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
-
robertw486 wrote: »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.
It's about communication. People say "eat clean" or "is X clean?" -- it's helpful to be able to understand what clean is. Beyond that, I am weirdly intrigued by why some people seem to cling to this term so much -- seem to really get off on saying they eat clean or claiming (contrary to actual truth) that they don't eat processed foods, and I wish I understood why, what's up with that?
Also, many people claim that a "clean" diet is healthier than a "not clean" diet. I do not agree -- I think a diet that includes some processed food and even "junk" in moderation can be just as healthy, and as I am interested in eating a healthy diet I think this is something worth discussing. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Maybe someone will convince me that I should go "clean," who knows.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.
No clue what you are trying to say here, but if you are suggesting that "eating only bacon and Twinkies is not healthy" is other than a strawman, and a worthless, insulting one at that, I think you are wrong. Pushing the boundaries of an analogy is one thing, and a valid form of argument. Asserting that people are defending an idea (what we eat doesn't matter at all) that no one has expressed is something else entirely.0 -
Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
It seems to me that they dance around the issue. I don't disagree with the approach, by the way. I do wonder if some (many) of the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" would agree with this, or not? Is bread "clean?" How about their "Clean Pairings" menu? Are broccoli cheddar soup, Thai chicken flatbread, or Mediterranean quinoa salad "clean?" Not according to many of the definitions here. Maybe they fit into @jgnatca 's "no sign of industrialization" set, but that's kind of laughable coming from a restaurant chain.
2. Leviticus 11: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11&version=NIV
You may say that these restrictions are ridiculous, but I'm not sure they are more ridiculous than some of the restrictions I've read here.Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.Every creature that moves along the ground is to be regarded as unclean; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean.0 -
@lemurcat12 I gotta say, I think you are fighting a losing battle. I had occasion to watch a little daytime television this week and a Dancing With the Stars regular, Kym Johnson, was promoting her 5-6-7-8 diet. The first words out of her mouth, "Eating Clean".0
-
Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
It seems to me that they dance around the issue. I don't disagree with the approach, by the way. I do wonder if some (many) of the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" would agree with this, or not? Is bread "clean?" How about their "Clean Pairings" menu? Are broccoli cheddar soup, Thai chicken flatbread, or Mediterranean quinoa salad "clean?" Not according to many of the definitions here. Maybe they fit into @jgnatca 's "no sign of industrialization" set, but that's kind of laughable coming from a restaurant chain.
2. Leviticus 11: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11&version=NIV
You may say that these restrictions are ridiculous, but I'm not sure they are more ridiculous than some of the restrictions I've read here.Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.Every creature that moves along the ground is to be regarded as unclean; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean.
Four legged insects?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's about communication. People say "eat clean" or "is X clean?" -- it's helpful to be able to understand what clean is. Beyond that, I am weirdly intrigued by why some people seem to cling to this term so much -- seem to really get off on saying they eat clean or claiming (contrary to actual truth) that they don't eat processed foods, and I wish I understood why, what's up with that?
Also, many people claim that a "clean" diet is healthier than a "not clean" diet. I do not agree -- I think a diet that includes some processed food and even "junk" in moderation can be just as healthy, and as I am interested in eating a healthy diet I think this is something worth discussing. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Maybe someone will convince me that I should go "clean," who knows.
My point is that short of a single definition that is absolute, it all comes down to communicating beyond simple word definition. Overall context, usage of the word within that context, and the words and phrases surrounding the word in question come into play. Absolutes are rare in communications, especially when dealing with written words.
For the sake of discussion, assume that everyone watching or participating in this thread agrees to a singular definition (simple or complex) of how the term "clean eating" is to be used. We agree that we will only use that singular definition until the day we die. We put it in writing with severe financial and worse penalties should we ever break the trust of the others that sign the document in the presence of the lawyers and others who will impose the penalties.
What would happen? Someone who hasn't made the agreement would join the forums 10 minutes later and muddy the waters, and all that work would have been for nothing.lemurcat12 wrote: »No clue what you are trying to say here, but if you are suggesting that "eating only bacon and Twinkies is not healthy" is other than a strawman, and a worthless, insulting one at that, I think you are wrong. Pushing the boundaries of an analogy is one thing, and a valid form of argument. Asserting that people are defending an idea (what we eat doesn't matter at all) that no one has expressed is something else entirely.
I've already stated that I didn't disagree with any of Wino Gelato's context. My point here is that how we define "strawman" is also highly subjective. And most likely influenced by our position on the point being debated.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
It seems to me that they dance around the issue. I don't disagree with the approach, by the way. I do wonder if some (many) of the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" would agree with this, or not? Is bread "clean?" How about their "Clean Pairings" menu? Are broccoli cheddar soup, Thai chicken flatbread, or Mediterranean quinoa salad "clean?" Not according to many of the definitions here. Maybe they fit into @jgnatca 's "no sign of industrialization" set, but that's kind of laughable coming from a restaurant chain.
2. Leviticus 11: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11&version=NIV
You may say that these restrictions are ridiculous, but I'm not sure they are more ridiculous than some of the restrictions I've read here.Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.Every creature that moves along the ground is to be regarded as unclean; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean.
Four legged insects?
An error in translation.
The King James uses the term "creeping thing." The original Hebrew used here is "sherets" which denotes "a swarm, that is, active mass of minute animals: - creep (-ing thing), move (-ing creature)."
Long story short, the original language essentially meant "bug" but the NIV got it wrong in translation.0 -
A & W has taken steps to reduce their carbon footprint and serve hormone and steroid free beef.
The fast food chains have removed styrofoam containers, replaced ketchup packets with ketchup dispensers, and now include salads on their menu.
I played an imaginary scenario, what it would be like to open a pristine pure restaurant, but I would have to eliminate all baking, salt, frying, basically all the tasty stuff. It would be bland and a hard sell. I would have to be deceptive in my descriptions just to put an attractive meal together, as in "NON-GMO/five ingredient fresh baked bread." And say nothing about the gluuuuuuuten.0 -
"lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, many people claim that a "clean" diet is healthier than a "not clean" diet. I do not agree -- I think a diet that includes some processed food and even "junk" in moderation can be just as healthy, and as I am interested in eating a healthy diet I think this is something worth discussing. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Maybe someone will convince me that I should go "clean," who knows.
This doesn't sound any different than the "healthy food" arguments seen so often on here. Which is more likely to be healthy - a diet of mostly clean and junk in moderation, or a diet of mostly junk with clean food in moderation?
And if we are looking at the diet in black and white, then we'd have to compare 100% clean to 100% junk. Luckily such a hard line is rarely drawn outside the internet.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
It seems to me that they dance around the issue. I don't disagree with the approach, by the way. I do wonder if some (many) of the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" would agree with this, or not? Is bread "clean?" How about their "Clean Pairings" menu? Are broccoli cheddar soup, Thai chicken flatbread, or Mediterranean quinoa salad "clean?" Not according to many of the definitions here. Maybe they fit into @jgnatca 's "no sign of industrialization" set, but that's kind of laughable coming from a restaurant chain.
2. Leviticus 11: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11&version=NIV
You may say that these restrictions are ridiculous, but I'm not sure they are more ridiculous than some of the restrictions I've read here.Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.Every creature that moves along the ground is to be regarded as unclean; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean.
Four legged insects?
I'm just putting it out there. The ancient Hebrews weren't stupid - they knew what insects looked like - so my guess is that "walk on all fours" is idiomatic.0 -
Ingredient list don't tell the whole story. Beyond residual pesticides, herbicides, and environmental pollutants present on even "whole foods", any processed food may contain small amounts of foreign materials within allowable parameters set by the FDA (defect action levels).
Also government regulations do not require chemicals deemed as "food processing aids" be disclosed by manufacturers on ingredient labels:
"Depending on the role they filled in the various stages of food preparation, it aids the class into 16 categories: defoamers, catalysts, clarifying agents / filter, bleaches agents, washing agents and hair / peeling, Staff plucking and waxing, ion exchange resins, agents freezing on contact to cooling agents, drying agents / anti-caking, enzymes, agents of acidification, alkalinization or neutralizing agents, flocculants and coagulants, biocides, preventatives and extraction solvents." -http://www.azaquar.com/en/doc/food-processing-aids0 -
rosecropper wrote: »Ingredient list don't tell the whole story. Beyond residual pesticides, herbicides, and environmental pollutants present on even "whole foods", any processed food may contain small amounts of foreign materials within allowable parameters set by the FDA (defect action levels).
Also government regulations do not require chemicals deemed as "food processing aids" be disclosed by manufacturers on ingredient labels:
"Depending on the role they filled in the various stages of food preparation, it aids the class into 16 categories: defoamers, catalysts, clarifying agents / filter, bleaches agents, washing agents and hair / peeling, Staff plucking and waxing, ion exchange resins, agents freezing on contact to cooling agents, drying agents / anti-caking, enzymes, agents of acidification, alkalinization or neutralizing agents, flocculants and coagulants, biocides, preventatives and extraction solvents." -http://www.azaquar.com/en/doc/food-processing-aids
Even the all natural replacement cleaners and pesticides may not be all that safe for us. Just because it's familiar doesn't mean it's entirely safe. High up on my baddie list is vinegar (acetic acid). Which I still use daily, for permitted uses. But I don't water my plants with it. It kills soil bacteria.0 -
http://www.cookinglight.com/eating-smart/smart-choices/clean-eating
The article tries to define it. In my personal dictionary it is a "buzz word" ... (just saying)0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
He certainly felt he had a clear picture of it.0 -
I know a lot of "clean eaters" IRL and none of them seem to view it in the binary sense that MFP uses the term, or follow the rules literally. Stuff like "nothing from a box" or "only from the perimeter of the store" are treated as more of an oversimplified shorthand for whole, fresh foods.
The definition I'm familiar with pertains mostly to eating foods closer to their natural state, and it seems to be a continuum rather than a clean/unclean dichotomy. Of course certain things are pretty universally agreed upon as definitely clean or definitely not clean, but more often it's a matter of degrees. Homemade jam isn't necessarily clean or unclean, but it's less clean than fresh picked berries and more clean than pop-tarts.
It may be that the extremes are over represented on the internet, or the fact that most of my clean eating friends see it as a means to an end rather than an end goal itself, but they've never judged me for my diet pop or Trader Joe cookie butter habits, even though they'd never eat it themselves.
I go through cycles of eating relatively "clean" and eating my current, much less nutritious diet, but even when I'm eating as healthfully as I know how, I couldn't care less what others eat. I really couldn't. I take multivitamins because I think it could enhance my health, but I don't think it makes me better than people who don't, or that they don't care about their health. Food is no different, IMO. With respect, although there are certainly some sanctimonious "clean eaters", I think in most cases the judgement people feel from the average person trying to eat clean is more likely to be projection.0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »I know a lot of "clean eaters" IRL and none of them seem to view it in the binary sense that MFP uses the term, or follow the rules literally. Stuff like "nothing from a box" or "only from the perimeter of the store" are treated as more of an oversimplified shorthand for whole, fresh foods.
The definition I'm familiar with pertains mostly to eating foods closer to their natural state, and it seems to be a continuum rather than a clean/unclean dichotomy. Of course certain things are pretty universally agreed upon as definitely clean or definitely not clean, but more often it's a matter of degrees. Homemade jam isn't necessarily clean or unclean, but it's less clean than fresh picked berries and more clean than pop-tarts.
It may be that the extremes are over represented on the internet, or the fact that most of my clean eating friends see it as a means to an end rather than an end goal itself, but they've never judged me for my diet pop or Trader Joe cookie butter habits, even though they'd never eat it themselves.
I go through cycles of eating relatively "clean" and eating my current, much less nutritious diet, but even when I'm eating as healthfully as I know how, I couldn't care less what others eat. I really couldn't. I take multivitamins because I think it could enhance my health, but I don't think it makes me better than people who don't, or that they don't care about their health. Food is no different, IMO. With respect, although there are certainly some sanctimonious "clean eaters", I think in most cases the judgement people feel from the average person trying to eat clean is more likely to be projection.
Yes!! This is 100% my experience IRL. MFP is a wild place though.
0 -
@lemurcat12 I gotta say, I think you are fighting a losing battle. I had occasion to watch a little daytime television this week and a Dancing With the Stars regular, Kym Johnson, was promoting her 5-6-7-8 diet. The first words out of her mouth, "Eating Clean".
Yeah, I know. Call me Dona Quixote. ;-)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."
Personally, I think that ethical and environmental concerns in food production are perfectly valid issues, but for me they are almost a separate subject entirely. For instance I go out of my way to source eggs from hens where I know the living conditions comply to certain standards, but that has nothing to do with me thinking those eggs are any "cleaner" than others.
0 -
I think BecomingBane's explanation of the food industry explained pretty well why Panera is claiming their menu is going to be clean food.Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.htmllemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »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.
It's about communication. People say "eat clean" or "is X clean?" -- it's helpful to be able to understand what clean is. Beyond that, I am weirdly intrigued by why some people seem to cling to this term so much -- seem to really get off on saying they eat clean or claiming (contrary to actual truth) that they don't eat processed foods, and I wish I understood why, what's up with that?
Which is interesting because people ask others "is X clean?" and then complain about everyone knows what clean means when we ask their definition of clean.
It seems that given so many people want to say clean is a personal term, no one should ever be asking anyone "is X clean?" because only the person can really answer that for their definition of clean.0 -
I think BecomingBane's explanation of the food industry explained pretty well why Panera is claiming their menu is going to be clean food.Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.htmllemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »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.
It's about communication. People say "eat clean" or "is X clean?" -- it's helpful to be able to understand what clean is. Beyond that, I am weirdly intrigued by why some people seem to cling to this term so much -- seem to really get off on saying they eat clean or claiming (contrary to actual truth) that they don't eat processed foods, and I wish I understood why, what's up with that?
Which is interesting because people ask others "is X clean?" and then complain about everyone knows what clean means when we ask their definition of clean.
It seems that given so many people want to say clean is a personal term, no one should ever be asking anyone "is X clean?" because only the person can really answer that for their definition of clean.
A lot of people seem to want to think the same as others. Be part of the cool clique or something.
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.
Wait. I'm getting deja vu..... hang on. Is that sort of like, "healthy and unhealthy cannot be defined in isolation of a single food? It is the context of the overall diet that matters"? No, that can't be...
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Wait. I'm getting deja vu..... hang on. Is that sort of like, "healthy and unhealthy cannot be defined in isolation of a single food? It is the context of the overall diet that matters"? No, that can't be...
That way lies madness. Next you'll be saying that people can eat Oreos (provided they're cleaned, kept in their natural state/aren't processed, don't come from a box, and are found on the outer edge of the grocery store) and can still lose weight....0 -
robertw486 wrote: »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?
I must say, this is the longest, most confusing comment that is supposedly in agreement with my thoughts but doesn't seem like it is really in agreement at all...
Which statement of mine in particular did you think was a judgement of another person's judgement?
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »"lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, many people claim that a "clean" diet is healthier than a "not clean" diet. I do not agree -- I think a diet that includes some processed food and even "junk" in moderation can be just as healthy, and as I am interested in eating a healthy diet I think this is something worth discussing. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Maybe someone will convince me that I should go "clean," who knows.
This doesn't sound any different than the "healthy food" arguments seen so often on here. Which is more likely to be healthy - a diet of mostly clean and junk in moderation, or a diet of mostly junk with clean food in moderation?
No one argues about that, though. The argument is whether including some "junk" in moderation makes my diet "unhealthy" so that I should give it up, even if it gives me pleasure and makes it easier to stick to it.
For example, I'm off sweets for the moment, so perhaps after dinner I might have some moonglo cheese, from a semi-local goat farm that has lovely farm dinners and sells at my green market. (Moonglo is a raw goat milk tomme-style cheese with a washed rind. In addition to ripening cultures, we wash the rind with a “tea” made from Moonglo Pear leaves. Aged three to four months. Sharp and nutty with notes of ripe fruits and truffles. It melts well--perfect for a gourmet grilled cheese.) A hard-core "clean" eater might point out that it is processed (well, obviously) and "junk" in that it is quite high in calories for the nutrients it provides (also true -- I eat it because I like it, not because of the calcium or fat). So the question is, if I am not high on sat fat and eat adequate protein and fiber and micronutrients, etc. for the day (judged by eating a wide variety of vegetables above the recommended servings, among other things) is there some reason I would be less healthy if I included some cheese in my day?And if we are looking at the diet in black and white, then we'd have to compare 100% clean to 100% junk. Luckily such a hard line is rarely drawn outside the internet.
Why? Eating 100% "junk" is not a healthful diet. Eating "clean" might not even be a healthful diet -- I've seen posts asking if they can eat "clean" and not eat vegetables, as I think for some cutting out bread or whatever seems easier than following normal nutrition advice, and of course a juice fast isn't typically a healthful diet. What we are talking about is comparing two types of healthful diets, one that includes room for some lower nutrient foods and one which does not (or does not if they are considered "unclean").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."
Personally, I think that ethical and environmental concerns in food production are perfectly valid issues, but for me they are almost a separate subject entirely. For instance I go out of my way to source eggs from hens where I know the living conditions comply to certain standards, but that has nothing to do with me thinking those eggs are any "cleaner" than others.
This is how I think of it too.0 -
I think BecomingBane's explanation of the food industry explained pretty well why Panera is claiming their menu is going to be clean food.Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
As a side note: One of the cool things about being involved with these forums is anticipating food trends ahead of the general public. I watched (and continue to watch) with amusement as more and more advertisers tout how much protein is in their foods, in some cases laughably small amounts. I'm gleefully awaiting more "clean" food advertisements.0 -
I think BecomingBane's explanation of the food industry explained pretty well why Panera is claiming their menu is going to be clean food.Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
As a side note: One of the cool things about being involved with these forums is anticipating food trends ahead of the general public. I watched (and continue to watch) with amusement as more and more advertisers tout how much protein is in their foods, in some cases laughably small amounts. I'm gleefully awaiting more "clean" food advertisements.
I have had the same experience. There was a huge Panera ad on a board on the sidewalk right out side my office promoting their "clean" foods right when that campaign began, and it delighted and amused me every time I saw it. (So much so that I have finally managed to type the name of that restaurant without first typing Pantera!)0 -
I've noticed that butter and fat are no longer the bugaboos they once were. I wonder sometimes if this is because of food communities like this one.0
-
I watched (and continue to watch) with amusement as more and more advertisers tout how much protein is in their foods, in some cases laughably small amounts.
I think BecomingBane's explanation of the food industry explained pretty well why Panera is claiming their menu is going to be clean food.Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
Off the topic - but my favorite example of this right now are all of the breakfast cereal boxes with big bold "Contains 9 grams of protein per serving" blazoned across the front of the box
With microscopic print underneath that says (when consumed with milk).0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Wait. I'm getting deja vu..... hang on. Is that sort of like, "healthy and unhealthy cannot be defined in isolation of a single food? It is the context of the overall diet that matters"? No, that can't be...
That way lies madness. Next you'll be saying that people can eat Oreos (provided they're cleaned, kept in their natural state/aren't processed, don't come from a box, and are found on the outer edge of the grocery store) and can still lose weight....
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »My point is that short of a single definition that is absolute, it all comes down to communicating beyond simple word definition. Overall context, usage of the word within that context, and the words and phrases surrounding the word in question come into play. Absolutes are rare in communications, especially when dealing with written words.
Of course. But so often someone says "what are clean desserts" and then gets offended if people simply ask "what do you mean by clean." I suspect this is because they don't really know what "clean" means -- are just using a current trendy word -- or else they think it means "healthy" maybe, and so get frustrated when asked to explain. And then we get "you KNOW what is meant" when no, I do not.
Similar to this is someone claiming they never eat processed food when their diary is full of all kinds of processed foods -- the greek yogurt and cottage cheese I often mention (often a flavored yogurt, even), protein powder and bars, Chipotle, so on. I find this puzzling too, and again it's probably because they hear "processed" is bad and don't really think through what it means and cut out ultra processed stuff like packaged cookies and fast food and assume that means they aren't eating "processed" foods (since foods they perceive as "healthy" cannot be "processed" because processed foods are bad for you). Then, most irritatingly, they seem to hear people saying "processed foods can be helpful and good for you" or "eat what you want in moderation" as "it doesn't matter what you eat at all" or "eat McD's 24/7." Again, this puzzles me.For the sake of discussion, assume that everyone watching or participating in this thread agrees to a singular definition (simple or complex) of how the term "clean eating" is to be used.
I'm not asking for this. I'm interested in the fact that people use the term who don't seem to have a definition they understand or that makes sense (people assert "no food with a barcode" who eat mostly foods that had barcodes, according to their own diaries) (obviously not the more active participants in this thread, who at least seem to have thought through their own definitions).
I am MOSTLY interested in the claim that eating clean is better or healthier in general, as I don't think it is. When someone asserts that there's some general benefit to eating clean I need to know what they mean in order to address the claim.
I am also puzzled why people seem to want to rope themselves off and talk only to other "clean eaters" about meal ideas and the like, since although I'm not a clean eater the way I cook dinner and the like would probably be considered clean by many, and I think most normal cookbooks involve cooking that should be considered clean. It's weird stuff like this that makes me ask what is meant. Do newbies really think most people cook like Sandra Lee of Semi Homemade? Or eat loads of sugar with their dinner?
Disagree that "strawman" is highly subjective in this context, but I want to focus on these other points.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
- 175.9K 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