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 I find your reply to be obtuse. Twinkies and Kale are representative foods of the vague groups of "clean" and "unclean". I am speaking of the particular problem of getting any definition, even of groups of things we think we understand.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Some posts are more mock-worthy than others.0 -
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'd add to this that it has religious/purity connotations and therefore moral ones. Foods being clean and unclean is Biblical, and there's definitely a kind of virtue associated with staying pure, avoiding contaminated things. Often I see the "clean eating" terminology used in connection with someone trying to convince themselves that the foods they don't want to eat are disgusting, literally dirty/not clean, greasy, full of icky ingredients, so on (think of all the threads about "now that you eat clean, do bad foods taste disgusting to you" with really quite extreme reactions posted and weird pride in no longer liking a perfectly harmless homemade strawberry-rhubarb pie). I think this is likely to backfire, as if you tell yourself that something you really do like (because why else did you used to eat it) is gross and disgusting and unclean and all the rest and then you end up eating it and possibly even bingeing on it (a common reaction to elimination and slipping), you feel like you must be disgusting in many cases. I've seen this a lot.
To me it's somewhat analogous to someone with a very strict religious upbringing that teaches that certain sexual practices one might be drawn to (for example, same-sex attraction) is bad and disgusting and how that must feel when you have those desires.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.
Yeah, I agree. It seems like taking pride in ignorance. If you don't know what something is (or how to say it), isn't the answer to learn? (This was always my approach when I was an oenophile -- I didn't stick with 'Merican wines since I knew how to pronounce them sooner.)
Agree with the toxin/cleanse stuff too.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.
But frozen = processed. And what's wrong with smoked salmon or plain greek yogurt?
Or are you avoiding something that is both "processed" and "crap"? (Which requires a further definition of "crap" and what the purpose of "processed" is such that the terms seem to be always linked.)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.
Not so sure about the bolder part.
0 -
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.
I actually argue about definitions all the time in my real life job. Maybe that's why this serves as a fun break.0 -
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Some posts are more mock-worthy than others.
Yeah, I'm sure they are. But that doesn't make mocking right, or within forum guidelines.0 -
@Need2Exerc1se I find your reply to be obtuse. Twinkies and Kale are representative foods of the vague groups of "clean" and "unclean". I am speaking of the particular problem of getting any definition, even of groups of things we think we understand.
I got the overall meaning, but I don't understand how this sentence - A steady diet of either Twinkies or Kale would be unsustainable, and the edges between the camps will always be ambiguous - fits into the discussion. What does a steady diet of either food have to do with the term being ambiguous or clear? Perhaps I am being slow but I am genuinely curious.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I actually argue about definitions all the time in my real life job. Maybe that's why this serves as a fun break.
Definitions are important. Words mean things. Definitions delineate ideas.
A well formed definition means that much thought has gone into the meanings of the terms. Wars have been fought over meanings. Fortunes have been won and lost based on meanings.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I actually argue about definitions all the time in my real life job. Maybe that's why this serves as a fun break.
Definitions are important. Words mean things. Definitions delineate ideas.
A well formed definition means that much thought has gone into the meanings of the terms. Wars have been fought over meanings. Fortunes have been won and lost based on meanings.
True, but not all words have definitive meanings in isolation. Sometimes you need context to get to the actual meaning of a particular word in a particular situation.0 -
@Need2Exerc1se , a definition that allows for a broad range of foods that are "clean" are needed for such an ambitious eater. To do that means exploring the ambiguous edges. Otherwise the diet is too narrow to be sustainable.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se I find your reply to be obtuse. Twinkies and Kale are representative foods of the vague groups of "clean" and "unclean". I am speaking of the particular problem of getting any definition, even of groups of things we think we understand.
I got the overall meaning, but I don't understand how this sentence - A steady diet of either Twinkies or Kale would be unsustainable, and the edges between the camps will always be ambiguous - fits into the discussion. What does a steady diet of either food have to do with the term being ambiguous or clear? Perhaps I am being slow but I am genuinely curious.
There are two different ideas in that sentence. The first is that a steady diet of either food (one generally considered "very clean" and the other quite often considered "not clean") would not be healthy or sustainable. The second thought is that the edges between camps of clean and not clean are ambiguous and fuzzy.
The first thought fits into the discussion because of some clean-eating zealots (sorry, that's the best word to describe their advocation of the idea with such zeal) quickly prop up the straw man argument of the twinkie and bacon only diet. Eating only one or two foods, even foods that are generally recognized as "clean," is not really a sustainable way to live.
The second thought is basically saying that the definition of "clean food" is fuzzy around the edges. That point has been raised or alluded to by several in this thread who are in favor of use of the term clean eating (I think you said that, yourself). There is no strict, single definition of clean, hence as we get to the edges of the clean/unclean dichotomy (even if we agree that it really is a continuum rather than an either/or) there will be more disagreement about which side a food falls into. Hence, the terms is ambiguous and not really clear.
ETA: I would love to see the original poster of the phrase give his/her explanation as well, this is just how I understood it
0 -
It occurred to me if we wanted to turn threads like these from debates to resolution, it would be helpful to go through the various descriptions people have provided and separate the handy "rules of thumb" from the definitions.
For instance, I am pretty sure clean eaters are trying to eat minimally processed rather than completely unprocessed foods. Quinoa for instance, in it's natural form, has a soapy layer that must be washed before it is eaten. Processed.
Three-ingredient, unboxed, pronounceable ingredients and shopping around the edges, are all "rules of thumb" that are supposed to help the clean shopper, but fall apart when exceptions are found.
Three-ingredient - omelet with onion is in, omelet with onion, green pepper, and tomato is out. Why?
Unboxed - steel cut oatmeal is out. I cry.
Pronounceable ingredients - all baked goods, out (sodium bicarbonate). I cry again.
Shopping around the edges - oatmeal, beans, and legumes, out.0 -
This is the part that seems odd to me in regards to the rest of the post, which was about the ambiguity of the term. But thanks for the response.
The first thought fits into the discussion because of some clean-eating zealots (sorry, that's the best word to describe their advocation of the idea with such zeal) quickly prop up the straw man argument of the twinkie and bacon only diet. Eating only one or two foods, even foods that are generally recognized as "clean," is not really a sustainable way to live.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se I find your reply to be obtuse. Twinkies and Kale are representative foods of the vague groups of "clean" and "unclean". I am speaking of the particular problem of getting any definition, even of groups of things we think we understand.
I got the overall meaning, but I don't understand how this sentence - A steady diet of either Twinkies or Kale would be unsustainable, and the edges between the camps will always be ambiguous - fits into the discussion. What does a steady diet of either food have to do with the term being ambiguous or clear? Perhaps I am being slow but I am genuinely curious.
0 -
It occurred to me if we wanted to turn threads like these from debates to resolution, it would be helpful to go through the various descriptions people have provided and separate the handy "rules of thumb" from the definitions.
For instance, I am pretty sure clean eaters are trying to eat minimally processed rather than completely unprocessed foods. Quinoa for instance, in it's natural form, has a soapy layer that must be washed before it is eaten. Processed.
Three-ingredient, unboxed, pronounceable ingredients and shopping around the edges, are all "rules of thumb" that are supposed to help the clean shopper, but fall apart when exceptions are found.
Three-ingredient - omelet with onion is in, omelet with onion, green pepper, and tomato is out. Why?
Unboxed - steel cut oatmeal is out. I cry.
Pronounceable ingredients - all baked goods, out (sodium bicarbonate). I cry again.
Shopping around the edges - oatmeal, beans, and legumes, out.
But donuts and absinthe are okay!!0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »It occurred to me if we wanted to turn threads like these from debates to resolution, it would be helpful to go through the various descriptions people have provided and separate the handy "rules of thumb" from the definitions.
For instance, I am pretty sure clean eaters are trying to eat minimally processed rather than completely unprocessed foods. Quinoa for instance, in it's natural form, has a soapy layer that must be washed before it is eaten. Processed.
Three-ingredient, unboxed, pronounceable ingredients and shopping around the edges, are all "rules of thumb" that are supposed to help the clean shopper, but fall apart when exceptions are found.
Three-ingredient - omelet with onion is in, omelet with onion, green pepper, and tomato is out. Why?
Unboxed - steel cut oatmeal is out. I cry.
Pronounceable ingredients - all baked goods, out (sodium bicarbonate). I cry again.
Shopping around the edges - oatmeal, beans, and legumes, out.
But donuts and absinthe are okay!!
I have sudden clarity about what I'll be having for dinner ...0 -
I guess no one wants to take on my challenge of only eating celery for half a year?0
-
And then finally, I think there are at least three types of "clean eaters" and probably more.
- There's the "minimally processed" group, the
- "no sign of industrialization" group which would then incorporate organically grown, non-GMO, and no use of chemicals in food preparation, and the
- ethical group, who may be vegetarian, may avoid dairy for the sake of the cows, and quiz the grocer on the state of their egg-laying chickens
Hence, the difficulty nailing down a common definition. In the middle of the Venn diagram is my hypothetical Kale.0 -
And then finally, I think there are at least three types of "clean eaters" and probably more.
- There's the "minimally processed" group, the
- "no sign of industrialization" group which would then incorporate organically grown, non-GMO, and no use of chemicals in food preparation, and the
- ethical group, who may be vegetarian, may avoid dairy for the sake of the cows, and quiz the grocer on the state of their egg-laying chickens
Hence, the difficulty nailing down a common definition. In the middle of the Venn diagram is my hypothetical Kale.
Oh, I like this breakdown. But I'm too hopped up on cold medicine right now to properly comment.0 -
And then finally, I think there are at least three types of "clean eaters" and probably more.
- There's the "minimally processed" group, the
- "no sign of industrialization" group which would then incorporate organically grown, non-GMO, and no use of chemicals in food preparation, and the
- ethical group, who may be vegetarian, may avoid dairy for the sake of the cows, and quiz the grocer on the state of their egg-laying chickens
Hence, the difficulty nailing down a common definition. In the middle of the Venn diagram is my hypothetical Kale.
Some ethical "clean eaters" may reject your high alps kale for not being local. I've seen locally grown food incorporated in some definitions of "clean."0 -
WinoGelato 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?
People advocate that pretty much any food can fit within the context of an overall healthy DIET. I made this statement yesterday almost to the letter in another thread and another person jumping to a strawman argument quoted me and asked how I can recommend someone eat nothing but pizza, pop and cookies and still be healthy.A lot of my food looks like yours; the vast majority in fact. But, I'll also be ok with a bowl of ice cream. Why? Because I don't actually live the crazy strawman lifestyle. Most of my foods are whole, fresh ingredients. But I don't deny myself some treats.
I'm not criticizing what people do or don't eat. It's the notion of this intentional obtuseness with regards to the concept of healthy or clean food.
To me it isn't a crazy strawman lifestyle. The only thing I'm missing out on is feeling like crap and weighing more. And I don't really miss that very much.
Your comments around intentional obtusity go both ways.
This is a discussion about what the definition of clean eating is and if it is a helpful term for people to use in order to build a diet around. It is my contention, and many here I think as well, that no, that is not a helpful term, because it is subjective to the individual and applies morality and judgement around a particular way of eating. You say that you aren't criticizing what people eat, but in your first statement, you challenged those people eating nothing but twinkies and bacon to show up in 6 months to compare a blood panel, if they are still alive.
How is that not a criticism of what people eat, other than the fact that I don't know anyone who eats that way so I guess you are criticizing that poor strawman?
I'm glad you have improved your health issues and that you are feeling better. I too have lost weight and feel great. However I still eat ice cream and bacon (not much of a twinkie person to be honest). I also eat hummus and popcorn. And vegetables. And greek yogurt. And lean protein. Whole grains. Dairy. Etc....
Oh and your pictures that you originally posted, that would be very unhealthy for me. I'm allergic to strawberries.
Just as a point here, why post a judgement on another persons judgement?
At some point most of us humans do just that, but to me this thread is another one of trying to define a a word or term with a singular definition, and then attach a judgement as being good, bad, accurate, inaccurate, helpful, unhelpful, etc, etc. I think the same applies to what people view as a strawman argument. The judgement that already exists helps define what is a valid or invalid argument.
I'm all for getting rid of questionable statements, but when it reaches a point where we think we have acted without judgement of some sort, that would imply not giving it much thought at all.
Coming up next, judging the semantics of semantics, and why judgements about judgements can form some type of undefined relationship with what is helpful.
.... and for the record, not in disagreement with your context, but the use of the judgement statement stuck out to me!
And for the overall record, the way I see it, even if I only ate minimally process food I found or killed myself, it all gets processed once it goes into my mouth (or even before if I combine "clean" ingredients make say a salad), so in the end, it's all processed in some way.
Should that make me feel dirty that I feel that way?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I guess no one wants to take on my challenge of only eating celery for half a year?
Well, clearly no one's responding to the call for celery with celerity.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »And then finally, I think there are at least three types of "clean eaters" and probably more.
- There's the "minimally processed" group, the
- "no sign of industrialization" group which would then incorporate organically grown, non-GMO, and no use of chemicals in food preparation, and the
- ethical group, who may be vegetarian, may avoid dairy for the sake of the cows, and quiz the grocer on the state of their egg-laying chickens
Hence, the difficulty nailing down a common definition. In the middle of the Venn diagram is my hypothetical Kale.
Some ethical "clean eaters" may reject your high alps kale for not being local. I've seen locally grown food incorporated in some definitions of "clean."
Fair point. High alps Kale eaten by high alps resident. But then again, they have found dioxins in polar bear fat, so no earthly place may be perfectly clean.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »And then finally, I think there are at least three types of "clean eaters" and probably more.
- There's the "minimally processed" group, the
- "no sign of industrialization" group which would then incorporate organically grown, non-GMO, and no use of chemicals in food preparation, and the
- ethical group, who may be vegetarian, may avoid dairy for the sake of the cows, and quiz the grocer on the state of their egg-laying chickens
Hence, the difficulty nailing down a common definition. In the middle of the Venn diagram is my hypothetical Kale.
Some ethical "clean eaters" may reject your high alps kale for not being local. I've seen locally grown food incorporated in some definitions of "clean."
Fair point. High alps Kale eaten by high alps resident. But then again, they have found dioxins in polar bear fat, so no earthly place may be perfectly clean.
Eh, those probably end up in the liver, and if you're eating polar bear liver, dioxins are the least of your concerns.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I guess no one wants to take on my challenge of only eating celery for half a year?
Will that induce some sort of celery epiphany leading to a clear universal definition of "eating clean"?
0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I actually argue about definitions all the time in my real life job. Maybe that's why this serves as a fun break.
Definitions are important. Words mean things. Definitions delineate ideas.
A well formed definition means that much thought has gone into the meanings of the terms. Wars have been fought over meanings. Fortunes have been won and lost based on meanings.
True, but not all words have definitive meanings in isolation. Sometimes you need context to get to the actual meaning of a particular word in a particular situation.
Agreed, but in this case no one seems to agree and the context seems to be understood. I'm really declaiming against those who assert "you know what I mean".0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I guess no one wants to take on my challenge of only eating celery for half a year?
Will that induce some sort of celery epiphany leading to a clear universal definition of "eating clean"?
Maybe, dunno. The guy who told us to eat only twinkies or bacon for 6 months and see what happens seemed to be pretty sure he knew what clean eating is.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I actually argue about definitions all the time in my real life job. Maybe that's why this serves as a fun break.
Definitions are important. Words mean things. Definitions delineate ideas.
A well formed definition means that much thought has gone into the meanings of the terms. Wars have been fought over meanings. Fortunes have been won and lost based on meanings.
True, but not all words have definitive meanings in isolation. Sometimes you need context to get to the actual meaning of a particular word in a particular situation.
Agreed, but in this case no one seems to agree and the context seems to be understood. I'm really declaiming against those who assert "you know what I mean".
I know what you mean, man.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
- 96.3K 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