionally buying food in a box. I know what tastes good. Without me even mentioning the difference, my children choose what they prefer taste wise. Again, we all make choices. I could never be a vegetarian but I do not find fault in their choice. I do find fault with being ridiculed for mine though.
Few countries have banned them, many simply have never approved their use.
There are also countries that ban homosexuality, but they're wrong too.
It's not my concern that you think I was being condescending when I asked you the same types of questions you asked me. The case about the canola oil, I browsed it. From what I read, he sprayed a field that had cross pollinated crops. Saved the cross pollinated crops and then used that to reseed the next year. Farmers have for a long time selected which seeds to save to grow. I don't think the case is as clean cut as you apparently think it is.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue to put words in my mouth and then argue against things I didn't even say. Have a nice day.
You said you work, implying I actually know the case because I do not. That's condescension.
Percy sprayed round up on weeds, noticed some of his crops near thus spraying resisted the spraying. He intentionally reused those seeds knowing they had RR trait, so that he grew done fields with 70% showing that trait. That's not cross contamination. If these were animals instead of crops, it would be like a neighbor's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, Percy captured it, used it to breed with his dog, repeatedly, and when the neighbor hard about it, he claimed it was an accident - even though he now has pups of those pups that are three quarters purebred bull dog. Yet Purely is getting the media to say his neighbor sued Percy over the neighbor's dog trespassing. Well, that dog don't hunt as they say.
I don't think it's quite like that - it more like a neighbour's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, screwed his pooch and then had puppies or gave birth on his lawn. Or replaced his own dog and had puppies.
Percy has some claim, imho, as that crop drift isn't of his doing. Or at least it isn't clear cut.0 -
So back to the GMO question - from a neutral position - being neither for or against - if we take, let's say BT Soy - I understand that this GMO soy has been modified to produce Vip1Ac proteins and the relevant toxins Cry & Cyt that are insecticidal to various pests.
Anyone have references on bioavailability, LD50 and short term animal or human consumption studies? Because, really without these basic results how can we even decide one way or the other on the safety of this?
At least one study has shown Bti has a negative effect on certain bird species as secondary pests (mosquitos) are effected.
And perhaps issues exist with selective resistance.
(I found this thesis on the subject of some interest: http://www.theses.fr/2012GRENV020.pdf)0 -
@senecarr this GMO discussion might be a good one to move or restart in your hot topics group...0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
You're an attorney but you aren't a patent attorney, are you? Patent law is the one legally recognized legal specialty. There is no legal recognition of copyright lawyer. And while intellectual property is a phrase, that's the point - it is one construction of language that has come about to legitimize a school of thought in owning thoughts. That somehow imagining how something could be done is a possession the same way that a toothbrush is a possession.
And the Percy wasn't accidental contamination. How are you an attorney and you couldn't follow that case? He was found guilty because he had a field that was 70% RoundUp ready - he discovered his crops had the RR trait and intentionally sprayed those ones, and save them. There was no accident involved.
As far as your "faith" response, actually, nature has species cross genes all the time. You owe your existence to it. You have genes in your body right now from bacteria and sea life that you allow you to efficiently process carbs. Evolution itself produces random mutations that we can't know the consequences of either, but you have to accept that you can't anticipate all consequences. I do know the consequences of abandoning GMO technology: more population, and worse conditions for the poorest of human beings.
I'm not a patent attorney. Are you? I am licensed to practice law. Are you? I'm not going to argue with you about terms about patent law/intellectual property/copyright/trademark when the point is the same- a person can own the legal rights to a gene code. That's the problem I am pointing out.
How can I be an attorney and "not follow the case"?? Easy. I WORK.
So admittedly, you're ignorant of the actual facts of what you're linking to, assuming it supports your claim, but then condescending towards me because I know more about it even though you're the lawyer?
If you have a moral problem with owning genes, you're better off fighting pharmaceutical and medical industries than the dozen or so novel genes patented in food production. Also already said, patenting genes isn't even necessary for agriculture, it has been possible to patent traits side the 1920s before transgenic was a term. Lumping patent lawyer with other parts of the law is part of the problem that lends ethical legitimacy to those claims.youngmomtaz wrote: »So, why have other countries gone so far as banning gmo, actually burning the crops, and outlawing many of the chemicals we use? If they are banning based on small studies showing unfavourable results in rats, if they are banning simply to do more research and have a wider timeframe to look at, I find those acceptable and smart reasons.
I cannot remove all things processed. And sometimes eat them despite what I feel is "good for me" but for the most part, I will choose the least processed, lab created, altered foods possible.
I will continue to buy local when possible, organic when possible, as unprocessed as possible(eg. I grind my own flour for my family from organic wheat grown by good friends) and I will feel good about it. I temper that by eating out and occasionally buying food in a box. I know what tastes good. Without me even mentioning the difference, my children choose what they prefer taste wise. Again, we all make choices. I could never be a vegetarian but I do not find fault in their choice. I do find fault with being ridiculed for mine though.
Few countries have banned them, many simply have never approved their use.
There are also countries that ban homosexuality, but they're wrong too.
It's not my concern that you think I was being condescending when I asked you the same types of questions you asked me. The case about the canola oil, I browsed it. From what I read, he sprayed a field that had cross pollinated crops. Saved the cross pollinated crops and then used that to reseed the next year. Farmers have for a long time selected which seeds to save to grow. I don't think the case is as clean cut as you apparently think it is.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue to put words in my mouth and then argue against things I didn't even say. Have a nice day.
You said you work, implying I actually know the case because I do not. That's condescension.
Percy sprayed round up on weeds, noticed some of his crops near thus spraying resisted the spraying. He intentionally reused those seeds knowing they had RR trait, so that he grew done fields with 70% showing that trait. That's not cross contamination. If these were animals instead of crops, it would be like a neighbor's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, Percy captured it, used it to breed with his dog, repeatedly, and when the neighbor hard about it, he claimed it was an accident - even though he now has pups of those pups that are three quarters purebred bull dog. Yet Purely is getting the media to say his neighbor sued Percy over the neighbor's dog trespassing. Well, that dog don't hunt as they say.
I don't think it's quite like that - it more like a neighbour's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, screwed his pooch and then had puppies or gave birth on his lawn. Or replaced his own dog and had puppies.
Percy has some claim, imho, as that crop drift isn't of his doing. Or at least it isn't clear cut.
Percy sprayed round up on parts of his crop, and saw they resisted. He took the resistant ones, grew their seeds, sprayed again to keep resistant ones. The court found he knew what he was doing, hence the reason he was find liable.
He had a field growing that was 70% RR trait. If it was Bull Dogs, it would literally be the grand pups of Monsanto's that Percy was holding but telling the court "I don't know where all these dogs came from."
If it was pure accident, Monsanto has a standing policy that they'll pay for any accidental contamination at their expense to remove it. Like leaving missing posters with a reward offer up permanently because the dog is valuable.
See people get outraged about Percy's version of the story because it would indeed be injustice. Percy's version didn't happen though.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
ETA: From their website:
"Every person and every organization has a value system and a set of beliefs. PragerU is no different. We believe in the principles that have made America great. We believe in economic and religious freedom, in a strong military that protects our allies and in the religious values that inform Western civilization, also known as Judeo-Christian values"
In other words:
"I discard the facts presented to me because the people who made the video are Christians who love America."
Ok.
But still nobody's told me if I can eat processed bread and still lose weight...
No. It sounds more like "these are not facts because the people presenting them as facts are not qualified to do so." Believe it or not, someone loving American and being Christian is not automatically a trustworthy source of scientific facts.
Nor does it make them an untrustworthy source, which appeared to be the claim considering the quote used to explain why their credibility was being called into question.
You can't just say "I don't trust this source" and then quote them on their politics/religion as your reason but then claim that the reason you don't trust them isn't because of their politics/religion.
Or are you saying that being a Christian organization makes them unqualified to speak on scientific subjects? Because if so, that's not a very scientific perspective.0 -
muscleandbeard wrote: »After reading through several pages I came to a conclusion that
1. You guys will never agree on this and this post will go on forever
2. It's starting to have nothing to do with helpful fitness and weigh loss advice and it's becoming a piss contest on who knows more about science. I'm sure there are other apps that allow you to compare your Ph.D. degrees in science, biology and chemistry.
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
ETA: From their website:
"Every person and every organization has a value system and a set of beliefs. PragerU is no different. We believe in the principles that have made America great. We believe in economic and religious freedom, in a strong military that protects our allies and in the religious values that inform Western civilization, also known as Judeo-Christian values"
In other words:
"I discard the facts presented to me because the people who made the video are Christians who love America."
Ok.
But still nobody's told me if I can eat processed bread and still lose weight...
No. It sounds more like "these are not facts because the people presenting them as facts are not qualified to do so." Believe it or not, someone loving American and being Christian is not automatically a trustworthy source of scientific facts.
Nor does it make them an untrustworthy source, which appeared to be the claim considering the quote used to explain why their credibility was being called into question.
You can't just say "I don't trust this source" and then quote them on their politics/religion as your reason but then claim that the reason you don't trust them isn't because of their politics/religion.
Or are you saying that being a Christian organization makes them unqualified to speak on scientific subjects? Because if so, that's not a very scientific perspective.
The website of a peer reviewed scientific journal, where the editor happens to be also Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or worshipping the Flying Spaghetti monster) and who is proud to be American (or Italian or Syrian) is still a good source of information for scientific studies. A website that states as its mission "Our Mission: To present the ideas that led to the creation and development of the freest and most prosperous nation in history – The United States of America. We do this through five-minute entertaining educational video courses on the Internet." is no more credible in scientific issues than the banana girl or any other random person or group of people on the internet.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
ETA: From their website:
"Every person and every organization has a value system and a set of beliefs. PragerU is no different. We believe in the principles that have made America great. We believe in economic and religious freedom, in a strong military that protects our allies and in the religious values that inform Western civilization, also known as Judeo-Christian values"
In other words:
"I discard the facts presented to me because the people who made the video are Christians who love America."
Ok.
But still nobody's told me if I can eat processed bread and still lose weight...
No. It sounds more like "these are not facts because the people presenting them as facts are not qualified to do so." Believe it or not, someone loving American and being Christian is not automatically a trustworthy source of scientific facts.
Nor does it make them an untrustworthy source, which appeared to be the claim considering the quote used to explain why their credibility was being called into question.
You can't just say "I don't trust this source" and then quote them on their politics/religion as your reason but then claim that the reason you don't trust them isn't because of their politics/religion.
Or are you saying that being a Christian organization makes them unqualified to speak on scientific subjects? Because if so, that's not a very scientific perspective.
The website of a peer reviewed scientific journal, where the editor happens to be also Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or worshipping the Flying Spaghetti monster) and who is proud to be American (or Italian or Syrian) is still a good source of information for scientific studies. A website that states as its mission "Our Mission: To present the ideas that led to the creation and development of the freest and most prosperous nation in history – The United States of America. We do this through five-minute entertaining educational video courses on the Internet." is no more credible in scientific issues than the banana girl or any other random person or group of people on the internet.
so believing in America negates their science…..ok...0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!
The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.
When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.
You're an attorney but you aren't a patent attorney, are you? Patent law is the one legally recognized legal specialty. There is no legal recognition of copyright lawyer. And while intellectual property is a phrase, that's the point - it is one construction of language that has come about to legitimize a school of thought in owning thoughts. That somehow imagining how something could be done is a possession the same way that a toothbrush is a possession.
And the Percy wasn't accidental contamination. How are you an attorney and you couldn't follow that case? He was found guilty because he had a field that was 70% RoundUp ready - he discovered his crops had the RR trait and intentionally sprayed those ones, and save them. There was no accident involved.
As far as your "faith" response, actually, nature has species cross genes all the time. You owe your existence to it. You have genes in your body right now from bacteria and sea life that you allow you to efficiently process carbs. Evolution itself produces random mutations that we can't know the consequences of either, but you have to accept that you can't anticipate all consequences. I do know the consequences of abandoning GMO technology: more population, and worse conditions for the poorest of human beings.
I'm not a patent attorney. Are you? I am licensed to practice law. Are you? I'm not going to argue with you about terms about patent law/intellectual property/copyright/trademark when the point is the same- a person can own the legal rights to a gene code. That's the problem I am pointing out.
How can I be an attorney and "not follow the case"?? Easy. I WORK.
So admittedly, you're ignorant of the actual facts of what you're linking to, assuming it supports your claim, but then condescending towards me because I know more about it even though you're the lawyer?
If you have a moral problem with owning genes, you're better off fighting pharmaceutical and medical industries than the dozen or so novel genes patented in food production. Also already said, patenting genes isn't even necessary for agriculture, it has been possible to patent traits side the 1920s before transgenic was a term. Lumping patent lawyer with other parts of the law is part of the problem that lends ethical legitimacy to those claims.youngmomtaz wrote: »So, why have other countries gone so far as banning gmo, actually burning the crops, and outlawing many of the chemicals we use? If they are banning based on small studies showing unfavourable results in rats, if they are banning simply to do more research and have a wider timeframe to look at, I find those acceptable and smart reasons.
I cannot remove all things processed. And sometimes eat them despite what I feel is "good for me" but for the most part, I will choose the least processed, lab created, altered foods possible.
I will continue to buy local when possible, organic when possible, as unprocessed as possible(eg. I grind my own flour for my family from organic wheat grown by good friends) and I will feel good about it. I temper that by eating out and occasionally buying food in a box. I know what tastes good. Without me even mentioning the difference, my children choose what they prefer taste wise. Again, we all make choices. I could never be a vegetarian but I do not find fault in their choice. I do find fault with being ridiculed for mine though.
Few countries have banned them, many simply have never approved their use.
There are also countries that ban homosexuality, but they're wrong too.
It's not my concern that you think I was being condescending when I asked you the same types of questions you asked me. The case about the canola oil, I browsed it. From what I read, he sprayed a field that had cross pollinated crops. Saved the cross pollinated crops and then used that to reseed the next year. Farmers have for a long time selected which seeds to save to grow. I don't think the case is as clean cut as you apparently think it is.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue to put words in my mouth and then argue against things I didn't even say. Have a nice day.
You said you work, implying I actually know the case because I do not. That's condescension.
Percy sprayed round up on weeds, noticed some of his crops near thus spraying resisted the spraying. He intentionally reused those seeds knowing they had RR trait, so that he grew done fields with 70% showing that trait. That's not cross contamination. If these were animals instead of crops, it would be like a neighbor's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, Percy captured it, used it to breed with his dog, repeatedly, and when the neighbor hard about it, he claimed it was an accident - even though he now has pups of those pups that are three quarters purebred bull dog. Yet Purely is getting the media to say his neighbor sued Percy over the neighbor's dog trespassing. Well, that dog don't hunt as they say.
I don't think it's quite like that - it more like a neighbour's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, screwed his pooch and then had puppies or gave birth on his lawn. Or replaced his own dog and had puppies.
Percy has some claim, imho, as that crop drift isn't of his doing. Or at least it isn't clear cut.
Percy sprayed round up on parts of his crop, and saw they resisted. He took the resistant ones, grew their seeds, sprayed again to keep resistant ones. The court found he knew what he was doing, hence the reason he was find liable.
He had a field growing that was 70% RR trait. If it was Bull Dogs, it would literally be the grand pups of Monsanto's that Percy was holding but telling the court "I don't know where all these dogs came from."
If it was pure accident, Monsanto has a standing policy that they'll pay for any accidental contamination at their expense to remove it. Like leaving missing posters with a reward offer up permanently because the dog is valuable.
See people get outraged about Percy's version of the story because it would indeed be injustice. Percy's version didn't happen though.
Ok, I can see that.
And it's more like they can't keep their damn dog in the yard. So if it chews your loafers they'll pay.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
ETA: From their website:
"Every person and every organization has a value system and a set of beliefs. PragerU is no different. We believe in the principles that have made America great. We believe in economic and religious freedom, in a strong military that protects our allies and in the religious values that inform Western civilization, also known as Judeo-Christian values"
In other words:
"I discard the facts presented to me because the people who made the video are Christians who love America."
Ok.
But still nobody's told me if I can eat processed bread and still lose weight...
No. It sounds more like "these are not facts because the people presenting them as facts are not qualified to do so." Believe it or not, someone loving American and being Christian is not automatically a trustworthy source of scientific facts.
Nor does it make them an untrustworthy source, which appeared to be the claim considering the quote used to explain why their credibility was being called into question.
You can't just say "I don't trust this source" and then quote them on their politics/religion as your reason but then claim that the reason you don't trust them isn't because of their politics/religion.
Or are you saying that being a Christian organization makes them unqualified to speak on scientific subjects? Because if so, that's not a very scientific perspective.
The website of a peer reviewed scientific journal, where the editor happens to be also Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or worshipping the Flying Spaghetti monster) and who is proud to be American (or Italian or Syrian) is still a good source of information for scientific studies. A website that states as its mission "Our Mission: To present the ideas that led to the creation and development of the freest and most prosperous nation in history – The United States of America. We do this through five-minute entertaining educational video courses on the Internet." is no more credible in scientific issues than the banana girl or any other random person or group of people on the internet.
so believing in America negates their science…..ok...
No. Believing in America on its own does not give them any scientific qualification.
[edited by mfp moderator]0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
ETA: From their website:
"Every person and every organization has a value system and a set of beliefs. PragerU is no different. We believe in the principles that have made America great. We believe in economic and religious freedom, in a strong military that protects our allies and in the religious values that inform Western civilization, also known as Judeo-Christian values"
In other words:
"I discard the facts presented to me because the people who made the video are Christians who love America."
Ok.
But still nobody's told me if I can eat processed bread and still lose weight...
No. It sounds more like "these are not facts because the people presenting them as facts are not qualified to do so." Believe it or not, someone loving American and being Christian is not automatically a trustworthy source of scientific facts.
Nor does it make them an untrustworthy source, which appeared to be the claim considering the quote used to explain why their credibility was being called into question.
You can't just say "I don't trust this source" and then quote them on their politics/religion as your reason but then claim that the reason you don't trust them isn't because of their politics/religion.
Or are you saying that being a Christian organization makes them unqualified to speak on scientific subjects? Because if so, that's not a very scientific perspective.
The website of a peer reviewed scientific journal, where the editor happens to be also Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or worshipping the Flying Spaghetti monster) and who is proud to be American (or Italian or Syrian) is still a good source of information for scientific studies. A website that states as its mission "Our Mission: To present the ideas that led to the creation and development of the freest and most prosperous nation in history – The United States of America. We do this through five-minute entertaining educational video courses on the Internet." is no more credible in scientific issues than the banana girl or any other random person or group of people on the internet.
so believing in America negates their science…..ok...
No - having a free market agenda possibly colours their science.0 -
Paleo_Porky wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
Wat?
If I eat 1800 calories every day of whole, nutritious foods, I will fail if I also consume a single serving of ice cream (that would still put me under my calorie goal)? Really?0 -
Paleo_Porky wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
There is no need to eat high fat. So long as intake is sufficient, there's no major benefit. It does not necessarily change satiety. Satiety between fat and carbohydrate tends to come down to personal preference.
Diet isn't going to appreciably change your metabolism. Of the small affects the thermic effect of food has, an overweight individual actually possibly has a better thermic effect of food from carbs than from fats.
Clean eating can be defined 50 different ways as the prior post pointed out. Coming in here and saying your own idea of it means the definition used by the article OP posted isn't delusional doesn't jive. If you want to argue that eating optimally isn't delusion, you'd be tautologically correct as I'd considered delusional eating unoptimal from a mental health stand point. Now what optimal means becomes contentious and can even necessitate context.
There are most definitely downsides to avoiding GMOs and grains and this is where necessary context comes in. There's evidence that GMO crops with the Bt trait have lower amounts of insect contamination. On the societal scale, you aren't going to feed the world without grain (so again, necessitate context). In a personal context, it is expensive to avoid grains, and it is inconvenient. Personally, satisfying those criteria (cost and convenience) trumps satisfying some made up beliefs about what an ancestral diet consisted of.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
ETA: From their website:
"Every person and every organization has a value system and a set of beliefs. PragerU is no different. We believe in the principles that have made America great. We believe in economic and religious freedom, in a strong military that protects our allies and in the religious values that inform Western civilization, also known as Judeo-Christian values"
In other words:
"I discard the facts presented to me because the people who made the video are Christians who love America."
Ok.
But still nobody's told me if I can eat processed bread and still lose weight...
No. It sounds more like "these are not facts because the people presenting them as facts are not qualified to do so." Believe it or not, someone loving American and being Christian is not automatically a trustworthy source of scientific facts.
Nor does it make them an untrustworthy source, which appeared to be the claim considering the quote used to explain why their credibility was being called into question.
You can't just say "I don't trust this source" and then quote them on their politics/religion as your reason but then claim that the reason you don't trust them isn't because of their politics/religion.
Or are you saying that being a Christian organization makes them unqualified to speak on scientific subjects? Because if so, that's not a very scientific perspective.
The website of a peer reviewed scientific journal, where the editor happens to be also Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or worshipping the Flying Spaghetti monster) and who is proud to be American (or Italian or Syrian) is still a good source of information for scientific studies. A website that states as its mission "Our Mission: To present the ideas that led to the creation and development of the freest and most prosperous nation in history – The United States of America. We do this through five-minute entertaining educational video courses on the Internet." is no more credible in scientific issues than the banana girl or any other random person or group of people on the internet.
The banana girl is untrustworthy because everything she says can be debunked with 5 minutes of actually looking for it, not because she's a random person on the internet.
Can the same be said about that university? I dunno. I never heard of them before. But nothing in that video went crassly against what I've read before on GMOs.0 -
Paleo_Porky wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
Where did anyone advocate for eating nothing but cake? What people have said, time and again, is that if I eat primarily nutrient dense foods, eat a balanced diet, that there's nothing wrong with eating a piece of cake to round out my calories for the day.
Also, the GMO debate is already happening here, but what's your reason why grains should be avoided?
Lastly, @diannethegeek I think we have a new one to add to the myriad definitions of what clean eating is. "Clean Eating Means Eating Optimally". Because that totally should clear it up for the many posters who come in asking how they can eat clean...0 -
Looks like somebody drank Kool Aid with Flint Michigan Tap Water.0
-
Paleo_Porky wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
You can't live on broccoli alone.
Therefore clean eating is bunk.
Next.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Paleo_Porky wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
You can't live on broccoli alone.
Therefore clean eating is bunk.
Next.
Failed; should have been a haiku.0 -
Dammit.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Paleo_Porky wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
You can't live on broccoli alone.
Therefore clean eating is bunk.
Next.
If you live on nothing but broccoli, it's probably best to live alone, if you know what I mean...
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Paleo_Porky wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
You can't live on broccoli alone.
Therefore clean eating is bunk.
Next.
Failed; should have been a haiku.
Broccoli alone? Nay!
Therefore clean eating is bunk.
Where art my pizza?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Paleo_Porky wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
You can't live on broccoli alone.
Therefore clean eating is bunk.
Next.
If you live on nothing but broccoli, it's probably best to live alone, if you know what I mean...
Only broccoli,
if only there was protein,
never souls nearby.0 -
This thread needs more cat gifs. And since we're now on broccoli...
0 -
0 -
Paleo_Porky wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »"Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:
a vegetarian
a vegan
a raw vegan
a fruitarian
a Paleo dieter
a low-fat dieter
a low-carb dieter
a keto dieter
an IIFYM dieter
So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.
Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
Nice straw man about eating cake all day0
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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