The Clean Eating Delusion...
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false
I was more addressing the part after that "but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...".
What are you saying there if not that people don't try to lose weight because they think they can't afford to?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Yet everyday there's a new thread asking "will the chemicals in my diet soda make me fat?" or "I read an article that the chemicals in processed foods are bad for me. What are some non-processed snacks?"0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false
I was more addressing the part after that "but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...".
What are you saying there if not that people don't try to lose weight because they think they can't afford to?
It's not my quote so I'm not saying anything. But I have heard/read all kinds of people saying that they "can't afford to eat healthy."
ETA: which I believe is the argument they were making: the constant inundation of bad information claiming that you have to eat clean or organic in order to be healthy has led all kinds of people to think that they can't eat healthy on regular food. Thus they look at the prices of organic, free-range, non-GMO foods and declare "I can't afford to eat healthy."
And yes, that is a real thing.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false
thats called selective reading...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false
I was more addressing the part after that "but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...".
What are you saying there if not that people don't try to lose weight because they think they can't afford to?
I've seen plenty of people saying things along the lines of "I tried to lose weight but all that healthy food is making me poor."0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
LOL just read through the threads on here and you will see the majority fearing those evil chemicals...
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Yet everyday there's a new thread asking "will the chemicals in my diet soda make me fat?" or "I read an article that the chemicals in processed foods are bad for me. What are some non-processed snacks?"
I said "everyone". You can find someone that believes just about anything. People are strange.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false
I was more addressing the part after that "but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...".
What are you saying there if not that people don't try to lose weight because they think they can't afford to?
I've seen plenty of people saying things along the lines of "I tried to lose weight but all that healthy food is making me poor."
I was watching something on tv where the people basically said "we really can't afford organic, but we make sacrifices elsewhere so that we can buy organic"0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
LOL just read through the threads on here and you will see the majority fearing those evil chemicals...
Yet when I read through this thread I would think the opposite.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Yet everyday there's a new thread asking "will the chemicals in my diet soda make me fat?" or "I read an article that the chemicals in processed foods are bad for me. What are some non-processed snacks?"
I said "everyone". You can find someone that believes just about anything. People are strange.
Maybe not everyone (because I'm part of everyone) but it is a staggering majority.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
LOL just read through the threads on here and you will see the majority fearing those evil chemicals...
Yet when I read through this thread I would think the opposite.
Then good for us!!!
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Yet everyday there's a new thread asking "will the chemicals in my diet soda make me fat?" or "I read an article that the chemicals in processed foods are bad for me. What are some non-processed snacks?"
I said "everyone". You can find someone that believes just about anything. People are strange.
Maybe not everyone (because I'm part of everyone) but it is a staggering majority.
Is it? Do you mean on MFP or in general? Is this based on research or statistics or just your "feelz"?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
LOL just read through the threads on here and you will see the majority fearing those evil chemicals...
Yet when I read through this thread I would think the opposite.
thisNeed2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
LOL just read through the threads on here and you will see the majority fearing those evil chemicals...
Yet when I read through this thread I would think the opposite.
this thread would be the minority ...
if you don't realize that, then I can't help ...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
LOL just read through the threads on here and you will see the majority fearing those evil chemicals...
Yet when I read through this thread I would think the opposite.
thisNeed2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
LOL just read through the threads on here and you will see the majority fearing those evil chemicals...
Yet when I read through this thread I would think the opposite.
this thread would be the minority ...
if you don't realize that, then I can't help ...
Help? I wasn't asking for help. Help with what exactly?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Now this I like.
Me too..0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Sure, I often see it as a quality issue. Some food manufacturers use ingredients to create an unnaturally long shelf life. I prefer to buy from companies that value quality higher. For example, the bread I bake or that served in better restaurants will go stale within a few days. Much of the bread in the bread aisle will last for months. To me, there's no comparison in the taste.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Sure, I often see it as a quality issue. Some food manufacturers use ingredients to create an unnaturally long shelf life. I prefer to buy from companies that value quality higher. For example, the bread I bake or that served in better restaurants will go stale within a few days. Much of the bread in the bread aisle will last for months. To me, there's no comparison in the taste.
That's awesome and all, and I like fresh stuff too, but how do you get bread to bum**** Alaska with that model? Or keep it from rotting on the grocers shelves?
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
I can't speak for others, but I don't assume that everyone who chooses to eat a certain way does so because they are demonizing something (chemicals, meat, sugar, etc). I would like to assume that most people have a thoughtful, cogent reason for why they have chosen to eat the way they have. So like in the example above, where the poster indicated that he chooses bread with 5-6 ingredients rather than those with more ingredients, that he aspires to eat food with higher quality ingredients rather than those which were added to increase shelf life or aesthetic appearances... that doesn't really bother me, he has a reason for choosing to eat the way he does. Where I take issue is with either marketers, like in the Forbes article I linked, trying to indicate that a certain product, food choice, lifestyle etc is superior in order to profit.... OR when people have misconceptions that they MUST eat a certain "clean" way in order to be healthy. Whatever their definition of clean is, if they even have one, there are a lot of people who think that it is impossible to be healthy if you don't eat exclusively organic, or if you eat any processed foods, etc. I think that misconception has been elevated by the fear based marketing, but also by the prevalence of infographics on FB and Pinterest, or by trendy diets like 21 Day Sugar Detox, etc.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Sure, I often see it as a quality issue. Some food manufacturers use ingredients to create an unnaturally long shelf life. I prefer to buy from companies that value quality higher. For example, the bread I bake or that served in better restaurants will go stale within a few days. Much of the bread in the bread aisle will last for months. To me, there's no comparison in the taste.
That's awesome and all, and I like fresh stuff too, but how do you get bread to bum**** Alaska with that model? Or keep it from rotting on the grocers shelves?
An Alaskan bakery? Freeze it? Let them eat cake?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Sure, I often see it as a quality issue. Some food manufacturers use ingredients to create an unnaturally long shelf life. I prefer to buy from companies that value quality higher. For example, the bread I bake or that served in better restaurants will go stale within a few days. Much of the bread in the bread aisle will last for months. To me, there's no comparison in the taste.
That's a question of taste and when it comes to that, I certainly won't argue. I will always personally prefer locally grown and fresh ingredients. The discussion, however, is one of nutritional and health benefits. The former is a matter of personal preference, and that's hard to debate without sounding like a snob (not that I'm above that sort of thing), the latter is ultimately an important policy consideration. Non-organic farming feeds the world. GMOs are helping (and could help more if allowed) to fight malnutrition and outright starvation. Organic foods feed the fortunate and relatively wealthy. I don't wish to end up starving the poor because I have a personal preference for fresh food, and yet if we make policy decisions based on certain personal preferences we risk doing exactly that.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.
Sure, I often see it as a quality issue. Some food manufacturers use ingredients to create an unnaturally long shelf life. I prefer to buy from companies that value quality higher. For example, the bread I bake or that served in better restaurants will go stale within a few days. Much of the bread in the bread aisle will last for months. To me, there's no comparison in the taste.
thats great but it does not make one clean and one dirty ...0 -
Thanks for sharing! I know not everyone appreciates the points made in the OP but the benefit of discussion board is just that, discourse. It's all a learning process for me and I'm smart enough to consider the source every time anything is posted. And more importantly consider my own body's reaction to what I put in it.0
-
bfa0
-
I must use this anology again, if you were a cannibal...would you rather eat a drug addicted homeless guy or a healthy young athlete. I don't "fear" any food, but I do get why people choose some foods over others. For starters, taste.0
-
I eat clean because I truely like eating that way. Imo clean eating means Wholegrains, veggies, fruit, lean meats, fish, nuts, yoghurt, dark chocolate and olive oil. I love the taste of those foods. And that's the only reason anyone should want to eat that way, because they enjoy the taste. Don't force yourself to eat things you don't enjoy just because it's "healthy", that is not a sustainable lifestyle change.
Seriously, nobody wants to say no to a great tasting burger anyway. Everything in moderation.
0 -
I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
While I agree with the sentiments of looking for better quality foods the issue isn't that - it's the intellectual short cut people make and how it impacts dietary choices. Somehow what sometimes occurs - to take your "clean" cow example is that people group foods into categories. Clean cow burgers good - other cow burgers bad, when in reality a healthy diet will consist of limiting the red meat intake to a certain level.
Often these dabates are around semantics AND should be, simply because the neophyte dieter suddenly comes along and states "I'm going to loose [sic] weight by eating clean." And then just follows the marketing hints at the supermarket. No, eating 5 of those energy bars with the fruit and people running in nature made 100% from natural ingredients isn't going to make you lose weight.
Do people miss that point? Sure - but most of the anti-clean crowd aren't saying don't eat fresher, locally sourced, high produce food, they are saying stop with the emotional labelling of food and idea that processing is inherently bad.
I'm sorry you eat crap. This is not a good thing.
I mean the idea that bread exists in two categories "processed" and "non-processed" is exactly this kind of misnomer. All bread is processed - we don't have bread trees. Thankfully, some of the processing of bread - any bread is done to avoid things like ergotism, etc. For example, brine baths are still used with cereals (generallly with small lots, particularly rye) to remove ergot... Something small "bio" farms need do more that larger "industrial concerns".
Do you want to stop that?0 -
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusion/In practice “clean eating” tends to be avoiding whatever food is the latest boogeyman in the pseudoscientific diet-advice industry. Today this often includes eating organic, avoiding GMOs, avoiding gluten, avoiding perceived “chemicals,” eating “natural” which can mean many things but often means avoiding processed foods and food additives, and sometimes eating raw foods.
It is important to emphasize that none of these food beliefs are science based. After 50 years of research there is no evidence for any health benefit to eating organic. After 20 years of research there is no evidence of any health risk to any currently available GMO foods.
Why is there an assumption that people who prefer organic and avoid GMO are only doing this for health benefits? It is like claiming a vegetarian will not eat a burger because the burger is not "clean".0 -
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusion/In practice “clean eating” tends to be avoiding whatever food is the latest boogeyman in the pseudoscientific diet-advice industry. Today this often includes eating organic, avoiding GMOs, avoiding gluten, avoiding perceived “chemicals,” eating “natural” which can mean many things but often means avoiding processed foods and food additives, and sometimes eating raw foods.
It is important to emphasize that none of these food beliefs are science based. After 50 years of research there is no evidence for any health benefit to eating organic. After 20 years of research there is no evidence of any health risk to any currently available GMO foods.
Why is there an assumption that people who prefer organic and avoid GMO are only doing this for health benefits? It is like claiming a vegetarian will not eat a burger because the burger is not "clean".
Because it is marketed toward that reason people. Especially the GMO one.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusion/In practice “clean eating” tends to be avoiding whatever food is the latest boogeyman in the pseudoscientific diet-advice industry. Today this often includes eating organic, avoiding GMOs, avoiding gluten, avoiding perceived “chemicals,” eating “natural” which can mean many things but often means avoiding processed foods and food additives, and sometimes eating raw foods.
It is important to emphasize that none of these food beliefs are science based. After 50 years of research there is no evidence for any health benefit to eating organic. After 20 years of research there is no evidence of any health risk to any currently available GMO foods.
Why is there an assumption that people who prefer organic and avoid GMO are only doing this for health benefits? It is like claiming a vegetarian will not eat a burger because the burger is not "clean".
Because it is marketed toward that reason people. Especially the GMO one.
Marketed by whom? I am in Europe where the majority of countries (and people) are against GMO (and there is a ban in most countries). The main objections are environmental. It is environmental organisations leading both pro-organic and anti-GMO campaigns, not anyone marketing "clean" eating lifestyles, at least from what I have seen all these years.0 -
Marketed by people I assume are out to make a quick buck on outrage.
The pictures at the top there are certainly not becrying environmental issues, they're making an appeal to nature fallacy to your health.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions