Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What is clean eating?
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'll post my last cholesterol profile right now, no need to wait 6 months.If all calories are truly created equal as I've seen on these forums and you truly believe that, then spend the next 6 months getting your calories from twinkies and bacon. If you survive we'll compare a blood panel.Component Standard Range Your Value Cholesterol <200 mg/dL 144 Triglycerides <150 mg/dL 60 HDL >40 mg/dL 63 LDL, Calculated <130 mg/dL 69 Chol/HDL Ratio <4.5 2.3
I can also state that in the last 8 months or so, the various times I've had my glucose read, the highest it ever reached was 98 - and that's not a fasting reading, even though 98 would be acceptable for fasting levels.
Nice reading but have you been eating only twinkies and bacon for 6 months?
I actually don't care for twinkies, but UG77 isn't offering to similarly restricting himself to only broccoli and kale for 6 months.
No, but my understanding was that he wanted to compare his results with someone who did.
Twinkies are often what I think of as a perfect example of food that is not clean, not even close to clean. I mean seriously, what is that stuff?? They are so weird.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
People advocate that there is no such thing as unhealthy food. That CICO trumps all. Now they can either prove it or not. I'm betting not will be the option of choice.
Sidenote: does MFP offer a calories burned for googling?
I'll refer you back to my first post in this thread - the 4th post of the thread.In re: the actual topic, I think it's quite obviously a good idea to center one's diet around whole, nutrient (macro and micro) dense foods.
Where I (obviously to anyone who knows my posting history) disagree with most self-proclaimed "clean eaters" is that there's a big and unsubtle difference between "centering" one's diet around such foods, but allowing for variance vs requiring the diet to be exclusively those foods (thus creating "good/clean/allowable" foods and "bad/unclean/avoid at all costs" foods.)
To both somehow interpret that as promoting "a diet of nothing but bacon and twinkies" AND to accuse other posters of being intentionally obtuse and trolls is perhaps one of the biggest cases of hypocrisy I've ever witnessed on MFP.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
People advocate that there is no such thing as unhealthy food. That CICO trumps all. Now they can either prove it or not. I'm betting not will be the option of choice.
Sidenote: does MFP offer a calories burned for googling?
I'll refer you back to my first post in this thread - the 4th post of the thread.In re: the actual topic, I think it's quite obviously a good idea to center one's diet around whole, nutrient (macro and micro) dense foods.
Where I (obviously to anyone who knows my posting history) disagree with most self-proclaimed "clean eaters" is that there's a big and unsubtle difference between "centering" one's diet around such foods, but allowing for variance vs requiring the diet to be exclusively those foods (thus creating "good/clean/allowable" foods and "bad/unclean/avoid at all costs" foods.)
To both somehow interpret that as promoting "a diet of nothing but bacon and twinkies" AND to accuse other posters of being intentionally obtuse and trolls is perhaps one of the biggest cases of hypocrisy I've ever witnessed on MFP.
Yup0 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'll post my last cholesterol profile right now, no need to wait 6 months.If all calories are truly created equal as I've seen on these forums and you truly believe that, then spend the next 6 months getting your calories from twinkies and bacon. If you survive we'll compare a blood panel.Component Standard Range Your Value Cholesterol <200 mg/dL 144 Triglycerides <150 mg/dL 60 HDL >40 mg/dL 63 LDL, Calculated <130 mg/dL 69 Chol/HDL Ratio <4.5 2.3
I can also state that in the last 8 months or so, the various times I've had my glucose read, the highest it ever reached was 98 - and that's not a fasting reading, even though 98 would be acceptable for fasting levels.
Nice reading but have you been eating only twinkies and bacon for 6 months?
I actually don't care for twinkies, but UG77 isn't offering to similarly restricting himself to only broccoli and kale for 6 months.
No, but my understanding was that he wanted to compare his results with someone who did.
Twinkies are often what I think of as a perfect example of food that is not clean, not even close to clean. I mean seriously, what is that stuff?? They are so weird.
Twinkies are simply golden sponge cake with cream filling. I understand how some are frightened by Hostess or the phallic shape, but they're not much different than the yellow sponge cake with cream filling below.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'll post my last cholesterol profile right now, no need to wait 6 months.If all calories are truly created equal as I've seen on these forums and you truly believe that, then spend the next 6 months getting your calories from twinkies and bacon. If you survive we'll compare a blood panel.Component Standard Range Your Value Cholesterol <200 mg/dL 144 Triglycerides <150 mg/dL 60 HDL >40 mg/dL 63 LDL, Calculated <130 mg/dL 69 Chol/HDL Ratio <4.5 2.3
I can also state that in the last 8 months or so, the various times I've had my glucose read, the highest it ever reached was 98 - and that's not a fasting reading, even though 98 would be acceptable for fasting levels.
Nice reading but have you been eating only twinkies and bacon for 6 months?
I actually don't care for twinkies, but UG77 isn't offering to similarly restricting himself to only broccoli and kale for 6 months.
No, but my understanding was that he wanted to compare his results with someone who did.
Twinkies are often what I think of as a perfect example of food that is not clean, not even close to clean. I mean seriously, what is that stuff?? They are so weird.
Twinkies are simply golden sponge cake with cream filling. I understand how some are frightened by Hostess or the phallic shape, but they're not much different than the yellow sponge cake with cream filling below.
Without being able to touch or taste that I'll have to take your word for it. But if I was betting gal, I'd bet they are very different in make-up, taste and texture.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'll post my last cholesterol profile right now, no need to wait 6 months.If all calories are truly created equal as I've seen on these forums and you truly believe that, then spend the next 6 months getting your calories from twinkies and bacon. If you survive we'll compare a blood panel.Component Standard Range Your Value Cholesterol <200 mg/dL 144 Triglycerides <150 mg/dL 60 HDL >40 mg/dL 63 LDL, Calculated <130 mg/dL 69 Chol/HDL Ratio <4.5 2.3
I can also state that in the last 8 months or so, the various times I've had my glucose read, the highest it ever reached was 98 - and that's not a fasting reading, even though 98 would be acceptable for fasting levels.
Nice reading but have you been eating only twinkies and bacon for 6 months?
I actually don't care for twinkies, but UG77 isn't offering to similarly restricting himself to only broccoli and kale for 6 months.
No, but my understanding was that he wanted to compare his results with someone who did.
Twinkies are often what I think of as a perfect example of food that is not clean, not even close to clean. I mean seriously, what is that stuff?? They are so weird.
Twinkies are simply golden sponge cake with cream filling. I understand how some are frightened by Hostess or the phallic shape, but they're not much different than the yellow sponge cake with cream filling below.
Without being able to touch or taste that I'll have to take your word for it. But if I was betting gal, I'd bet they are very different in make-up, taste and texture.
The only difference I found between a Twinkie and someone's cake was the taste of the cream filling. Some use Cool-Whip, others make actual whipped cream, some is sweeter, etc..
Hey @diannethegeek , please add "Doesn't taste "right"/has wrong "texture"" to the definition list.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'll post my last cholesterol profile right now, no need to wait 6 months.If all calories are truly created equal as I've seen on these forums and you truly believe that, then spend the next 6 months getting your calories from twinkies and bacon. If you survive we'll compare a blood panel.Component Standard Range Your Value Cholesterol <200 mg/dL 144 Triglycerides <150 mg/dL 60 HDL >40 mg/dL 63 LDL, Calculated <130 mg/dL 69 Chol/HDL Ratio <4.5 2.3
I can also state that in the last 8 months or so, the various times I've had my glucose read, the highest it ever reached was 98 - and that's not a fasting reading, even though 98 would be acceptable for fasting levels.
Nice reading but have you been eating only twinkies and bacon for 6 months?
I actually don't care for twinkies, but UG77 isn't offering to similarly restricting himself to only broccoli and kale for 6 months.
No, but my understanding was that he wanted to compare his results with someone who did.
Twinkies are often what I think of as a perfect example of food that is not clean, not even close to clean. I mean seriously, what is that stuff?? They are so weird.
Twinkies are simply golden sponge cake with cream filling. I understand how some are frightened by Hostess or the phallic shape, but they're not much different than the yellow sponge cake with cream filling below.
Without being able to touch or taste that I'll have to take your word for it. But if I was betting gal, I'd bet they are very different in make-up, taste and texture.
The only difference I found between a Twinkie and someone's cake was the taste of the cream filling. Some use Cool-Whip, others make actual whipped cream, some is sweeter, etc..
Hey @diannethegeek , please add "Doesn't taste "right"/has wrong "texture"" to the definition list.
I absolutely will not. It's not being offered as a definition of clean eating here. It might be a partial definition, but as I explained above -as silly as the list may be- I do try to keep it to just definitions given by self-professed clean eaters. Not things said in the heat of battle.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The chocolate and sodas are on the outside isle of the grocery store for me, so I'm totally down with that definition.
In one of the grocery stores I shop at, soap/bodywash, shampoo and conditioner, toothpaste, and deodorant are on the outside. Blech. Sadly, they all put the chocolate in the middle
I have only encountered the idea of "clean eating" on the internet, and most of that on MFP.
I think part of the problem with the term and why it creates such debate is that culturally (U.S.) we have a really strong aversion to the general concept of things and people being "unclean" or dirty. There is so much negative connotation associated with unclean, much more so than the concept of unhealthy in my opinion. So when a person defines clean eating, those of us who don't eat by that definition take it as an implied judgement that we live in an "unclean" way and lash out to defend ourselves.
As mentioned early in this post, there does also seem to be an anti-intellectualism component to many/most/all of the listed definitions. I'm particularly talking about the ones mentioning scientific terms and words that are unpronounceable. I think most clean eaters would agree that water is the best liquid to consume (not talking about Flint, Michigan or Navajo Nation). But if an ingredient list were to include dihydrogen monoxide rather than water, people would freak out. Most of us with a stronger background in and understanding of science find this offensive and obnoxious, but people who hate or fear science don't want to listen to our attacks on the BS they have bought into.
This also leads into the frequent discussion threads of people wanting to do cleanses to get rid of the "toxins" in their bodies. Yet, I have never seen any of those OPs actually define what those toxins are or why their body needs the assistance of a cleanse. I work in a place with many things I think most people would categorize as a toxin. If you consume one, you will have a very bad day (assuming you survive)! I don't recommend drinking the hydrofluoric acid or eating uranium, but if you do, a cleanse will not be your biggest concern.0 -
...If all calories are truly created equal as I've seen on these forums and you truly believe that, then spend the next 6 months getting your calories from twinkies and bacon. If you survive we'll compare a blood panel.
Ahhh, there it is. Thank you for trotting out the usual "clean eating" strawman and proving the point I made in a previous post. Anybody who doesn't "eat clean" is a junk-swilling, nearly dead slob. There can be no middle ground, ever. You're either eating fresh fruits and vegetables grown high on a mountain and harvested by virgin unicorns, or you're wallowing in filth while glomming down bacon-wrapped twinkies. Simply not possible in the mind of an orthorexic that there could be a reasonable, moderate middle ground which is still balanced and healthy.0 -
Too many people to go back and quote, but re: the questions about why do we care if someone calls a diet clean ...
There have been many posts over the nearly 5 years I've been on these boards asking "Is food X clean?" or "I want to eat clean but I don't want to give up food Y ... am I going to lose weight?" and even, "HALP, I ate 500 calories of cake today, am I going to undo all my work?" (That last one was almost directly the title of a thread, and this person had been preached to so much about clean eating that she was honestly afraid that everything she had worked for so far was about do be undone.)
That is why I have a problem with labeling eating, or foods, as clean or not. If you want to "eat clean" that's fine. But how do we answer "Is X clean?" when even clean eaters won't agree on that. Examples are already abundant in this very thread. If you want to "eat clean," fine, enjoy it. But don't have someone so afraid of eating a "not clean" food that they are going to panic after what is basically one single piece of cake in a month of otherwise very structured eating.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'll post my last cholesterol profile right now, no need to wait 6 months.If all calories are truly created equal as I've seen on these forums and you truly believe that, then spend the next 6 months getting your calories from twinkies and bacon. If you survive we'll compare a blood panel.Component Standard Range Your Value Cholesterol <200 mg/dL 144 Triglycerides <150 mg/dL 60 HDL >40 mg/dL 63 LDL, Calculated <130 mg/dL 69 Chol/HDL Ratio <4.5 2.3
I can also state that in the last 8 months or so, the various times I've had my glucose read, the highest it ever reached was 98 - and that's not a fasting reading, even though 98 would be acceptable for fasting levels.
Nice reading but have you been eating only twinkies and bacon for 6 months?
I actually don't care for twinkies, but UG77 isn't offering to similarly restricting himself to only broccoli and kale for 6 months.
No, but my understanding was that he wanted to compare his results with someone who did.
Twinkies are often what I think of as a perfect example of food that is not clean, not even close to clean. I mean seriously, what is that stuff?? They are so weird.
Twinkies are simply golden sponge cake with cream filling. I understand how some are frightened by Hostess or the phallic shape, but they're not much different than the yellow sponge cake with cream filling below.
Without being able to touch or taste that I'll have to take your word for it. But if I was betting gal, I'd bet they are very different in make-up, taste and texture.
The only difference I found between a Twinkie and someone's cake was the taste of the cream filling. Some use Cool-Whip, others make actual whipped cream, some is sweeter, etc..
Hey @diannethegeek , please add "Doesn't taste "right"/has wrong "texture"" to the definition list.
I absolutely will not. It's not being offered as a definition of clean eating here. It might be a partial definition, but as I explained above -as silly as the list may be- I do try to keep it to just definitions given by self-professed clean eaters. Not things said in the heat of battle.
Thank you for being sensible! If you want to know why I don't consider Twinkies clean read the ingredients list.0 -
I love the one that says "No chemicals". That eliminates everything. Technically, everything has a chemical makeup, so could be considered a chemical.
My definition is avoiding the processed crap. Eat REAL meat and fresh or frozen veggies and fruits.0 -
kmbrooks15 wrote: »I love the one that says "No chemicals". That eliminates everything. Technically, everything has a chemical makeup, so could be considered a chemical.
My definition is avoiding the processed crap. Eat REAL meat and fresh or frozen veggies and fruits.
Behold the dreaded chemicals:
0 -
Also, not just twinkies, and 10 weeks but
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Haub kind of already did UG77's challenge in a more reasonable way, even though less reasonable that I've ever seen any one of the board's cicophants like myself recommend for a diet. And his health improved.For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.
But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
This is because losing the weight has a much larger impact than the food used to do it. Losing weight while eating "unhealthy" is STILL healthier than not losing the weight but eating "clean/healthy"0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'll post my last cholesterol profile right now, no need to wait 6 months.If all calories are truly created equal as I've seen on these forums and you truly believe that, then spend the next 6 months getting your calories from twinkies and bacon. If you survive we'll compare a blood panel.Component Standard Range Your Value Cholesterol <200 mg/dL 144 Triglycerides <150 mg/dL 60 HDL >40 mg/dL 63 LDL, Calculated <130 mg/dL 69 Chol/HDL Ratio <4.5 2.3
I can also state that in the last 8 months or so, the various times I've had my glucose read, the highest it ever reached was 98 - and that's not a fasting reading, even though 98 would be acceptable for fasting levels.
Nice reading but have you been eating only twinkies and bacon for 6 months?
I actually don't care for twinkies, but UG77 isn't offering to similarly restricting himself to only broccoli and kale for 6 months.
No, but my understanding was that he wanted to compare his results with someone who did.
Twinkies are often what I think of as a perfect example of food that is not clean, not even close to clean. I mean seriously, what is that stuff?? They are so weird.
it is cake. with frosting inside. nothing more.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The chocolate and sodas are on the outside isle of the grocery store for me, so I'm totally down with that definition.
In one of the grocery stores I shop at, soap/bodywash, shampoo and conditioner, toothpaste, and deodorant are on the outside. Blech. Sadly, they all put the chocolate in the middle
I have only encountered the idea of "clean eating" on the internet, and most of that on MFP.
I think part of the problem with the term and why it creates such debate is that culturally (U.S.) we have a really strong aversion to the general concept of things and people being "unclean" or dirty. There is so much negative connotation associated with unclean, much more so than the concept of unhealthy in my opinion. So when a person defines clean eating, those of us who don't eat by that definition take it as an implied judgement that we live in an "unclean" way and lash out to defend ourselves.
I agree. Which is why I'm always quick to point out that although I have a definition for 'clean eating' it does not mean that foods not fitting the definition are considered unclean or dirty.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think seeing it as an ideal is partly inference on your part. Without a doubt there is some of that, but no more so than any other WOE IMO. IIFYM or flexible dieting is put forth as an ideal just as often. So is eating 5-6 meals a day, and not eating after X p.m., or LCHF. Most people on MFP put their WOE out as an ideal.
I disagree.
First of all, I don't put my way of eating (the term WOE irritates me more than clean, I think) ;-) out there as an ideal at all. I think eating a healthful, nutrient-rich diet is an ideal, but that there are millions of ways to get there and my way (which I don't always live up to) is no better than any other, except for me.
Second, the notion of "clean" as ideal is inherent both in the word and in the idea that not clean foods should not be eaten. Since everyone eats some "clean" foods and many of us here who aren't called and don't use the label "clean eaters" still eat mostly "clean" foods, what does "clean eating" mean if not trying to eat ONLY clean foods. And if you do that, why? Because you think they are better in some way and the others aren't good for you. And this is supported by endless people on MFP claiming that "processed" (or "not clean") foods are bad for us. If you eat not clean foods (and you acknowledge that you do and they can in many cases support a healthful diet, like your extra fiber pasta), how does it make sense to call yourself a clean eater? Because you eat lots of "clean" foods? I guess I think it's odd to want a special label for eating vegetables and just generally eating the kind of diet I think should be normal and standard (lots of nutrient-dense whole foods, some other things).
If you don't understand what 'clean eating' mean how do you know you eat clean foods?
I'm using those volunteered here.But seriously it's clear we're never going to agree. You put connotations on the phrase that I don't.
Also, I don't call myself a clean eater. If asked, I'd say I eat fairly clean, but it's not a label I'd volunteer. I have a longstanding understanding of the term and it's what I assume when the term is used unless someone specifies differently. It is a loosy goosy definition but I don't need all terms to fit neatly in the box. I'm okay with messy.
Fair enough.
I think the connotations I put on the term are those intended by most who use it and those who coined it (whoever they may be). But I'm also far from a hippie or hippie-wanna-be (too much of an '80s kid for that), so don't have your positive associations. For me it's slightly a bodybuilding thing and more an annoying dieting/marketing term that is tied up in a misuse of the term "processed."0 -
kmbrooks15 wrote: »I love the one that says "No chemicals". That eliminates everything. Technically, everything has a chemical makeup, so could be considered a chemical.
My definition is avoiding the processed crap. Eat REAL meat and fresh or frozen veggies and fruits.
How do you define "processed crap"? Does it matter how the animal the meat came from was raised? Or how the fruits and veggies were grown?0 -
...If all calories are truly created equal as I've seen on these forums and you truly believe that, then spend the next 6 months getting your calories from twinkies and bacon. If you survive we'll compare a blood panel.
Ahhh, there it is. Thank you for trotting out the usual "clean eating" strawman and proving the point I made in a previous post. Anybody who doesn't "eat clean" is a junk-swilling, nearly dead slob. There can be no middle ground, ever. You're either eating fresh fruits and vegetables grown high on a mountain and harvested by virgin unicorns, or you're wallowing in filth while glomming down bacon-wrapped twinkies. Simply not possible in the mind of an orthorexic that there could be a reasonable, moderate middle ground which is still balanced and healthy.
Took the words out of my mouth.
I especially like the challenge of eating just one singular food for 6 months.
I'd counter that challenge and challenge that clean eater to eat nothing but celery (or broccoli, or apples or any other singular clean food) the next 6 months and see if he survives and if he does how his body composition and blood panel look like.0 -
kmbrooks15 wrote: »I love the one that says "No chemicals". That eliminates everything. Technically, everything has a chemical makeup, so could be considered a chemical.
My definition is avoiding the processed crap. Eat REAL meat and fresh or frozen veggies and fruits.
What is the definition of "processed crap"?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »I love the one that says "No chemicals". That eliminates everything. Technically, everything has a chemical makeup, so could be considered a chemical.
My definition is avoiding the processed crap. Eat REAL meat and fresh or frozen veggies and fruits.
What is the definition of "processed crap"?
My guess:
(Note - it says "all natural", but it comes in a bag with a bar code - so clearly it's processed)1 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »I love the one that says "No chemicals". That eliminates everything. Technically, everything has a chemical makeup, so could be considered a chemical.
My definition is avoiding the processed crap. Eat REAL meat and fresh or frozen veggies and fruits.
What is the definition of "processed crap"?
My guess:
(Note - it says "all natural", but it comes in a bag with a bar code - so clearly it's processed)
But I found it in the outer aisles of the supermarket!0 -
Is there a line between debating and mocking?0
-
In my professional life it is valuable to have clear definitions to make classifying and finding stuff easier. After reading this book:
Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder by David Weinberger
I've had to admit that we do not live in a clearly ordered universe. Even terms that we think are universally understood turn out to have fuzzy edges. Take "furniture" for instance. We all think we know what that means, right? But how do you classify a "stool"? Is it furniture or something else? The big stuff, like sofas, we all agree, but for people who make a living classifying, debates over what a "stool" really is creates ever sharpening definitions.
"Eat Clean" is one of those terms that many people think they know what it means, but begins to fall apart at the edges. The Twinkie holds court in the "unclean" camp because people can easily visualise it as something in a package, far removed from it's origins, and has a suitably long ingredient list, with a fair number of preservatives thrown in for good measure.
Just for the heck of it, let's put organic, free-range, home-grown outdoors in the high alps far from pollution, washed, non-GMO Kale in the "clean" camp. It's one ingredient, it comes from the ground, and it appears very much as it does in the wild. A little blanching, and it even becomes edible.
The debates between the two camps cannot be resolved. A steady diet of either Twinkies or Kale would be unsustainable, and the edges between the camps will always be ambiguous.
As an aside, I've noticed that the more virulent the sides to an argument, the more likely that the habits of the two camps differ only by degree. That is, we all largely eat the same.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Is there a line between debating and mocking?
Why, is one clean but the other not? Perhaps it isn't a strict delineation but instead on a continuum - this post is more mocking than that one, and that post is more debating than this one.0 -
I have a term. It is descriptive. It means something to me but the meaning it has to me is fluid and dependent on my feelings. It doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to me yet I expect you to know what I mean by it. Because you may use it to describe something other than what would fit my definition, my term doesn't not describe things not having the qualities by which I have defined it.
My term is then useless because when a word means anything it means nothing.0 -
In my professional life it is valuable to have clear definitions to make classifying and finding stuff easier. After reading this book:
Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder by David Weinberger
I've had to admit that we do not live in a clearly ordered universe. Even terms that we think are universally understood turn out to have fuzzy edges. Take "furniture" for instance. We all think we know what that means, right? But how do you classify a "stool"? Is it furniture or something else? The big stuff, like sofas, we all agree, but for people who make a living classifying, debates over what a "stool" really is creates ever sharpening definitions.
"Eat Clean" is one of those terms that many people think they know what it means, but begins to fall apart at the edges. The Twinkie holds court in the "unclean" camp because people can easily visualise it as something in a package, far removed from it's origins, and has a suitably long ingredient list, with a fair number of preservatives thrown in for good measure.
Just for the heck of it, let's put organic, free-range, home-grown outdoors in the high alps far from pollution, washed, non-GMO Kale in the "clean" camp. It's one ingredient, it comes from the ground, and it appears very much as it does in the wild. A little blanching, and it even becomes edible.
The debates between the two camps cannot be resolved. A steady diet of either Twinkies or Kale would be unsustainable, and the edges between the camps will always be ambiguous.
As an aside, I've noticed that the more virulent the sides to an argument, the more likely that the habits of the two camps differ only by degree. That is, we all largely eat the same.
I don't understand the bolded part. Why would a diet of a single food being healthy have any bearing on whether the food is clean? I don't think the OP's list had anything akin to that.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Is there a line between debating and mocking?
Illustrating the inconsistencies or ill-thought positions of an opposing argument may seem like mocking to some but is indeed an effective debate technique.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Is there a line between debating and mocking?
Why, is one clean but the other not? Perhaps it isn't a strict delineation but instead on a continuum - this post is more mocking than that one, and that post is more debating than this one.
Ha ha. But, yeah, some posts are more mocking than others.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions