The Clean Eating Delusion...
Replies
-
In the case of canola seed, yes, there is no way to keep canola pollen from cross contamination, it can drift for potentially miles. I wouldn't even say it is as wholesome as they'll pay for the damages because it is right - in truth Monsanto did no damage to Percy, the round up trait didn't make his crops any worse, the fact that he was intentionally trying to breed for the trait shows he saw a value in it. Rather it is a matter of them wanting to keep their property from being copied. Buying it back keeps it out of hands that haven't already signed a contract and are one record.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
It was in fact Percy's neighbors who turned him in. They know that Percy using the RR trait without paying for it means it is costing them money when they're doing the legal thing and properly paying for seeds with the trait, to the same abstract sense that someone listening to an illegal download of a song is raising the price for people buying a CD in a store (do people still do that?).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.
Broccoli protein
exceptionally high
needs fats for a diet0 -
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 day
the actual IIFYM advice would be to budget the fats and carbs piece of cake you ate, and make sure the rest of your diet has the required nutrients you missed from using those calories for cake.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.
It's very clean cut. It was theft of service, plain and simple
As an analogy, say we have two sports bars A and B, right next to each other. The owner of bar A pays the cable company for the rights to televise a PPV boxing match. Rather than running wires he streams the signal to the other TVs in his bar wirelessly.
Owner B funds his WiFi password, and televised the fight in his bar, without paying royalties
Owner B is in clear violationWinoGelato 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.
Broccoli protein
exceptionally high
needs fats for a diet
Brocoli protein?
Now I am very confused
Thought it was a grain
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.
Right. I've seen this story repeatedly told as the farmer's field got accidently contaminated and as a result Monsanto went after him. The whole part about him intentionally cultivating the RoundupReady canola (as the court found) gets left out.0 -
Also, just to add to this, since I read the Canadian Supreme Court case. He went to the part of his property bordering on neighboring farms that he knew used the Monsanto seed (and paid for it) and sprayed. Then he cultivated the resistant seed throughout his fields. The court findings said 98% had the RR trait. His argument was that this was fair game under Canadian law (and it was a legitimate argument although the courts ultimately rejected it).
But of course now the story becomes that the fields were "contaminated" and that he didn't want it on his property and it ended up all over his fields through no fault/responsibility of his own.0 -
FunkyTobias 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.
It's very clean cut. It was theft of service, plain and simple
As an analogy, say we have two sports bars A and B, right next to each other. The owner of bar A pays the cable company for the rights to televise a PPV boxing match. Rather than running wires he streams the signal to the other TVs in his bar wirelessly.
Owner B funds his WiFi password, and televised the fight in his bar, without paying royalties
Owner B is in clear violationWinoGelato 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.
Broccoli protein
exceptionally high
needs fats for a diet
Brocoli protein?
Now I am very confused
Thought it was a grain
Per calorie count
Protein high but limited
by raffinose levels0 -
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.
Broccoli protein
exceptionally high
needs fats for a diet
Broccoli in oil,
spiced, roasted to perfection,
goodness in my mouth.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.
So yet another definition? Say that eating optimally for me means a nutrient-rich and balanced diet that meets my needs and includes some extras beyond my nutrition goals because I enjoy them and that's something too. This might include some good cheese or for some wine or beer (in moderation) or some ice cream or good chocolate or occasional piece of pie or evening out at a Mexican restaurant for tacos, so on.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.
What is the benefit of passing up the kinds of extras noted above if I am meeting my needs already? Indeed, NO ONE eats at the highest level of nutrition always, that doesn't even make any sense and you would drive yourself crazy. Say I'm having dinner and already had plenty of protein that day and don't really need more -- should I decide to eat only vegetables instead, since technically that would be a "higher level of nutrition" as I'd be racking up more micros? Should I be one of those weirdos who worries about whether spinach or kale is more nutrient dense rather than just realizing that they both have positives and eating whatever one seems tasty with the other things I am eating?
For me, optimal is adequate to meet my needs, keep me satisfied, and calorie appropriate. Since I don't really struggle with hunger (I don't know why people seem to think not being hungry is so complicated), being satisfied is largely about enjoying the food I eat. Which I do--the vegetables and fish as well as the ice cream and cheese.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.
First, who has suggested eating just cake? Not even Marie Antoinette in reality. That's a straw man.
Second, no, I don't need a "high protein, high fat, high fiber" diet to achieve satiety (and having all those "highs" would be pretty hard to achieve with a reasonable calorie goal, as carbs primarily supply fiber. For muscle retention or gain (not satiety -- I would be satisfied on less, but I like meat and legumes anyway), there's generally no benefit beyond about .8 g per lb of healthy body weight, so for me about 25%, maybe 20% when I'm especially active. High fat -- no benefit for me at all in terms of satiety. Most of the fat in my diet is more like an extra -- for taste and satisfaction and of course because some fats are beneficial. But for the most part extra sat fat isn't "highest level of nutrition" stuff -- it's that cheese and butter and prime rib taste good. High fiber? I see no need for an especially high fiber diet but I eat whole grains and legumes (not paleo approved as I understand, even though legumes are usually recommended as something to include in a nutrient rich diet) and of course lots of veg, so don't have much issue getting plenty of fiber.
So no, for me some artificial notion of foods being "clean" or not would not aid in "optimal" nutrition.
Plus, for me an optimal diet likely includes more carbs, because I keep reading about how they are beneficial for training. RunnersWorld just sent something about a new study today which I have yet to read.0 -
Ah, yet another definition...Paleo_Porky wrote: »No - eating clean means eating optimally.
What eating "clean" has to do with this I have no idea...Paleo_Porky wrote: »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.
Why would anyone just eat cake? Extreme example to prove your point proves nothing...Paleo_Porky wrote: »Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake.
Ok...Paleo_Porky wrote: »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.
Why?Paleo_Porky wrote: »Clean eating is an optimal approach
That's debatable...Paleo_Porky wrote: »and certainly not delusional.
Again, that's debatable...Paleo_Porky wrote: »There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains
Once again, debatable...Paleo_Porky wrote: »actually, the upside is really all there is.
0 -
Paleo_Porky wrote: »
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 day
Binary thinking is the only way to make the "clean eating" argument stand up - completely ignore context and dosage. Either you're eating 100% "clean" or you're stuffing junk into your gut all day. No way there could possibly be a sensible, moderate alternative.the actual IIFYM advice would be to budget the fats and carbs piece of cake you ate, and make sure the rest of your diet has the required nutrients you missed from using those calories for cake.
Exactly. But some people just can't parse that thought. Once so much as one gram of anything "unclean" passes your lips, you're not eating "clean" or "optimally" anymore and you're gonna get fat and diabeetus and your muscles are gonna fall off and you're gonna die. Because you ate that one piece of cake. Evil, evil cake.0 -
Paleo_Porky wrote: »
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 day
Binary thinking is the only way to make the "clean eating" argument stand up - completely ignore context and dosage. Either you're eating 100% "clean" or you're stuffing junk into your gut all day. No way there could possibly be a sensible, moderate alternative.the actual IIFYM advice would be to budget the fats and carbs piece of cake you ate, and make sure the rest of your diet has the required nutrients you missed from using those calories for cake.
Exactly. But some people just can't parse that thought. Once so much as one gram of anything "unclean" passes your lips, you're not eating "clean" or "optimally" anymore and you're gonna get fat and diabeetus and your muscles are gonna fall off and you're gonna die. Because you ate that one piece of cake. Evil, evil cake.
If it ain't clean, it's dirty. If it's a little dirty, it ain't clean.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Paleo_Porky wrote: »
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 day
Binary thinking is the only way to make the "clean eating" argument stand up - completely ignore context and dosage. Either you're eating 100% "clean" or you're stuffing junk into your gut all day. No way there could possibly be a sensible, moderate alternative.the actual IIFYM advice would be to budget the fats and carbs piece of cake you ate, and make sure the rest of your diet has the required nutrients you missed from using those calories for cake.
Exactly. But some people just can't parse that thought. Once so much as one gram of anything "unclean" passes your lips, you're not eating "clean" or "optimally" anymore and you're gonna get fat and diabeetus and your muscles are gonna fall off and you're gonna die. Because you ate that one piece of cake. Evil, evil cake.
If it ain't clean, it's dirty. If it's a little dirty, it ain't clean.
And if you eat one "dirty" thing, that must mean that your diet consists of entirely dirty things, and is not "optimal".
I'd note that the person who posted that is a paleo dieter. His diet would be considered very unclean and far less than optimal by a vegan. I've seen no actual science whatsoever yet which proclaims paleo dieting as The One True Way.0 -
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Paleo_Porky wrote: »
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 day
Binary thinking is the only way to make the "clean eating" argument stand up - completely ignore context and dosage. Either you're eating 100% "clean" or you're stuffing junk into your gut all day. No way there could possibly be a sensible, moderate alternative.the actual IIFYM advice would be to budget the fats and carbs piece of cake you ate, and make sure the rest of your diet has the required nutrients you missed from using those calories for cake.
Exactly. But some people just can't parse that thought. Once so much as one gram of anything "unclean" passes your lips, you're not eating "clean" or "optimally" anymore and you're gonna get fat and diabeetus and your muscles are gonna fall off and you're gonna die. Because you ate that one piece of cake. Evil, evil cake.
If it ain't clean, it's dirty. If it's a little dirty, it ain't clean.
And if you eat one "dirty" thing, that must mean that your diet consists of entirely dirty things, and is not "optimal".
I'd note that the person who posted that is a paleo dieter. His diet would be considered very unclean and far less than optimal by a vegan. I've seen no actual science whatsoever yet which proclaims paleo dieting as The One True Way.
But my made up theories about what cavemen ate and MY FEELZ!!!!0 -
Wanna hear a dirty joke?
A kid fell in the mud.0 -
Wanna hear a clean joke?
He took a bath.0 -
My analogy would be that the neighbors prize bull came over, knocked up Percy's dog without Percy's permission, and now the neighbor thinks they own rights to all the pups's pups- even tho Percy is the one who took care of them and bred them into what they are now.
Even if Percy knew he was using pups from the neighbors prize bull to purposefully breed that bull's prize traits, I still think Percy has a legitimate claim that he need not reimburse Mansanto (or whatever the damages were) because he ended up with a bunch of prize Bulls himself. It was his breeding his pups that got him what he has. His neighbor's bull coming onto his property isn't his fault/negligence. In fact I think it could be argued that the neighbor's contributory negligence negates any claim to damages.
None of which changes my opinion about the concern I have about patented genetically modified living things. As for the source of the video, please refer to the science article I already posted about HGT.
And none of this has jack to do with clean eating vs not clean eating. My thoughts on that is this: the closer I get to hitting my macros, the more whole foods I prepare at home. Do I eat processed foods too? Yes- protein shakes come to mind. But I also eat more steamed veggies and salads. Organic vs nonorganic has jack to do with CICO or IIFYM and is a matter of personal choice. You can hit your macros, build muscle, and lose fat eating clean or not eating clean as long as you are balancing micro/macro nutrient needs and CICO.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, just to add to this, since I read the Canadian Supreme Court case. He went to the part of his property bordering on neighboring farms that he knew used the Monsanto seed (and paid for it) and sprayed. Then he cultivated the resistant seed throughout his fields. The court findings said 98% had the RR trait. His argument was that this was fair game under Canadian law (and it was a legitimate argument although the courts ultimately rejected it).
But of course now the story becomes that the fields were "contaminated" and that he didn't want it on his property and it ended up all over his fields through no fault/responsibility of his own.
So I learned there was a movie about him and I don't know about that.... But there is a legal discussion about the damages that could be done to farmers from inadvertent cross pollination:
http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-64/issue-1/comments/holding-patent-owners-liable.html0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »
And none of this has jack to do with clean eating vs not clean eating. My thoughts on that is this: the closer I get to hitting my macros, the more whole foods I prepare at home. Do I eat processed foods too? Yes- protein shakes come to mind. But I also eat more steamed veggies and salads. Organic vs nonorganic has jack to do with CICO or IIFYM and is a matter of personal choice. You can hit your macros, build muscle, and lose fat eating clean or not eating clean as long as you are balancing micro/macro nutrient needs and CICO.
Well these forums were never much for understanding personal choice. Application of stereotypes that all people who buy or eat anything organic are uninformed is just nonsense IMO. I buy some organic stuff simply because I prefer the taste. It could be a byproduct of just the recipe, it could be something to do with quality control. It's similar in my mind to macro choices, and the great deal of flexibility that exists there for most people. Ditto "superfoods", the latest workout trends, how one exercise method is superior to another, and the list goes on.
There are plenty of things we don't need to be healthy or fit. But people can choose to eat them all they want without causing any issues unless they are misused in the overall context of the persons diet. And yet I've seen threads like these over and over where people insist that certain things must be done (or not done) to be healthy and control weight. And so we have people trying to convince others that the choices they made are wrong, and they must go buy organic chia seeds to get enough nutrients, or that if we don't buy cookies our mental health will decline.
And yet I've lived without chia seeds or cookies as part of my daily life, and eat some organic foods too. I must be doing it all wrong, maybe my fast food balance was off when I was younger?0 -
robertw486 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »
And none of this has jack to do with clean eating vs not clean eating. My thoughts on that is this: the closer I get to hitting my macros, the more whole foods I prepare at home. Do I eat processed foods too? Yes- protein shakes come to mind. But I also eat more steamed veggies and salads. Organic vs nonorganic has jack to do with CICO or IIFYM and is a matter of personal choice. You can hit your macros, build muscle, and lose fat eating clean or not eating clean as long as you are balancing micro/macro nutrient needs and CICO.
Well these forums were never much for understanding personal choice. Application of stereotypes that all people who buy or eat anything organic are uninformed is just nonsense IMO. I buy some organic stuff simply because I prefer the taste. It could be a byproduct of just the recipe, it could be something to do with quality control. It's similar in my mind to macro choices, and the great deal of flexibility that exists there for most people. Ditto "superfoods", the latest workout trends, how one exercise method is superior to another, and the list goes on.
There are plenty of things we don't need to be healthy or fit. But people can choose to eat them all they want without causing any issues unless they are misused in the overall context of the persons diet. And yet I've seen threads like these over and over where people insist that certain things must be done (or not done) to be healthy and control weight. And so we have people trying to convince others that the choices they made are wrong, and they must go buy organic chia seeds to get enough nutrients, or that if we don't buy cookies our mental health will decline.
And yet I've lived without chia seeds or cookies as part of my daily life, and eat some organic foods too. I must be doing it all wrong, maybe my fast food balance was off when I was younger?
Right? I get why people want to make it clear to newbs (??) to not get caught up in the idea that it HAS TO BE CLEAN or else you will DIE/suffer/be fat!!! .....But sometimes people get just as fanatical about vehemently opposing any perspective that isn't 100% opposed to all things "clean."
It's always refreshing to remember why I don't usually participate in forums. They are mostly useless.0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »My analogy would be that the neighbors prize bull came over, knocked up Percy's dog without Percy's permission, and now the neighbor thinks they own rights to all the pups's pups- even tho Percy is the one who took care of them and bred them into what they are now.
Even if Percy knew he was using pups from the neighbors prize bull to purposefully breed that bull's prize traits, I still think Percy has a legitimate claim that he need not reimburse Mansanto (or whatever the damages were) because he ended up with a bunch of prize Bulls himself. It was his breeding his pups that got him what he has. His neighbor's bull coming onto his property isn't his fault/negligence. In fact I think it could be argued that the neighbor's contributory negligence negates any claim to damages.
None of which changes my opinion about the concern I have about patented genetically modified living things. As for the source of the video, please refer to the science article I already posted about HGT.
And none of this has jack to do with clean eating vs not clean eating. My thoughts on that is this: the closer I get to hitting my macros, the more whole foods I prepare at home. Do I eat processed foods too? Yes- protein shakes come to mind. But I also eat more steamed veggies and salads. Organic vs nonorganic has jack to do with CICO or IIFYM and is a matter of personal choice. You can hit your macros, build muscle, and lose fat eating clean or not eating clean as long as you are balancing micro/macro nutrient needs and CICO.
The bull came over because neither Percy nor his neighbor have a fence and watch over it 24/7 making it impossible to avoid, knocked up one dog, Percy noticed that, killed all resulting pups that did not have the good traits of the prize bull and used the good ones for further breeding until almost all his dogs had the traits of the purebred bull.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »
And none of this has jack to do with clean eating vs not clean eating. My thoughts on that is this: the closer I get to hitting my macros, the more whole foods I prepare at home. Do I eat processed foods too? Yes- protein shakes come to mind. But I also eat more steamed veggies and salads. Organic vs nonorganic has jack to do with CICO or IIFYM and is a matter of personal choice. You can hit your macros, build muscle, and lose fat eating clean or not eating clean as long as you are balancing micro/macro nutrient needs and CICO.
Well these forums were never much for understanding personal choice. Application of stereotypes that all people who buy or eat anything organic are uninformed is just nonsense IMO. I buy some organic stuff simply because I prefer the taste. It could be a byproduct of just the recipe, it could be something to do with quality control. It's similar in my mind to macro choices, and the great deal of flexibility that exists there for most people. Ditto "superfoods", the latest workout trends, how one exercise method is superior to another, and the list goes on.
There are plenty of things we don't need to be healthy or fit. But people can choose to eat them all they want without causing any issues unless they are misused in the overall context of the persons diet. And yet I've seen threads like these over and over where people insist that certain things must be done (or not done) to be healthy and control weight. And so we have people trying to convince others that the choices they made are wrong, and they must go buy organic chia seeds to get enough nutrients, or that if we don't buy cookies our mental health will decline.
And yet I've lived without chia seeds or cookies as part of my daily life, and eat some organic foods too. I must be doing it all wrong, maybe my fast food balance was off when I was younger?
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »And none of this has jack to do with clean eating vs not clean eating.
True, but the GMO discussion often uses the myth about the Canadian farmer to support the evil Monsanto argument. It's good to have the facts right, even though as I said there was a legitimate argument both ways under Canadian law. I just don't like the false assertion (which your original post seemed to be making) that the farmer got sued because some seed blew onto his property and started growing, unbeknowst to him, period, nothing more.
Anyway, back to clean eating!My thoughts on that is this: the closer I get to hitting my macros, the more whole foods I prepare at home.
Okay. I like to prepare most of my meals from scratch at home too, although I am not always perfect (this has been an up and down week), and I do like to go out to eat sometimes. I don't find that makes much difference as to my macros (and I tend to focus more on getting in protein and micronutrients than macros--don't care that much about fat vs. carbs or hitting specific numbers), but it is how I prefer to eat. I wouldn't call it "clean," though, and don't see why cooking at home from whole foods needs a special name.Do I eat processed foods too? Yes- protein shakes come to mind. But I also eat more steamed veggies and salads.
Pretty sure most of us who argue that "clean eating" isn't necessary for good health do this too. Just don't think of it as "clean eating." Also, if you ask most clean eaters what clean eating is, they say stuff like Dianne noted on her list. Most commonly NO processed food. Which is usually a lie about their own diets, and anyway I see no benefit to cutting out cottage cheese and smoked salmon or TJ's polenta which is a nice easy option on occasion (and which I eat with protein and vegetables) or an occasional protein or energy bar if I'm on the run and have no other easy options for a meal. Why make all that stuff out to be bad if one generally eats a healthy balanced diet?Organic vs nonorganic has jack to do with CICO or IIFYM and is a matter of personal choice.
Correct, but some people seem to think it's "clean" to eat organic and "unclean" to not (which is fine, whatever, stupid term but people should eat as they like). And some of those also assert that one must eat clean to be healthy and that one can't get fat eating clean which are false assertions and why it's important to point out -- as you said -- that no, CICO still matters. There's a post up right now where an OP is asking if she needs to count the calories from fruits and veg (including some high cal fruits) because they are organic and raw. There seems to be a real misunderstanding about this -- as if we got fat because pesticides (the kind not used on organics) and not calories. (Or that cooking makes food caloric?)You can hit your macros, build muscle, and lose fat eating clean or not eating clean as long as you are balancing micro/macro nutrient needs and CICO.
Yep.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »
And none of this has jack to do with clean eating vs not clean eating. My thoughts on that is this: the closer I get to hitting my macros, the more whole foods I prepare at home. Do I eat processed foods too? Yes- protein shakes come to mind. But I also eat more steamed veggies and salads. Organic vs nonorganic has jack to do with CICO or IIFYM and is a matter of personal choice. You can hit your macros, build muscle, and lose fat eating clean or not eating clean as long as you are balancing micro/macro nutrient needs and CICO.
Well these forums were never much for understanding personal choice.
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)0 -
Donuts!0
-
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...
We didn't eat much fast food, but we did eat a lot of fresh beef that in today's terms would likely be considered organic. That and the fresh veggies from my grandparents garden might have totally wiped my body out somehow!lemurcat12 wrote: »
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)
And my question would be why do you get offended if I make an observation that I don't imply in any way is relative to your position or input on the matter? I see a lot of comments that could offend me if they applied to me, yet I take no offense unless someone intentionally attaches my name to a view I don't hold.
And in context, I think the original post cites some defined way of "clean eating" as attached to people that are ignorant, don't understand science, would run from natural pesticides, and are in general not capable of wading through marketing and making informed decisions. In short it promotes a radical view based on assumptions. And then some posters here claim that such assumption represents the majority, thus assuming the majority is somewhat ignorant and incapable of being a person that can make wise decisions in regards to diet. The same stereotypes are often attached to other certain forms of eating, such as keto, low carb, vegan, vegetarian, etc. But all of those ways of eating can be healthy if the person makes wise choices.
To make it clear though, I don't attach that radical view to you, the OP, or quite a few other posters on this thread. But some are splitting hairs, attaching that stereotype of ignorance to others that have shown to know better, and essentially gone out of their way to try to "prove" someone ignorant when really they are just getting into semantics of how a person eats. Much like eating Oreo's, it really should all be taken in the overall context.
I could just as easily start a thread with a radical view of people who lift heavy, and find an article that states that all "heavy lifter bro's" are ignorant meatheads that fall prey to marketing and can't make wise decisions on what diet composition is best for them. And I could link peer reviewed science based studies that prove the levels of proteins many consume aren't even close to needed. Add funny memes that mock people who lift heavy. Give examples of how many heavy lifters are lacking in cardio and endurance type exercise. And then twist the words of their actual context to lather, rinse, repeat.
But I don't assume that everyone that eats high levels of protein is ignorant, or a heavy lifter, or lacking in cardio health, or falls to marketing scams. As such I would assume that finding such an article and linking it as if is correct in the application of a stereotype to a group of people would probably be nothing but caustic, and cause quite a few people to get offended.
The shoe only fits where the shoe fits. I'm all for ridding the forums of myths and marketing scams, along with methods that science can't substantiate. But in all fairness to individual posts, they should be viewed in an objective rather than subjective manner, regardless of what they promote or dispel. And in this thread alone, I see quite a few posters not doing that, and really just trying to make a case against "clean eating", when the reality is that science no more supports it than opposes it. So really those posters IMO are making an argument over what most of them seem to agree is nothing other than personal choice.
Make sure to eat your chia seeds early in the morning, with protein. I think it's clean! In all seriousness, I kinda like them at times. There are a lot of "clean" non GMO foods that I find tasty. But much like you, I know I don't need them for health or fitness.FitGirl0123 wrote: »Donuts!
Only for people that like snakes.
I thought that was a more appropriate stereotype than claiming people can't have donuts and be healthy. Snake lovers can have organic or GMO donuts. I'm sure there is a web site somewhere that would back my statement. Only people that lift and like snakes can eat donuts without consequences. I'll find the article that implies the majority doesn't understand that.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...
We didn't eat much fast food, but we did eat a lot of fresh beef that in today's terms would likely be considered organic. That and the fresh veggies from my grandparents garden might have totally wiped my body out somehow!lemurcat12 wrote: »
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)
And my question would be why do you get offended if I make an observation that I don't imply in any way is relative to your position or input on the matter? I see a lot of comments that could offend me if they applied to me, yet I take no offense unless someone intentionally attaches my name to a view I don't hold.
I guess because I'm actively involved in the discussion on the "side" you seem to think are making these objectionable claims (that everyone must eat cookies, that no one should buy organic) and I don't see people making them, and as you aren't responding to a specific comment but generalizing about what people are saying it seems as though you are referring to all of us questioning the claim that "clean eating" is somehow "optimal."
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...
We didn't eat much fast food, but we did eat a lot of fresh beef that in today's terms would likely be considered organic. That and the fresh veggies from my grandparents garden might have totally wiped my body out somehow!lemurcat12 wrote: »
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)
And my question would be why do you get offended if I make an observation that I don't imply in any way is relative to your position or input on the matter? I see a lot of comments that could offend me if they applied to me, yet I take no offense unless someone intentionally attaches my name to a view I don't hold.
I guess because I'm actively involved in the discussion on the "side" you seem to think are making these objectionable claims (that everyone must eat cookies, that no one should buy organic) and I don't see people making them, and as you aren't responding to a specific comment but generalizing about what people are saying it seems as though you are referring to all of us questioning the claim that "clean eating" is somehow "optimal."
I didn't mention you or most others taking "sides". But instead, clarified my point....robertw486 wrote: »To make it clear though, I don't attach that radical view to you, the OP, or quite a few other posters on this thread. But some are splitting hairs, attaching that stereotype of ignorance to others that have shown to know better, and essentially gone out of their way to try to "prove" someone ignorant when really they are just getting into semantics of how a person eats. Much like eating Oreo's, it really should all be taken in the overall context.
There are some posts on both "sides" (if you consider sides as clean eating vs not, which is vague really) that I think are caustic, rude, and make assumptions. But I've found that the radical views on either side usually won't use any set standard for intelligent discussion, and as such it's not worth calling them out. I'd prefer to let people identify themselves as having a radical view that applies double standards. But I'm hoping that at some point some of those people will realize they represent only a single view, which is their own, and attempt to remove some of the stereotypes so they can participate in adult level discussion and debate.
For the record, I'm having organic non GMO bread, GMO canned tomatoes, non organic cheese, and beans of unknown origin for dinner. But I'm sure someone thinks that choice isn't the best.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...
We didn't eat much fast food, but we did eat a lot of fresh beef that in today's terms would likely be considered organic. That and the fresh veggies from my grandparents garden might have totally wiped my body out somehow!lemurcat12 wrote: »
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)
And my question would be why do you get offended if I make an observation that I don't imply in any way is relative to your position or input on the matter? I see a lot of comments that could offend me if they applied to me, yet I take no offense unless someone intentionally attaches my name to a view I don't hold.
I guess because I'm actively involved in the discussion on the "side" you seem to think are making these objectionable claims (that everyone must eat cookies, that no one should buy organic) and I don't see people making them, and as you aren't responding to a specific comment but generalizing about what people are saying it seems as though you are referring to all of us questioning the claim that "clean eating" is somehow "optimal."
The OP was not defending the position that "clean" eating is not necessary and just a personal choice. It was grouping several eating styles and personal preferences under the term "clean" eating and then several posters went on to defend this position, that if you follow any of the eating styles mentioned in the OP, then you are for sure some crazy person trying to follow the latest fad who demonises anything that is not "clean". I have never been a "clean" eater, yet arguments like this are offending. There appears to be a big group of posters who mock people not eating their way, and it is not the "clean" eaters doing this. If you choose to avoid GMO, to avoid preservatives, to avoid pesticides, to avoid fast food or whatever, automatically you are some weird person who avoids everything and who demomises cookies and burgers. You do not like bacon? You are crazy and have an unnatural fear of fat. You have decided that you prefer the organic eggs you find in your local farmer's market over the ones you find in the supermarket? You are some crazy person with an irrational fear of "chemicals", and need to be bombarded with nonsense posts about how the water in your apple is a "chemical". And so on.
Threads like this accomplish exactly the opposite of what they claim to do. They are supposed to be "educational" against fad diets and extreme restrictions, yet they are making fun of several groups of people because of their eating choices. And many of the posters who are very aggressive in their mocking of "clean" eating often advocate eating styles that are not just "mainstream" but go against the commonly accepted medical guidelines. Then posts about drs not being as educated as the average individual who has spent a few weeks googling random blogs follow, and people are mocked for following their drs advice, or the advice posted in sites of reputable medical organisations and universities.
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N0I9LLfLJY
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions