The Clean Eating Delusion...
Options
Replies
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions