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?
Options
Replies
-
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »harrybananas wrote: »No such thing.
And the prize for the most useful comment of the day..
Oh wait did I say useful I meant useless.
As opposed tho this one...
Touche, my friend.0 -
I've been following this thread with interest because where I live (Italy), I've never heard the term "clean eating". They focus on "quality eating" and a great number of Italian foods have DOP or IGP status where they are considered original and quality controled from these origins. There are programs constantly on TV interviewing farmers, and producers and explaining and showing why they have these high quality standards. The average Italian is well informed on food and it's origins. When we go to dinner with our friends or family there is always a food discussion. Sorry, but I consider "clean eating" and it's so-called rules a little ridiculous. Entertaining though.
0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Personally I think knowledge is power so 'I want to eat clean' is not a terrible statement and doesn't deserve the pariah status it gets on these boards.
Oh yes it should (forgive me, I'm not quite over Panto season....)
Should posters be mocked? No. Should posters have pariah status? No. Should posters be mercilessly challenged? No
Should bad ideas be mocked? Yes. Should bad ideas have pariah status? Yes. Should bad ideas be mercilessly challenged? Yes
Sometimes striking a balance between the two can be difficult on the main board because of the emotional, human element involved. So, I am fairly soft. In a debate section? No chance.
The "clean eating" idea may have started off with the best of intentions (in my experience it arose in body building circles) but now the idea has been hijacked, distorted and diluted beyond recognition by an industry. An industry which is awash with misinformation and exploitative practices. The diet industry.
Now sometimes the ideas being pushed are benign. I would question why these ideas need to be broached under the tainted title "clean eating" in the first place. We have much better ways and terms we could use to move people towards consuming a more varied diet without the negative associations and confused state that now come with "clean eating". So at the lowest level it is pointless but harmless.
Sometimes it is not and it is equates to some weird kind of dietary authoritarianism. What it does it to dictate to people that they are compelled to act in a certain way when it comes to eating and to arbitrarily exclude things which may in fact help to bring success to people ("treats" in moderation for example).
They are instructions based not on informed and evidence based positions but fear, lack of critical thinking and superstition. It takes power away from the person receiving the advice and places it firmly in the hands of the person giving it (show me the mooooooooney). It encourages people not to question or seek further answers to their situation for themselves for no good reason.
Bad ideas must always be challenged.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Personally I think knowledge is power so 'I want to eat clean' is not a terrible statement and doesn't deserve the pariah status it gets on these boards.
Oh yes it should (forgive me, I'm not quite over Panto season....)
Should posters be mocked? No. Should posters have pariah status? No. Should posters be mercilessly challenged? No
Should bad ideas be mocked? Yes. Should bad ideas have pariah status? Yes. Should bad ideas be mercilessly challenged? Yes
Sometimes striking a balance between the two can be difficult on the main board because of the emotional, human element involved. So, I am fairly soft. In a debate section? No chance.
The "clean eating" idea may have started off with the best of intentions (in my experience it arose in body building circles) but now the idea has been hijacked, distorted and diluted beyond recognition by an industry. An industry which is awash with misinformation and exploitative practices. The diet industry.
Now sometimes the ideas being pushed are benign. I would question why these ideas need to be broached under the tainted title "clean eating" in the first place. We have much better ways and terms we could use to move people towards consuming a more varied diet without the negative associations and confused state that now come with "clean eating". So at the lowest level it is pointless but harmless.
Sometimes it is not and it is equates to some weird kind of dietary authoritarianism. What it does it to dictate to people that they are compelled to act in a certain way when it comes to eating and to arbitrarily exclude things which may in fact help to bring success to people ("treats" in moderation for example).
They are instructions based not on informed and evidence based positions but fear, lack of critical thinking and superstition. It takes power away from the person receiving the advice and places it firmly in the hands of the person giving it (show me the mooooooooney). It encourages people not to question or seek further answers to their situation for themselves for no good reason.
Bad ideas must always be challenged.
I totally agree with that.
But how they are challenged will determine whether anyone is listening or not, and sometimes it seems that people are less interested in changing minds or educating but in "being right". The same "dietary authoritarianism" (great term!) that irritates me in born-again clean eaters, also irritates me in those who somehow have a vested interest in convincing people that they really MUST HAVE doughnuts/icecream/double whoppers (insert food as you please). I just don't believe that aggressive shaming either way changes minds.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Personally I think knowledge is power so 'I want to eat clean' is not a terrible statement and doesn't deserve the pariah status it gets on these boards.
Oh yes it should (forgive me, I'm not quite over Panto season....)
Should posters be mocked? No. Should posters have pariah status? No. Should posters be mercilessly challenged? No
Should bad ideas be mocked? Yes. Should bad ideas have pariah status? Yes. Should bad ideas be mercilessly challenged? Yes
Sometimes striking a balance between the two can be difficult on the main board because of the emotional, human element involved. So, I am fairly soft. In a debate section? No chance.
The "clean eating" idea may have started off with the best of intentions (in my experience it arose in body building circles) but now the idea has been hijacked, distorted and diluted beyond recognition by an industry. An industry which is awash with misinformation and exploitative practices. The diet industry.
Now sometimes the ideas being pushed are benign. I would question why these ideas need to be broached under the tainted title "clean eating" in the first place. We have much better ways and terms we could use to move people towards consuming a more varied diet without the negative associations and confused state that now come with "clean eating". So at the lowest level it is pointless but harmless.
Sometimes it is not and it is equates to some weird kind of dietary authoritarianism. What it does it to dictate to people that they are compelled to act in a certain way when it comes to eating and to arbitrarily exclude things which may in fact help to bring success to people ("treats" in moderation for example).
They are instructions based not on informed and evidence based positions but fear, lack of critical thinking and superstition. It takes power away from the person receiving the advice and places it firmly in the hands of the person giving it (show me the mooooooooney). It encourages people not to question or seek further answers to their situation for themselves for no good reason.
Bad ideas must always be challenged.
I totally agree with that.
But how they are challenged will determine whether anyone is listening or not, and sometimes it seems that people are less interested in changing minds or educating but in "being right". The same "dietary authoritarianism" (great term!) that irritates me in born-again clean eaters, also irritates me in those who somehow have a vested interest in convincing people that they really MUST HAVE doughnuts/icecream/double whoppers (insert food as you please). I just don't believe that aggressive shaming either way changes minds.
Agreed.
However, on a general point, I think we should not discount the real results that can be achieved by being very direct with people, and yes, sometimes even forceful especially when they are strongly invested emotionally in an irrational position.
It is something I find quite difficult to do as I am generally conciliatory in nature and "punching down" is never a good look. It is an effective method of communication and delivery if used judiciously however.0 -
True, and even if the OP may not feel they benefit from the direct information, there is hope that any lurkers may think twice about where they are on the flexible/radical 'dieting' spectrum.
0 -
I'd never heard of 'clean eating' until I joined MFP, but then again I don't move in health/fitness circles so I wouldn't know how prevalent it is within that context. When I read it here, I generally think of more traditional ways of cooking, like my mum used to do - cooking from scratch as it were. We never had what are called 'convenience meals' growing up, partly because mum was from a generation where the woman cooked everything, partly because the cost was prohibitive for a family of 6, but mostly because she really enjoyed cooking. My brothers and I all still cook traditionally when we can, but we're not adverse to convenience meals or ingredients. I sometimes struggle with preparing vegetables etc, so I'll always buy ones I just have to cook - like fresh pre-peeled potatoes and diced carrots.
On MFP, it seems that when I read of clean eating it's usually either an OP asking for help with their clean eating or someone offering clean eating as a solution to an OP's problem. In either case, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them what they mean by that in order to get clarity. That's usually when it goes a bit wrong, because some people really aren't used to having their statements questioned and don't handle it too well. That's on them. <tangent> I remember saying in one of my early posts on here that I don't think of individual foods as good or bad, and someone asked why. I didn't respond, as nothing I said would change their mind and nothing they said would change mine. I was able to make my statement without riding the drama llama, and so were they </tangent>0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Personally I think knowledge is power so 'I want to eat clean' is not a terrible statement and doesn't deserve the pariah status it gets on these boards.
Oh yes it should (forgive me, I'm not quite over Panto season....)
Should posters be mocked? No. Should posters have pariah status? No. Should posters be mercilessly challenged? No
Should bad ideas be mocked? Yes. Should bad ideas have pariah status? Yes. Should bad ideas be mercilessly challenged? Yes
Sometimes striking a balance between the two can be difficult on the main board because of the emotional, human element involved. So, I am fairly soft. In a debate section? No chance.
The "clean eating" idea may have started off with the best of intentions (in my experience it arose in body building circles) but now the idea has been hijacked, distorted and diluted beyond recognition by an industry. An industry which is awash with misinformation and exploitative practices. The diet industry.
Now sometimes the ideas being pushed are benign. I would question why these ideas need to be broached under the tainted title "clean eating" in the first place. We have much better ways and terms we could use to move people towards consuming a more varied diet without the negative associations and confused state that now come with "clean eating". So at the lowest level it is pointless but harmless.
Sometimes it is not and it is equates to some weird kind of dietary authoritarianism. What it does it to dictate to people that they are compelled to act in a certain way when it comes to eating and to arbitrarily exclude things which may in fact help to bring success to people ("treats" in moderation for example).
They are instructions based not on informed and evidence based positions but fear, lack of critical thinking and superstition. It takes power away from the person receiving the advice and places it firmly in the hands of the person giving it (show me the mooooooooney). It encourages people not to question or seek further answers to their situation for themselves for no good reason.
Bad ideas must always be challenged.
Great post.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »It's just another buzzword that for some reason inflames people here on the forums. Why I don't know, because "eating clean" if we accept it as a buzzword would mean eating things we would eat regardless, maybe in different forms. I see it as no more incorrect than a lot of other advice on here that attaches the yes or no labels to absolutes needed in diet composition.
Being that the reality is that more processed foods in a less natural state (unclean I assume) would really be no less or more healthy, I see no point in suggesting either. But the diet industry loves the buzzwords, so many people will think it's going to change things.
It seems you answered your own question.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »It seems like a lot of this discussion has turned to things that are "natural" which is an interesting turn for this to take, imo.
We've already discussed how there is no firm definition for "clean" and it seems that the definition for clean that is being referred to often is Natural.
Well, can we take a look at that?
I've been working in the grocery/"natural" foods industry for about 7 years now in various ways. As an employee of a natural chain of grocers working at the corporate level, I can tell you that we rely on these terms to drive sales but unlike the term "organic" which has a legally defined definition in the US, the term "natural" has no such definition. Literally anything can be labelled natural with no repercussions if it isn't, similar to the supplement industry (and we rely on all of those buzzwords to drive sales and marketing)
So, if there is no firmly or legally defined definition of natural, but we are using that term to judge items that are clean, what kind of rabbit hole are we going down here?
That said, working in this industry, I've long since come to know that pretty much any and all claims made on a label, whether they are legally defined, certified, regulated or not... if they are not evaluated by the FDA, mean absolutely nothing in regards to the products they describe. The only purpose, from the business perspective, is marketing... plain and simple. Marketing drives sales and buzzwords are practically free marketing.
Just a thought.
I am one of those perpetuating the eating clean = eating natural discussion. It's the way I've known clean eating to be defined since I was a child in the 60's/70's. It has nothing to do with grocery labels or legal definitions. It has to do with how close the food is to it's natural state.0 -
bruhaha007 wrote: »Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.
Bagged frozen vegetables are usually on the inner aisles. How is a bag of frozen broccoli less "clean" than the fresh broccoli on the outer aisle in the produce section?
And if I buy the fresh broccoli instead, take it home and wash it, cut it up and portion it into freezer bags, is it now "unclean" because it's been "processed" and bagged? Or is it still "clean" because I "processed" it instead of somebody else doing it for me?
There are changes that take place in food when frozen, so it would not be as clean as fresh. But that doesn't make it "unclean" IMO, just slightly less clean.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
Raw honey is natural, HFCS is not. So one is clean and the other is not.
So if a bug makes it then it's clean but if a person makes it then it's unclean?
Brilliant.
It's just the meaning of the word natural. Nothing man-made is natural.
So if ground beef isn't natural, can I chop up some chicken and stir fry it with vegetables (also chopped)? I don't get why this is more natural than grinding the beef before I cook it, but cooked beef is fine.
Because you seem to be looking at it in black and white. Clean or unclean. Fine or not fine. And I don't look at it that way. I'm not sure if you are unable or unwilling to understand the definition I put forth, but I'm not sure I can explain it any better. The further a food gets from it's natural state, the less clean it is.0 -
Somehow everyone stops listening and no one feels they can learn anything from the other.
The desire to separate people is one thing that frustrates me. People say "looking for clean eating recipes" or "is anyone a clean eater? what do you eat?" I find this odd. I am not a clean eater -- I will eat ice cream or buy lunch at Pret or even eat a protein bar on occasion. But none of that affects what I eat for most meals, and that I don't avoid sugar or flour or protein powder doesn't mean most of my meals wouldn't work for a "clean" eater so why not share food ideas more broadly? If what they want are ideas on how to get enough protein, I've figured out what works for me on this. If they want ideas on vegetables, I eat more than most "clean eaters" I've seen. Moreover, I always find the questions about how to cut sugar or "sugar free recipes" (not for desserts specifically) puzzling, because I've never included sugar in my meal preparations and prior to MFP would have thought that was rare (beyond some sauces).
Clean eating recipes seems bizarre, as I still don't see how the normal recipes in any decent cookbook wouldn't be mostly "clean."
The desire to create special exclusive areas for "clean eaters" and avoid communication with the rest of us comes from the self-defined clean eaters (and again is particularly annoying since I don't think they really eat that differently, except in their weird assumption that everyone else is eating only McD's and pie).0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I've been following this thread with interest because where I live (Italy), I've never heard the term "clean eating". They focus on "quality eating" and a great number of Italian foods have DOP or IGP status where they are considered original and quality controled from these origins. There are programs constantly on TV interviewing farmers, and producers and explaining and showing why they have these high quality standards. The average Italian is well informed on food and it's origins. When we go to dinner with our friends or family there is always a food discussion. Sorry, but I consider "clean eating" and it's so-called rules a little ridiculous. Entertaining though.
From everything I've read (and from my visits) Italy has a much better food culture than the US, where food is usually simply supposed to be cheap and fast or, lately, medicine or poison.
Re clean eating. The latest is the logical outcome of the use in marketing -- now Panera and other places are selling "clean" food.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
Raw honey is natural, HFCS is not. So one is clean and the other is not.
So if a bug makes it then it's clean but if a person makes it then it's unclean?
Brilliant.
It's just the meaning of the word natural. Nothing man-made is natural.
Yes, that's the meaning of the word natural but how is it the meaning of the word "clean?"
Because clean eating = eating natural foods.
So since nature doesn't soak leaves in steaming hot water, tea isn't clean?
It's about the ingredients, not the end product. For example you'd never find stew in nature, but you could make stew with all natural ingredients. I really have zero knowledge of how tea leaves we buy at the store are processed so IDK if some is clean or not. But steeping the leaves wouldn't make it not clean IMO.0 -
Clean eating is washing your food before you eat it. (yes, twinkies too)0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
Raw honey is natural, HFCS is not. So one is clean and the other is not.
So if a bug makes it then it's clean but if a person makes it then it's unclean?
Brilliant.
It's just the meaning of the word natural. Nothing man-made is natural.
So if ground beef isn't natural, can I chop up some chicken and stir fry it with vegetables (also chopped)? I don't get why this is more natural than grinding the beef before I cook it, but cooked beef is fine.
Because you seem to be looking at it in black and white. Clean or unclean. Fine or not fine. And I don't look at it that way. I'm not sure if you are unable or unwilling to understand the definition I put forth, but I'm not sure I can explain it any better. The further a food gets from it's natural state, the less clean it is.
clean
klēn
adjective
1.
free from dirt, marks, or stains.
"the room was spotlessly clean"
synonyms: washed, scrubbed, cleansed, cleaned
2.
morally uncontaminated; pure; innocent.
"clean living"
synonyms: virtuous, good, upright, upstanding
That's because outside of your made up construct of "clean foods" the definition of clean denotes purity and lack of contamination. There couldn't be degrees of cleanness because in order to be "less clean" there would have to be an impurity or contaminant which would mean that there is no longer purity, thus there is no longer cleanness.
What would actually occur is you would have varying degrees of contamination or "uncleanness" until reaching a point of complete decontamination where cleanness is achieved.
If you want to reverse reality in your mind so that you can hold to the idea of "clean foods" as those that are 100% in their natural state while still being able to embrace contaminated foods (those altered from their "natural" state) as still being "clean, just not as clean," that's fine. Just understand that it's not reality. It's your imagination.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
Raw honey is natural, HFCS is not. So one is clean and the other is not.
So if a bug makes it then it's clean but if a person makes it then it's unclean?
Brilliant.
It's just the meaning of the word natural. Nothing man-made is natural.
Yes, that's the meaning of the word natural but how is it the meaning of the word "clean?"
Because clean eating = eating natural foods.
So since nature doesn't soak leaves in steaming hot water, tea isn't clean?
It's about the ingredients, not the end product. For example you'd never find stew in nature, but you could make stew with all natural ingredients. I really have zero knowledge of how tea leaves we buy at the store are processed so IDK if some is clean or not. But steeping the leaves wouldn't make it not clean IMO.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Now here's a question. I like fries.
I buy frozen, noname brand, packaged fries in a bag with barcode and everything. -> Definitely processed food, no doubt about it.
They only have 2 ingredients though: potatoes and sunflower oil. -> Nothing you can't pronounce and not exceeding the magical 4 ingredients.
Clean or not?
I'd bet you a tenner if we asked 100 clean eaters without each knowing what the others said, the answers would be split almost 50/50.
I go with a similar example on Cape Cod potato chips and Fritos. Each is as close to nature as possible (washed, sliced/ground and cooked), has only 3 ingredients which can be pronounced (chips: Potatoes, sunflower oil, salt; Fritos: Corn, corn oil, salt)
They both meet nearly every definition proposed above (can't meet them all because some are contradictory)
Sure they both have an added chemical preservative (salt). But it seems like the clean eating people are cool with that one chemical preservative.
Fritos are pretty far from the natural state of corn.
Because they're ground?
Does that mean that corn tortillas aren't "clean"? What about polenta?
Or is it something else?
Yes, because they are ground. Technically, shucked, decobbed (or whatever you call removing the kernels from the cob) and ground. I don't see how tortillas any different, polenta maybe a little cleaner as a single food.
Would all ground foods be unclean or is this specific to corn?
I'm not overly comfortable with the term 'unclean' when it comes to food. I'm old school and never heard it described as anything other clean in varying degrees (clean, sort of clean, not clean, stuff like that). And there is plenty of room for argument even amongst those that share my definition as it's not a black and white type definition. Lots of gray.
But to me, no. Ground foods would not be clean. Those ground with the bran and germ included would cleaner than those with it removed. Those with it removed that are then bleached (e.g. white flour) are not clean.
I understand you're not comfortable with it, but if certain foods are clean, what would you call the rest? "Not clean" doesn't seem that different from "unclean."
But I don't want to get on a tangent with the "unclean" thing.
You would consider almond butter, ground beef (let's say it's grass-fed for good measure), coffee, pepper, and oat milk (made from ground oats) to be "not clean" foods?
What if you grind the beef yourself?
I don't see how that would change anything.
So beef is clean (let's say grass-fed, from a local farm, processing passes muster), but if you have a grinder at home and grind it it becomes not clean? I really don't get that.
This is why the term drives me batty. It's applying a label that sounds extremely judgmental to foods that are no worse in any way.
*shrug* Grinding is a process that changes the food from it's natural form. The further the food is from it's natural form the less clean it is. Ground beef is cleaner than cured beef, but it's still not 100% clean. I can't think how grass fed makes beef cleaner.
Seems simple to me but then I don't think of the label as a judgment anymore than I'd think of 'sweet' as a judgment. It either is or is not, or it may be just a little.
Make up your mind.
Grinding beef makes it less clean but grinding tea leaves doesn't?0 -
Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Nice comparison. May I add agave to the list? That's processed sugar but somehow it's more wholesome that either high fructose corn syrup or honey.
Also, somehow Truvia is considered clean by some, whereas Splenda and aspartame are the devil. Truvia is just as processed and adulterated with additives as the other two and tastes so much worse.0 -
I love these threads because inevitably it draws out the trolls who are more interested in discussing the definition of specific words than they are the actual topic, all of which is meant to obfuscate the obvious.
What is clean eating? I brought a visual aid:
That's a pound of fresh vegetables with a serving of fruit per bowl that I have every day for lunch. I spend right around $30 on the ingredients and it takes me about 30-40 minutes to prep. I also incorporate dairy, eggs, fish, chicken (a couple of times a week) and about twice a month beef. I prefer my meats leaner and I'm a bit not so enthused regarding the carcinogenic effects observed/reported for beef. The fish and chicken I'll have steamed with another heaping pile of steamed vegetables. I also eat steel cut oats. I get 4 - 6 servings of fruit per day.
This is about as clean as I can take my lifestyle. Are the chicken and fish processed? Yes. I could raise chickens for the eggs and then eat them when they stop producing but I can't hang out with an animal and take care of it for a year or so and then just whack it, not wired that way. The fish... if I wasn't renting I'd probably get into aquaponics but honestly I just don't have time. What I'm doing now is the best compromise I can find for the time and money constraints I live with.
For me healthy and clean eating are synonymous and my rule of thumb when considering what I'm going to eat is how many nutrients are present, per calorie.
People are going to disagree. I don't really care, I'm not on here to argue with people who have the time to argue about these things. I've got more pressing concerns. Some people are here are just waiting and lurking with copy/paste fired up to link their sources which they will assure you over rule any sources or reference material you have. Don't take the bait and get lured into these arguments.
I spent 6 years with hyperparathyroidism. The list of what it does to a person is long and distinctly unpleasant. 5 years it was undiagnosed. The last year was spent wasting time with a shady endocrinologist, insurance companies, and finally finding the right surgeon. For that last year my life returned to some close proximity of normalcy because I switched my diet to a clean nutrient dense emphasis where vegetables/fruits/legumes were the main course and not the afterthought.
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions