The cleaner you eat, the less you enjoy processed flavours?!
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Because every time it's been explained to me it's been about eliminating foods (the unclean ones, of course, however the person defines what is not clean). Usually "no processed foods" (although invariably the person does, in fact, eat lots of processed foods that somehow don't count as processed). But just look at the list that Dianne collected (my emphasis added):Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store. (The frozen veg are on the inside in mine.)
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's. (Dried pasta is in a box, among many other things.)
No take-out or junk food at all. (So even if I know my local Italian, Indian, or Persian place cooks from scratch with good ingredients and in a reasonably diet-friendly way (this is certainly true for my favorite order from the Persian place), it's not "clean".)
Nothing at all with a barcode. (So much for eggs and meat from the grocery store, as well as even some fruits and veg.)
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial. (Sorry milk and eggs.)
Don't eat foods that have a mascot. (Sorry raisins -- however, I might comply with this one, not sure, since I don't really like raisins.)
If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
Eat "food" and not "food-like substances." (This calls for more explanation.)
No added sugar. (Not the WHO's recommendation of less than 5%, note. It has to be NO, none at all.)
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown. (Don't even get this one. Weird.)
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
A plant-based whole food diet.
Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food. (Finally one that is not completely all or nothing!)
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation. (this one seems sensible enough, so long as the person doesn't also insist that grains inherently do, for everyone)
Bored of this now, so will just list the others.No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
Eat a plant based diet consisting of whole plant foods.
No bad carbs and processed foods.
Anything that makes a better choice.
Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.
Beyond this, as I understand the "clean" idea, it's that one should strive not to eat any of the "bad" foods. And if you do, that's a failure, although it's also expected that no one will be perfect.
As I see it, based on my understanding of nutrition, there should be no need to try to be perfect or to think it would be ideal not to eat any of whatever is excluded (let's say "processed" or "foods with additives" or low nutrient/high cal foods"). I don't think setting a goal of none for most of this stuff is demanded by any nutritional consideration,* and yet I don't see any other meaningful difference between how someone who "eats clean" eats, in practice, and someone else who focuses on eating a nutrient-rich, balanced, healthful diet, but accepts that it's not less healthful just because it includes something like ice cream or, I dunno, a craft beer, in a reasonable amount given overall calories and goals and the rest of what one eats.
*And indeed where I think it is, I'd personally try to eat none, as with transfats. Not claim to "eat clean" and then eat 20% other things. That always strikes me as dishonest.
How does this differ from the low carb example? Doesn't a person following a low carb diet strive to eliminate things from their diet and only eat low carb, even if they know they will at some point likely fail in that endeavor?
And it's the same for any diet, named or not. Many/most strive for perfection, all the time knowing it's unlikely.
I've seen your posts re: clean eating before so I know you have a problem with the term, but I don't understand why you think clean eaters have more obligation to be perfect than any other dieters.
I actually see more people on MFP say "I eat mostly clean" more often than "I always eat clean".0 -
I don't think it is. I'm not sure what it is. Just answering your question. Well, trying to at least...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Probably because the definition can be so ambiguous...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Maybe it's simply not that useful to tell people they should "eat clean." After all, no one seems to know or agree on what that means. Eating better (and a healthful, nutrient-rich diet) is, of course, a worthy goal, and one that would seem less likely to be equated with bland food. I get why to some "eating clean" would mean plain, no sauces, no seasoning, food just for fuel.
My personal issue with "eating clean" is that processed foods come in a wide variety (as discussed upthread) and saying you should cut out processed foods really has nothing to do with nutrition.
Also, it seems to make it all or nothing: either you eat "clean" -- NO whatever it is you don't eat -- or you don't. But a good, healthful diet allows for some less nutrient dense foods you simply find pleasurable, too, and I even think allowing for that can make it more healthful, as being overly rigid about their diets can be bad for people (it was for me).
What about eating clean seems to make it all or nothing more than any other way of eating? How is eating clean with bits of processed food any different than a low carber having a high carb day, or a follower of IIFYM being off on macros one day or week? What is so special about eating clean that makes you think differently of it?
How would that make it an all or nothing way of eating?
My question was why eating clean was perceived to be an all or nothing way of eating more than other dieting methods.0 -
Apologies. I thought your question was why would it be any different then any other way of eating...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I don't think it is. I'm not sure what it is. Just answering your question. Well, trying to at least...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Probably because the definition can be so ambiguous...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Maybe it's simply not that useful to tell people they should "eat clean." After all, no one seems to know or agree on what that means. Eating better (and a healthful, nutrient-rich diet) is, of course, a worthy goal, and one that would seem less likely to be equated with bland food. I get why to some "eating clean" would mean plain, no sauces, no seasoning, food just for fuel.
My personal issue with "eating clean" is that processed foods come in a wide variety (as discussed upthread) and saying you should cut out processed foods really has nothing to do with nutrition.
Also, it seems to make it all or nothing: either you eat "clean" -- NO whatever it is you don't eat -- or you don't. But a good, healthful diet allows for some less nutrient dense foods you simply find pleasurable, too, and I even think allowing for that can make it more healthful, as being overly rigid about their diets can be bad for people (it was for me).
What about eating clean seems to make it all or nothing more than any other way of eating? How is eating clean with bits of processed food any different than a low carber having a high carb day, or a follower of IIFYM being off on macros one day or week? What is so special about eating clean that makes you think differently of it?
How would that make it an all or nothing way of eating?
My question was why eating clean was perceived to be an all or nothing way of eating more than other dieting methods.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Because every time it's been explained to me it's been about eliminating foods (the unclean ones, of course, however the person defines what is not clean). Usually "no processed foods" (although invariably the person does, in fact, eat lots of processed foods that somehow don't count as processed). But just look at the list that Dianne collected (my emphasis added):Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store. (The frozen veg are on the inside in mine.)
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's. (Dried pasta is in a box, among many other things.)
No take-out or junk food at all. (So even if I know my local Italian, Indian, or Persian place cooks from scratch with good ingredients and in a reasonably diet-friendly way (this is certainly true for my favorite order from the Persian place), it's not "clean".)
Nothing at all with a barcode. (So much for eggs and meat from the grocery store, as well as even some fruits and veg.)
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial. (Sorry milk and eggs.)
Don't eat foods that have a mascot. (Sorry raisins -- however, I might comply with this one, not sure, since I don't really like raisins.)
If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
Eat "food" and not "food-like substances." (This calls for more explanation.)
No added sugar. (Not the WHO's recommendation of less than 5%, note. It has to be NO, none at all.)
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown. (Don't even get this one. Weird.)
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
A plant-based whole food diet.
Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food. (Finally one that is not completely all or nothing!)
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation. (this one seems sensible enough, so long as the person doesn't also insist that grains inherently do, for everyone)
Bored of this now, so will just list the others.No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
Eat a plant based diet consisting of whole plant foods.
No bad carbs and processed foods.
Anything that makes a better choice.
Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.
Beyond this, as I understand the "clean" idea, it's that one should strive not to eat any of the "bad" foods. And if you do, that's a failure, although it's also expected that no one will be perfect.
As I see it, based on my understanding of nutrition, there should be no need to try to be perfect or to think it would be ideal not to eat any of whatever is excluded (let's say "processed" or "foods with additives" or low nutrient/high cal foods"). I don't think setting a goal of none for most of this stuff is demanded by any nutritional consideration,* and yet I don't see any other meaningful difference between how someone who "eats clean" eats, in practice, and someone else who focuses on eating a nutrient-rich, balanced, healthful diet, but accepts that it's not less healthful just because it includes something like ice cream or, I dunno, a craft beer, in a reasonable amount given overall calories and goals and the rest of what one eats.
*And indeed where I think it is, I'd personally try to eat none, as with transfats. Not claim to "eat clean" and then eat 20% other things. That always strikes me as dishonest.
How does this differ from the low carb example? Doesn't a person following a low carb diet strive to eliminate things from their diet and only eat low carb, even if they know they will at some point likely fail in that endeavor?
No, they try to eat below a certain number of carbs. If they don't, they are off the diet or "cheating" or the like and typically (if keto) there's some negative repercussion, like slipping out or (even if not keto) likely gaining extra water weight.
I don't see low carb as much different from any other "I aim for X calories" or "I aim for X macros" kind of plan. They don't say the diet involves NO whatever or NEVER eating something.And it's the same for any diet, named or not. Many/most strive for perfection, all the time knowing it's unlikely.
No, based on my discussions with so-called clean eaters, there is a difference. I say "I try to eat healthfully and to include "junk" food only after other goals are met and in moderation; I try to eat a certain amount of protein; I try to eat vegetables with all meals, ideally, and if not at least a minimum amount per day. I am not always successful, but that's the goal, what's wrong with that?" The answer is that including ANY of whatever it is (say "junk" food) is not healthy and should be avoided. Not that they do, but that's the goal. The fact I don't share that goal is what precludes me from being a "clean" eater.
If just trying to eat a generally healthful diet and acknowledging that it's okay to eat some "bad" foods once in a while were sufficient to be a "clean" eater, why am I argued with and told my approach is vastly different and wrong?
(And I don't tell "clean" eaters their approach is wrong. I say it's not related to nutrition or needed to eat healthfully (although if it works for them, great). And, of course, I say I don't care for the term and find it unclear.)I've seen your posts re: clean eating before so I know you have a problem with the term, but I don't understand why you think clean eaters have more obligation to be perfect than any other dieters.
That they claim to be eliminating foods is the only major difference I see between how they eat (for the most part) and how most of the people here who get classified as moderates eat. (Or, for that matter, how you eat.)
Otherwise, why claim not to eat processed foods or to eat clean? Why argue with the approach that "moderates" (who probably mostly eat "clean" depending on how clean is defined, yet get told we don't care what we put in our bodies since we don't call a pizza a "cheat")? Just say you strive to eat a healthful diet or are nutrition conscious or like to cook from whole foods? That's a much broader group than those who self-identify as "clean eaters."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Because every time it's been explained to me it's been about eliminating foods (the unclean ones, of course, however the person defines what is not clean). Usually "no processed foods" (although invariably the person does, in fact, eat lots of processed foods that somehow don't count as processed). But just look at the list that Dianne collected (my emphasis added):Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store. (The frozen veg are on the inside in mine.)
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's. (Dried pasta is in a box, among many other things.)
No take-out or junk food at all. (So even if I know my local Italian, Indian, or Persian place cooks from scratch with good ingredients and in a reasonably diet-friendly way (this is certainly true for my favorite order from the Persian place), it's not "clean".)
Nothing at all with a barcode. (So much for eggs and meat from the grocery store, as well as even some fruits and veg.)
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial. (Sorry milk and eggs.)
Don't eat foods that have a mascot. (Sorry raisins -- however, I might comply with this one, not sure, since I don't really like raisins.)
If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
Eat "food" and not "food-like substances." (This calls for more explanation.)
No added sugar. (Not the WHO's recommendation of less than 5%, note. It has to be NO, none at all.)
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown. (Don't even get this one. Weird.)
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
A plant-based whole food diet.
Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food. (Finally one that is not completely all or nothing!)
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation. (this one seems sensible enough, so long as the person doesn't also insist that grains inherently do, for everyone)
Bored of this now, so will just list the others.No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
Eat a plant based diet consisting of whole plant foods.
No bad carbs and processed foods.
Anything that makes a better choice.
Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.
Beyond this, as I understand the "clean" idea, it's that one should strive not to eat any of the "bad" foods. And if you do, that's a failure, although it's also expected that no one will be perfect.
As I see it, based on my understanding of nutrition, there should be no need to try to be perfect or to think it would be ideal not to eat any of whatever is excluded (let's say "processed" or "foods with additives" or low nutrient/high cal foods"). I don't think setting a goal of none for most of this stuff is demanded by any nutritional consideration,* and yet I don't see any other meaningful difference between how someone who "eats clean" eats, in practice, and someone else who focuses on eating a nutrient-rich, balanced, healthful diet, but accepts that it's not less healthful just because it includes something like ice cream or, I dunno, a craft beer, in a reasonable amount given overall calories and goals and the rest of what one eats.
*And indeed where I think it is, I'd personally try to eat none, as with transfats. Not claim to "eat clean" and then eat 20% other things. That always strikes me as dishonest.
How does this differ from the low carb example? Doesn't a person following a low carb diet strive to eliminate things from their diet and only eat low carb, even if they know they will at some point likely fail in that endeavor?
No, they try to eat below a certain number of carbs. If they don't, they are off the diet or "cheating" or the like and typically (if keto) there's some negative repercussion, like slipping out or (even if not keto) likely gaining extra water weight.
I don't see low carb as much different from any other "I aim for X calories" or "I aim for X macros" kind of plan. They don't say the diet involves NO whatever or NEVER eating something.And it's the same for any diet, named or not. Many/most strive for perfection, all the time knowing it's unlikely.
No, based on my discussions with so-called clean eaters, there is a difference. I say "I try to eat healthfully and to include "junk" food only after other goals are met and in moderation; I try to eat a certain amount of protein; I try to eat vegetables with all meals, ideally, and if not at least a minimum amount per day. I am not always successful, but that's the goal, what's wrong with that?" The answer is that including ANY of whatever it is (say "junk" food) is not healthy and should be avoided. Not that they do, but that's the goal. The fact I don't share that goal is what precludes me from being a "clean" eater.
If just trying to eat a generally healthful diet and acknowledging that it's okay to eat some "bad" foods once in a while were sufficient to be a "clean" eater, why am I argued with and told my approach is vastly different and wrong?
(And I don't tell "clean" eaters their approach is wrong. I say it's not related to nutrition or needed to eat healthfully (although if it works for them, great). And, of course, I say I don't care for the term and find it unclear.)I've seen your posts re: clean eating before so I know you have a problem with the term, but I don't understand why you think clean eaters have more obligation to be perfect than any other dieters.
That they claim to be eliminating foods is the only major difference I see between how they eat (for the most part) and how most of the people here who get classified as moderates eat. (Or, for that matter, how you eat.)
Otherwise, why claim not to eat processed foods or to eat clean? Why argue with the approach that "moderates" (who probably mostly eat "clean" depending on how clean is defined, yet get told we don't care what we put in our bodies since we don't call a pizza a "cheat")? Just say you strive to eat a healthful diet or are nutrition conscious or like to cook from whole foods? That's a much broader group than those who self-identify as "clean eaters."
Why talk about clean eaters as if they are all the same and always say the same things?
No offense. I realize this is touchy subject for you. My experience with the phrase and people who use it (myself included) has been different.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Because every time it's been explained to me it's been about eliminating foods (the unclean ones, of course, however the person defines what is not clean). Usually "no processed foods" (although invariably the person does, in fact, eat lots of processed foods that somehow don't count as processed). But just look at the list that Dianne collected (my emphasis added):Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store. (The frozen veg are on the inside in mine.)
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's. (Dried pasta is in a box, among many other things.)
No take-out or junk food at all. (So even if I know my local Italian, Indian, or Persian place cooks from scratch with good ingredients and in a reasonably diet-friendly way (this is certainly true for my favorite order from the Persian place), it's not "clean".)
Nothing at all with a barcode. (So much for eggs and meat from the grocery store, as well as even some fruits and veg.)
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial. (Sorry milk and eggs.)
Don't eat foods that have a mascot. (Sorry raisins -- however, I might comply with this one, not sure, since I don't really like raisins.)
If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
Eat "food" and not "food-like substances." (This calls for more explanation.)
No added sugar. (Not the WHO's recommendation of less than 5%, note. It has to be NO, none at all.)
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown. (Don't even get this one. Weird.)
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
A plant-based whole food diet.
Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food. (Finally one that is not completely all or nothing!)
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation. (this one seems sensible enough, so long as the person doesn't also insist that grains inherently do, for everyone)
Bored of this now, so will just list the others.No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
Eat a plant based diet consisting of whole plant foods.
No bad carbs and processed foods.
Anything that makes a better choice.
Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.
Beyond this, as I understand the "clean" idea, it's that one should strive not to eat any of the "bad" foods. And if you do, that's a failure, although it's also expected that no one will be perfect.
As I see it, based on my understanding of nutrition, there should be no need to try to be perfect or to think it would be ideal not to eat any of whatever is excluded (let's say "processed" or "foods with additives" or low nutrient/high cal foods"). I don't think setting a goal of none for most of this stuff is demanded by any nutritional consideration,* and yet I don't see any other meaningful difference between how someone who "eats clean" eats, in practice, and someone else who focuses on eating a nutrient-rich, balanced, healthful diet, but accepts that it's not less healthful just because it includes something like ice cream or, I dunno, a craft beer, in a reasonable amount given overall calories and goals and the rest of what one eats.
*And indeed where I think it is, I'd personally try to eat none, as with transfats. Not claim to "eat clean" and then eat 20% other things. That always strikes me as dishonest.
How does this differ from the low carb example? Doesn't a person following a low carb diet strive to eliminate things from their diet and only eat low carb, even if they know they will at some point likely fail in that endeavor?
No, they try to eat below a certain number of carbs. If they don't, they are off the diet or "cheating" or the like and typically (if keto) there's some negative repercussion, like slipping out or (even if not keto) likely gaining extra water weight.
I don't see low carb as much different from any other "I aim for X calories" or "I aim for X macros" kind of plan. They don't say the diet involves NO whatever or NEVER eating something.And it's the same for any diet, named or not. Many/most strive for perfection, all the time knowing it's unlikely.
No, based on my discussions with so-called clean eaters, there is a difference. I say "I try to eat healthfully and to include "junk" food only after other goals are met and in moderation; I try to eat a certain amount of protein; I try to eat vegetables with all meals, ideally, and if not at least a minimum amount per day. I am not always successful, but that's the goal, what's wrong with that?" The answer is that including ANY of whatever it is (say "junk" food) is not healthy and should be avoided. Not that they do, but that's the goal. The fact I don't share that goal is what precludes me from being a "clean" eater.
If just trying to eat a generally healthful diet and acknowledging that it's okay to eat some "bad" foods once in a while were sufficient to be a "clean" eater, why am I argued with and told my approach is vastly different and wrong?
(And I don't tell "clean" eaters their approach is wrong. I say it's not related to nutrition or needed to eat healthfully (although if it works for them, great). And, of course, I say I don't care for the term and find it unclear.)I've seen your posts re: clean eating before so I know you have a problem with the term, but I don't understand why you think clean eaters have more obligation to be perfect than any other dieters.
That they claim to be eliminating foods is the only major difference I see between how they eat (for the most part) and how most of the people here who get classified as moderates eat. (Or, for that matter, how you eat.)
Otherwise, why claim not to eat processed foods or to eat clean? Why argue with the approach that "moderates" (who probably mostly eat "clean" depending on how clean is defined, yet get told we don't care what we put in our bodies since we don't call a pizza a "cheat")? Just say you strive to eat a healthful diet or are nutrition conscious or like to cook from whole foods? That's a much broader group than those who self-identify as "clean eaters."
Why talk about clean eaters as if they are all the same and always say the same things?
No offense. I realize this is touchy subject for you. My experience with the phrase and people who use it (myself included) has been different.
They do typically say the same things when it comes to elimination. Even those who say "I eat mostly clean" are acknowledging that if you include off plan foods the diet isn't "clean" anymore. In a way it's the nature of the term: clean (pure) vs. not (contaminated, unclean, dirty). I've explored this a bunch of times because I wanted to understand what the distinction was.
I realize you have some different understanding from the counterculture or some such and it has to do with pesticides or GMOs or something, but that doesn't seem to be how the term is used today or on MFP. (And I don't see how you would be a clean eater as that term is used here, even if you self-define as such.)
Sure, I know people off line who use the term to mean "healthy" (which I find pointless and silly use of trendy jargon, but I don't comment but merely sigh inwardly, as I do when someone uses the term "impactful") and apparently Panera is now advertising themselves as "clean." But on MFP it is used to refer to specific diets where you are supposed to eliminate foods. The reason I'm not a "clean eater" and someone else is, even if we eat identically, is that I haven't eliminated specific foods. I never eat McD's because I don't like it, but if I stopped because it was the only option on a road trip and had something, that wouldn't be a cheat.
So my issue is with people claiming that elimination is the key to eating healthfully. I think planning a diet around what you don't eat, vs. around the nutrients that should be included in a diet is backwards and usually due to a lack of understanding of nutrition. One could never eat added sugar and still have a terrible diet missing many essential nutrients or adequate protein or which is way too high in calories.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Because every time it's been explained to me it's been about eliminating foods (the unclean ones, of course, however the person defines what is not clean). Usually "no processed foods" (although invariably the person does, in fact, eat lots of processed foods that somehow don't count as processed). But just look at the list that Dianne collected (my emphasis added):Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store. (The frozen veg are on the inside in mine.)
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's. (Dried pasta is in a box, among many other things.)
No take-out or junk food at all. (So even if I know my local Italian, Indian, or Persian place cooks from scratch with good ingredients and in a reasonably diet-friendly way (this is certainly true for my favorite order from the Persian place), it's not "clean".)
Nothing at all with a barcode. (So much for eggs and meat from the grocery store, as well as even some fruits and veg.)
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial. (Sorry milk and eggs.)
Don't eat foods that have a mascot. (Sorry raisins -- however, I might comply with this one, not sure, since I don't really like raisins.)
If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
Eat "food" and not "food-like substances." (This calls for more explanation.)
No added sugar. (Not the WHO's recommendation of less than 5%, note. It has to be NO, none at all.)
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown. (Don't even get this one. Weird.)
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
A plant-based whole food diet.
Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food. (Finally one that is not completely all or nothing!)
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation. (this one seems sensible enough, so long as the person doesn't also insist that grains inherently do, for everyone)
Bored of this now, so will just list the others.No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
Eat a plant based diet consisting of whole plant foods.
No bad carbs and processed foods.
Anything that makes a better choice.
Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.
Beyond this, as I understand the "clean" idea, it's that one should strive not to eat any of the "bad" foods. And if you do, that's a failure, although it's also expected that no one will be perfect.
As I see it, based on my understanding of nutrition, there should be no need to try to be perfect or to think it would be ideal not to eat any of whatever is excluded (let's say "processed" or "foods with additives" or low nutrient/high cal foods"). I don't think setting a goal of none for most of this stuff is demanded by any nutritional consideration,* and yet I don't see any other meaningful difference between how someone who "eats clean" eats, in practice, and someone else who focuses on eating a nutrient-rich, balanced, healthful diet, but accepts that it's not less healthful just because it includes something like ice cream or, I dunno, a craft beer, in a reasonable amount given overall calories and goals and the rest of what one eats.
*And indeed where I think it is, I'd personally try to eat none, as with transfats. Not claim to "eat clean" and then eat 20% other things. That always strikes me as dishonest.
How does this differ from the low carb example? Doesn't a person following a low carb diet strive to eliminate things from their diet and only eat low carb, even if they know they will at some point likely fail in that endeavor?
No, they try to eat below a certain number of carbs. If they don't, they are off the diet or "cheating" or the like and typically (if keto) there's some negative repercussion, like slipping out or (even if not keto) likely gaining extra water weight.
I don't see low carb as much different from any other "I aim for X calories" or "I aim for X macros" kind of plan. They don't say the diet involves NO whatever or NEVER eating something.And it's the same for any diet, named or not. Many/most strive for perfection, all the time knowing it's unlikely.
No, based on my discussions with so-called clean eaters, there is a difference. I say "I try to eat healthfully and to include "junk" food only after other goals are met and in moderation; I try to eat a certain amount of protein; I try to eat vegetables with all meals, ideally, and if not at least a minimum amount per day. I am not always successful, but that's the goal, what's wrong with that?" The answer is that including ANY of whatever it is (say "junk" food) is not healthy and should be avoided. Not that they do, but that's the goal. The fact I don't share that goal is what precludes me from being a "clean" eater.
If just trying to eat a generally healthful diet and acknowledging that it's okay to eat some "bad" foods once in a while were sufficient to be a "clean" eater, why am I argued with and told my approach is vastly different and wrong?
(And I don't tell "clean" eaters their approach is wrong. I say it's not related to nutrition or needed to eat healthfully (although if it works for them, great). And, of course, I say I don't care for the term and find it unclear.)I've seen your posts re: clean eating before so I know you have a problem with the term, but I don't understand why you think clean eaters have more obligation to be perfect than any other dieters.
That they claim to be eliminating foods is the only major difference I see between how they eat (for the most part) and how most of the people here who get classified as moderates eat. (Or, for that matter, how you eat.)
Otherwise, why claim not to eat processed foods or to eat clean? Why argue with the approach that "moderates" (who probably mostly eat "clean" depending on how clean is defined, yet get told we don't care what we put in our bodies since we don't call a pizza a "cheat")? Just say you strive to eat a healthful diet or are nutrition conscious or like to cook from whole foods? That's a much broader group than those who self-identify as "clean eaters."
Why talk about clean eaters as if they are all the same and always say the same things?
No offense. I realize this is touchy subject for you. My experience with the phrase and people who use it (myself included) has been different.
They do typically say the same things when it comes to elimination. Even those who say "I eat mostly clean" are acknowledging that if you include off plan foods the diet isn't "clean" anymore. In a way it's the nature of the term: clean (pure) vs. not (contaminated, unclean, dirty). I've explored this a bunch of times because I wanted to understand what the distinction was.
I realize you have some different understanding from the counterculture or some such and it has to do with pesticides or GMOs or something, but that doesn't seem to be how the term is used today or on MFP. (And I don't see how you would be a clean eater as that term is used here, even if you self-define as such.)
Sure, I know people off line who use the term to mean "healthy" (which I find pointless and silly use of trendy jargon, but I don't comment but merely sigh inwardly, as I do when someone uses the term "impactful") and apparently Panera is now advertising themselves as "clean." But on MFP it is used to refer to specific diets where you are supposed to eliminate foods. The reason I'm not a "clean eater" and someone else is, even if we eat identically, is that I haven't eliminated specific foods. I never eat McD's because I don't like it, but if I stopped because it was the only option on a road trip and had something, that wouldn't be a cheat.
So my issue is with people claiming that elimination is the key to eating healthfully. I think planning a diet around what you don't eat, vs. around the nutrients that should be included in a diet is backwards and usually due to a lack of understanding of nutrition. One could never eat added sugar and still have a terrible diet missing many essential nutrients or adequate protein or which is way too high in calories.
Okie, doke. As I said, my experiences, including those on MFP, have been very different.0 -
people talk about not eating any frozen food but many frozen vegetables are more nutritious than their fresh counterparts. They are picked and flash frozen to maintain vitamins and taste versus veggies that no one knows when they were picked.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