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
-
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.
This puts me in mind of an old Star Trek; The Next Generation episode. The episode, "Thine Own Self", was aired in 1994. The dietary zeitgeist of the time poked its head in:
According to tor.com:On Barkon, Garvin takes Data to a physician named Talur, who theorizes that he’s an “iceman,” a person from the snowy regions of the mountains (where no one has ever been, but there are stories). She diagnoses him with malnutrition and tells him to eat some meat, butter, and cheese and she’ll check back tomorrow.
Get it? The joke is that these were backwards peasants who would recommend the totally wrong foods. The doctor couldn't tell that he was an android! Everyone knew back in 1994 that you need to eat ten servings of whole grains, along with lots of fruits and vegetables, and avoid fat, to be healthy. What a silly backward recommendation that doctor made!
Yet here we are, 2 decades later, putting butter in our coffee and throwing coconut oil into everything.
Is it any wonder I question what "healthy" foods are?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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....
Of course you realize, this means that we all must now try to fit 5 in to break the MFP record...0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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....
Of course you realize, this means that we all must now try to fit 5 in to break the MFP record...
Challenge accepted.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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....
Of course you realize, this means that we all must now try to fit 5 in to break the MFP record...
Challenge accepted.
I just ate my last two red velvet ones before I saw this...
Oh dang...guess I need to make a trip to the store!0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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....
Of course you realize, this means that we all must now try to fit 5 in to break the MFP record...
K
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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....
Of course you realize, this means that we all must now try to fit 5 in to break the MFP record...
K
/respect0 -
I want to know the missing words behind you!0
-
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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....
Of course you realize, this means that we all must now try to fit 5 in to break the MFP record...
K
/respect
0 -
0
-
Hahaha thanks, that's so much cleaner (geddit??!!??) than what I imagined ;-)0
-
CurlyCockney wrote: »Hahaha thanks, that's so much cleaner (geddit??!!??) than what I imagined ;-)
BA DUM chish!!!!0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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....
Of course you realize, this means that we all must now try to fit 5 in to break the MFP record...
K
Dude you rock
I just grabbed some cinnamon bun ones and some "spring" ones (original flavor, but yellow creme). Will report back my findings0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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....
One time I found a package of Oreo's on the outer edge of the grocery store, so does that mean it's clean? 0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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....
Of course you realize, this means that we all must now try to fit 5 in to break the MFP record...
K
Dude you rock
I just grabbed some cinnamon bun ones and some "spring" ones (original flavor, but yellow creme). Will report back my findings
Yellow cream reminds me of yellow snow. Yellow snow is natural.
Thus spring Oreos = clean food.0 -
I'm sorry, but all posts about how much you can fit in your mouth are supposed to be in the Chit-Chat section.0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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....
Of course you realize, this means that we all must now try to fit 5 in to break the MFP record...
K
Dude you rock
I just grabbed some cinnamon bun ones and some "spring" ones (original flavor, but yellow creme). Will report back my findings
Yellow cream reminds me of yellow snow. Yellow snow is natural.
Thus spring Oreos = clean food.
I can live with thatI'm sorry, but all posts about how much you can fit in your mouth are supposed to be in the Chit-Chat section.
10/10 would read again0 -
-
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....
Just don't grind them up.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »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....
Just don't grind them up.
But can we soak em in milk? So long as we leave them whole?
And is milk clean? It's only natural for bovines to drink it.
For that matter, is it natural (thus clean) for humans to eat any food created by/for a specific animal species? Honey is created by and for bees. Is it natural for humans to collect it and spread it on bread?
Goat milk is created by mommy goats for baby goats. Is it natural for humans to drink what is intended for baby goats?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.
This puts me in mind of an old Star Trek; The Next Generation episode. The episode, "Thine Own Self", was aired in 1994. The dietary zeitgeist of the time poked its head in:
According to tor.com:On Barkon, Garvin takes Data to a physician named Talur, who theorizes that he’s an “iceman,” a person from the snowy regions of the mountains (where no one has ever been, but there are stories). She diagnoses him with malnutrition and tells him to eat some meat, butter, and cheese and she’ll check back tomorrow.
Get it? The joke is that these were backwards peasants who would recommend the totally wrong foods. The doctor couldn't tell that he was an android! Everyone knew back in 1994 that you need to eat ten servings of whole grains, along with lots of fruits and vegetables, and avoid fat, to be healthy. What a silly backward recommendation that doctor made!
Yet here we are, 2 decades later, putting butter in our coffee and throwing coconut oil into everything.
Is it any wonder I question what "healthy" foods are?
OMG! "sleeper" was right
0 -
Okay I have to ask. What's this butter in coffee thing all about you keep referring to? Is this craze yet to reach the UK, cos it's the first I've heard of it? *gags*0
-
Okay I have to ask. What's this butter in coffee thing all about you keep referring to? Is this craze yet to reach the UK, cos it's the first I've heard of it? *gags*
http://jptrainingsystems.com/dave-asprey-a-21st-century-snake-oil-salesman/
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2014/12/why-bulletproof-dietcoffee-is-based-on.html0 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »I want to know the missing words behind you!
IFLYCarlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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....
Of course you realize, this means that we all must now try to fit 5 in to break the MFP record...
K
You too, you ...IFLY0 -
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.
I agree entirely. But I've seen them mixed together or heard arguments about how stressed or unhappy animals somehow produce food that is less good for us or less clean than food from animals in less stressful conditions.0 -
I always took clean eating as to mean low processed foods and eating as whole and healthy as possible. Like grilling a chicken breast versus eating a chicken patty or eating plain traditional oatmeal with fresh grapes versus the flavored instant varieties. That was the lifestyle change my mom made and it worked very well for her.0
-
I always took clean eating as to mean low processed foods and eating as whole and healthy as possible. Like grilling a chicken breast versus eating a chicken patty or eating plain traditional oatmeal with fresh grapes versus the flavored instant varieties. That was the lifestyle change my mom made and it worked very well for her.
Cleanliness aside, grapes in oatmeal? My mind is rejecting this combination.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I always took clean eating as to mean low processed foods and eating as whole and healthy as possible. Like grilling a chicken breast versus eating a chicken patty or eating plain traditional oatmeal with fresh grapes versus the flavored instant varieties. That was the lifestyle change my mom made and it worked very well for her.
Cleanliness aside, grapes in oatmeal? My mind is rejecting this combination.
I dunno...I eat raisins in oatmeal pretty regularly....just a bit 'juicier' version0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I always took clean eating as to mean low processed foods and eating as whole and healthy as possible. Like grilling a chicken breast versus eating a chicken patty or eating plain traditional oatmeal with fresh grapes versus the flavored instant varieties. That was the lifestyle change my mom made and it worked very well for her.
Cleanliness aside, grapes in oatmeal? My mind is rejecting this combination.
I dunno...I eat raisins in oatmeal pretty regularly....just a bit 'juicier' version
That's perfectly logical. They're two perfectly good foods, I just never considered grapes as an oatmeal ingredient. I am very set in my ways.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I always took clean eating as to mean low processed foods and eating as whole and healthy as possible. Like grilling a chicken breast versus eating a chicken patty or eating plain traditional oatmeal with fresh grapes versus the flavored instant varieties. That was the lifestyle change my mom made and it worked very well for her.
Cleanliness aside, grapes in oatmeal? My mind is rejecting this combination.
I dunno...I eat raisins in oatmeal pretty regularly....just a bit 'juicier' version
That's perfectly logical. They're two perfectly good foods, I just never considered grapes as an oatmeal ingredient. I am very set in my ways.
Oh agreed...I've never really thought of it either. But I guess it makes a bit of sense *shrug*
I'll give (almost) anything a whirl once.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I always took clean eating as to mean low processed foods and eating as whole and healthy as possible. Like grilling a chicken breast versus eating a chicken patty or eating plain traditional oatmeal with fresh grapes versus the flavored instant varieties. That was the lifestyle change my mom made and it worked very well for her.
Cleanliness aside, grapes in oatmeal? My mind is rejecting this combination.
My mind also totally rejected the "strawberries with mushrooms" combo that was picture-posted previously... LOL
PS I've had grapes in my porridge though. 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