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
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »How do you make lard at home in your kitchen?
it is extremely easy. Render pork fat on low heat. Strain out the Cracklins/lardons. Let the remaining liquid fat solidify.
It's just about the same process as clarifying butter.
Huh, neat. Not like I'd ever make some, but still neat.
Next question: Wine was mentioned. You need quite a bit of equipment to make wine that is not found in your average kitchen or needs to be made DIY. What differentiates that equipment needed for equipment to make anything else that you'd not usually make yourself?
For example there's kits to make your own candy for sale, with all ingredients you need. Does that make candy clean?
Also you don't seem to understand my point about 'clean'. The question is if you could replicate all the ingredients shown on a good item and make it at home. If the ingredients for a loaf of bread are flour, yeast, salt then yes, you could. If there are 10+ ingredients most of which you have no idea what they are then no, you couldn't. It's not a complicated idea but you seem to be unable to grasp it.
Why is yeast clean? Can't really make it at home, S. cerevisiae doesn't really remain that pure if you do so, generally must be store bought.
Is blue cheese clean?
Cazu marzu?
Yoghurt? Only if you make it?
Well, for the yeast, you don't have to make it and it doesn't have to be pure - bread often tastes better when it's made from a mix of yeasts anyway.
Yeast is in the air and on your skin. Leave out a mix of flour and water for a while, knead it occasionally with your hands - it'll start to rise and fall. Keep removing a portion and adding back in an equal portion of fresh flour and water to keep it going. Store in the fridge for longer times between 'feedings'*.
That's your starter for bread.
*Much better instructions in Tartine.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I can't think how grass fed makes beef cleaner.It's just the meaning of the word natural. Nothing man-made is natural.
I'm a little confused by these statements. The cattle are forced to eat grain by humans. That would seem under your terms to make grain-fed beef less clean than grass-fed beef. Unless the cattle choose to eat grain all on their own. Or if bees were to herd cattle (the way ants herd aphids) and force them to eat grain.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Seems we've been aware of this on 'the island' but it just hadn't appeared on my radar yet....
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2014/nov/25/bulletproof-coffee-is-adding-butter-to-your-morning-coffee-a-step-too-far
"The most noticeable thing was not the taste – which was like a richer, buttery (go figure!) version of milky coffee – but the texture: in particular, the thin layer of oil that coated my lips. With each gulp, the coffee got worse – the once-uniform liquid quickly separated into a dark base topped with little droplets of yellow grease, and it was accompanied by a weird and pungent smell..."
**gags**
Yeah that's my reaction too...of course I drink my coffee black, and the thought of ANYTHING creamy in my coffee isn't terribly appetizing.
But yeah this is one fad I hope dies a short, quick death. I can't possibly imagine getting well-rounded nutrition, when up to 1/3 of your daily calorie allotment is coming in the form of oil-slicked coffee.
Same here. I think non-black coffee is nasty, but beyond that I think wasting the calories by dumping them in coffee or, as some posters claim, consuming tons of calories from coconut oil in coffee is a sad thing.
Coconut oil is all fat, so the "tons of calories" are 9 cals per gram; in the grand scheme of my day of consuming 2,500 calories (plus whatever I burn), it is relatively insignificant.
How many grams of coconut oil does it take before you think it's significant? My guess is that these folks don't just put in one gram.0 -
Clean eating is where you wash your food before you eat it. Because who wants to eat dirty food?0
-
To me clean means foods that grow out of the ground, or that come from living things with faces. Not that I eat only those foods, but if I want to be satiated so I don't overindulge in junkier foods I make sure foods in those categories make up the majority of my diet.
OK, I think I get it now. No sea vegetables, hydroponic vegetables, yeast, or salt. I can't think of anything else I consume that doesn't ultimately grow out of the ground or come from a living thing with a face. Can I have salt if it's harvested from stalagmites (because the stalagmites actually "grow" over time), and if so, is stalactite-derived salt OK--after all, the roof of a cave is still part of the ground, even if it's above your head?
Edited to explain why stalagmite salt would be different from ordinary mined salt.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Seems we've been aware of this on 'the island' but it just hadn't appeared on my radar yet....
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2014/nov/25/bulletproof-coffee-is-adding-butter-to-your-morning-coffee-a-step-too-far
"The most noticeable thing was not the taste – which was like a richer, buttery (go figure!) version of milky coffee – but the texture: in particular, the thin layer of oil that coated my lips. With each gulp, the coffee got worse – the once-uniform liquid quickly separated into a dark base topped with little droplets of yellow grease, and it was accompanied by a weird and pungent smell..."
**gags**
Yeah that's my reaction too...of course I drink my coffee black, and the thought of ANYTHING creamy in my coffee isn't terribly appetizing.
But yeah this is one fad I hope dies a short, quick death. I can't possibly imagine getting well-rounded nutrition, when up to 1/3 of your daily calorie allotment is coming in the form of oil-slicked coffee.
Same here. I think non-black coffee is nasty, but beyond that I think wasting the calories by dumping them in coffee or, as some posters claim, consuming tons of calories from coconut oil in coffee is a sad thing.
Coconut oil is all fat, so the "tons of calories" are 9 cals per gram; in the grand scheme of my day of consuming 2,500 calories (plus whatever I burn), it is relatively insignificant.
How many grams of coconut oil does it take before you think it's significant? My guess is that these folks don't just put in one gram.
I do a teaspoon per day, 5g0 -
Clean eating in my opinion is having a plant-based whole food diet. No processed foods0
-
Raise it, kill it, butcher it. Plant it, grow it, pick it. If you want it done right, never underestimate witnessing it with your own two eyes or doing it for yourself.0
-
@nikkimendez666 if you have followed the thread you must know your answer is full of holes. What is a "whole food"?
Eggs are whole but aren't plant-based.
I imagine you'll allow grains and nuts to be shelled and hulled. How about grinding for flour? Is that much processing allowed in your plan?
How about pressing olives for their oil?
Drying grapes in to raisins?
If you eat only unprocessed "whole foods" could you eat a meal of hemp seeds, raisins, and broccoli as long as they weren't mixed together?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?
You must kill them humanely, not by tearing off two of their legs.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
Simple Definition of natural
1 : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
(Haven't read all the thread yet so someone may have already commented on this bit...)
By that first definition, crops grown on a farm are not 'natural' because they're planted by people, even if it's a small family concern that does everything by hand and uses no pesticides or other chemicals. If I forage for berries in the wilderness they are 'natural', but if I buy some from the local Farmer's Market that were planted deliberately then they're not? Such things exist because they were "caused (to grow there) by people".
Not having a go at you for this definition (and you did say it was a "simple" one), just commenting on what seemed odd to me about it!
Clearly everyone has their own ideas about what is and is not 'natural', 'healthy' or 'clean', and I personally would say that it's not helpful when people post that kind of vague "eat clean!" advice to others without any specifics, and especially when they insist that it's the only/best way to lose weight.
My personal idea of "clean eating" would probably be foods that have little processing and few artificial additives - e.g. a homemade meal using fresh ingredients rather than a purchased one that may have various fillers, additives, sweeteners etc. in it. I suppose it would depend on the actual list of ingredients in the purchased meal, though - some may still qualify! And I would see no difference in 'cleanliness' between a lump of steak and a pile of ground beef - a certain amount of processing is necessary with some foods (IMO), and whether that's done by the purchaser grinding their own meat at home or by a processing plant doing the same thing makes no difference as far as I'm concerned.
It's like with the example of fries another poster mentioned - the frozen ones contain only potatoes and oil. How is that any different to buying some potatoes, cutting them up, and cooking them in oil you add yourself, just because one version is packaged and frozen? The amount of processing required is the same whether you do it yourself or have someone else (the manufacturer) do it for you. You may have slightly more control over the amount of oil, but to me that doesn't alter how 'clean' or 'natural' the end result is.
As for the bagged lettuce - are there really people who would argue that it's not 'clean', just because it's in a bag? Do these people all live in the country and grow every single thing they eat themselves?
Anyway... the debate is interesting, but I personally would not "eat clean" because there are too many foods I love that would be off limits if I were to attempt it, by most of the definitions given in the OP. I want my new diet to be sustainable in the long term, and I don't particularly want to live in a world where I'm not allowed to have bacon.
0 -
There is no such thing as clean eating. It is a silly term used by people who want to feel superior...0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
Simple Definition of natural
1 : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
(Haven't read all the thread yet so someone may have already commented on this bit...)
By that first definition, crops grown on a farm are not 'natural' because they're planted by people, even if it's a small family concern that does everything by hand and uses no pesticides or other chemicals. If I forage for berries in the wilderness they are 'natural', but if I buy some from the local Farmer's Market that were planted deliberately then they're not? Such things exist because they were "caused (to grow there) by people".
Not having a go at you for this definition (and you did say it was a "simple" one), just commenting on what seemed odd to me about it!
Clearly everyone has their own ideas about what is and is not 'natural', 'healthy' or 'clean', and I personally would say that it's not helpful when people post that kind of vague "eat clean!" advice to others without any specifics, and especially when they insist that it's the only/best way to lose weight.
My personal idea of "clean eating" would probably be foods that have little processing and few artificial additives - e.g. a homemade meal using fresh ingredients rather than a purchased one that may have various fillers, additives, sweeteners etc. in it. I suppose it would depend on the actual list of ingredients in the purchased meal, though - some may still qualify! And I would see no difference in 'cleanliness' between a lump of steak and a pile of ground beef - a certain amount of processing is necessary with some foods (IMO), and whether that's done by the purchaser grinding their own meat at home or by a processing plant doing the same thing makes no difference as far as I'm concerned.
It's like with the example of fries another poster mentioned - the frozen ones contain only potatoes and oil. How is that any different to buying some potatoes, cutting them up, and cooking them in oil you add yourself, just because one version is packaged and frozen? The amount of processing required is the same whether you do it yourself or have someone else (the manufacturer) do it for you. You may have slightly more control over the amount of oil, but to me that doesn't alter how 'clean' or 'natural' the end result is.
As for the bagged lettuce - are there really people who would argue that it's not 'clean', just because it's in a bag? Do these people all live in the country and grow every single thing they eat themselves?
Anyway... the debate is interesting, but I personally would not "eat clean" because there are too many foods I love that would be off limits if I were to attempt it, by most of the definitions given in the OP. I want my new diet to be sustainable in the long term, and I don't particularly want to live in a world where I'm not allowed to have bacon.
I'd say unless you're going very deep woods, even then the berries aren't natural. Many "wild" berries are still just variants of the changes people have encouraged in them, particularly if they're still within a few days walking distance of some form of civilization.0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »bottled water....gone! well just all water..unless you suck it right out of the creek or your own well.
Even then it has a scientific name with more than 3 syllables...dihydrogen monoxide.0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »bottled water....gone! well just all water..unless you suck it right out of the creek or your own well.
Even then it has a scientific name with more than 3 syllables...dihydrogen monoxide.
ChemiKillz!!!!0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »bottled water....gone! well just all water..unless you suck it right out of the creek or your own well.
Even then it has a scientific name with more than 3 syllables...dihydrogen monoxide.
ChemiKillz!!!!
I saw "hydrogen hydroxide" on an MSDS recently...
Oh, excwuise me..."SDS".0 -
@nikkimendez666 if you have followed the thread you must know your answer is full of holes. What is a "whole food"?
Eggs are whole but aren't plant-based.
I imagine you'll allow grains and nuts to be shelled and hulled. How about grinding for flour? Is that much processing allowed in your plan?
How about pressing olives for their oil?
Drying grapes in to raisins?
If you eat only unprocessed "whole foods" could you eat a meal of hemp seeds, raisins, and broccoli as long as they weren't mixed together?
I don't think people consider applying physical force (crushing, mixing, shucking, grinding, pressing, etc.) to food as unacceptable processing, at least that is my interpretation. Unwanted processing to me is industrially injecting / mixing / treating food with chemicals to make them more profitable for corporations, ie, food coloring, preservatives mixed in a test tube, steroids, anti-biotics, hormones, etc., that don't add to the nutritional value of the food.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »@nikkimendez666 if you have followed the thread you must know your answer is full of holes. What is a "whole food"?
Eggs are whole but aren't plant-based.
I imagine you'll allow grains and nuts to be shelled and hulled. How about grinding for flour? Is that much processing allowed in your plan?
How about pressing olives for their oil?
Drying grapes in to raisins?
If you eat only unprocessed "whole foods" could you eat a meal of hemp seeds, raisins, and broccoli as long as they weren't mixed together?
I don't think people consider applying physical force (crushing, mixing, shucking, grinding, pressing, etc.) to food as unacceptable processing, at least that is my interpretation. Unwanted processing to me is industrially injecting / mixing / treating food with chemicals to make them more profitable for corporations, ie, food coloring, preservatives mixed in a test tube, steroids, anti-biotics, hormones, etc., that don't add to the nutritional value of the food.
It's already been mentioned/discussed in this thread. According to the definitions of some, "clean" foods become "unclean" when they've been ground.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I can't think how grass fed makes beef cleaner.It's just the meaning of the word natural. Nothing man-made is natural.
I'm a little confused by these statements. The cattle are forced to eat grain by humans. That would seem under your terms to make grain-fed beef less clean than grass-fed beef. Unless the cattle choose to eat grain all on their own. Or if bees were to herd cattle (the way ants herd aphids) and force them to eat grain.
Cattle aren't force fed grain. They are provided grain and they eat it. Same as with grass. Man provides a pasture or hay bale and the cow eats it. Beef is essentially a man-made product. Some may consider this makes beef itself not a clean food. While I can understand that argument I'm not that strict but do believe it is not as 'clean' as wild game. I think pumping the cattle full of antibiotics or other drugs makes if far less clean that what we provide the animal to eat.0 -
There's often a connection between grain feeding and the need to give antibiotics.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/interviews/pollan.html0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »There's often a connection between grain feeding and the need to give antibiotics.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/interviews/pollan.html
Would that make grain fed beef not clean?0 -
I don't use the term "clean" in this context, as you know, but I do think grass fed is preferable, at least for my particular concerns. Grain fed and grass fed can both be done in better and worse ways, so I don't think it's possible to completely generalize.0
-
Bry_Lander wrote: »@nikkimendez666 if you have followed the thread you must know your answer is full of holes. What is a "whole food"?
Eggs are whole but aren't plant-based.
I imagine you'll allow grains and nuts to be shelled and hulled. How about grinding for flour? Is that much processing allowed in your plan?
How about pressing olives for their oil?
Drying grapes in to raisins?
If you eat only unprocessed "whole foods" could you eat a meal of hemp seeds, raisins, and broccoli as long as they weren't mixed together?
I don't think people consider applying physical force (crushing, mixing, shucking, grinding, pressing, etc.) to food as unacceptable processing, at least that is my interpretation. Unwanted processing to me is industrially injecting / mixing / treating food with chemicals to make them more profitable for corporations, ie, food coloring, preservatives mixed in a test tube, steroids, anti-biotics, hormones, etc., that don't add to the nutritional value of the food.
Aye, there's the rub, isn't it? We are dealing with many interpretations for the same idea. Hence my Venn diagram. Your use is dastardly difficult to define, as one must speak to motive.
What if a farmer's wife is doctoring her family's food in order to extend it's shelf-life, and thereby save the family money? The additives in her arsenal include salt, sugar, vinegar, gelatin, and pectin. If she mixes these ingredients in a bowl instead of a test-tube, does her final product become "clean"?
Take the lowly pickle. It has at least three of the preservatives mentioned above. None of the processing adds to the food's nutritional value; all it does is extend the shelf-life of the cucumber, saving the family money. Is a pickle dirty?1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »@nikkimendez666 if you have followed the thread you must know your answer is full of holes. What is a "whole food"?
Eggs are whole but aren't plant-based.
I imagine you'll allow grains and nuts to be shelled and hulled. How about grinding for flour? Is that much processing allowed in your plan?
How about pressing olives for their oil?
Drying grapes in to raisins?
If you eat only unprocessed "whole foods" could you eat a meal of hemp seeds, raisins, and broccoli as long as they weren't mixed together?
I don't think people consider applying physical force (crushing, mixing, shucking, grinding, pressing, etc.) to food as unacceptable processing, at least that is my interpretation. Unwanted processing to me is industrially injecting / mixing / treating food with chemicals to make them more profitable for corporations, ie, food coloring, preservatives mixed in a test tube, steroids, anti-biotics, hormones, etc., that don't add to the nutritional value of the food.
Aye, there's the rub, isn't it? We are dealing with many interpretations for the same idea. Hence my Venn diagram. Your use is dastardly difficult to define, as one must speak to motive.
What if a farmer's wife is doctoring her family's food in order to extend it's shelf-life, and thereby save the family money? The additives in her arsenal include salt, sugar, vinegar, gelatin, and pectin. If she mixes these ingredients in a bowl instead of a test-tube, does her final product become "clean"?
Take the lowly pickle. It has at least three of the preservatives mentioned above. None of the processing adds to the food's nutritional value; all it does is extend the shelf-life of the cucumber, saving the family money. Is a pickle dirty?
Yes, it is tricky. Maybe the line is drawn between the processing that is inherent in the creation of the food, like a pickle, and the processing that is just a corporate strategy by companies that industrially create and distribute foods to increase profitability.
So perhaps it is analyzing what ingredients / processes that are required to make a pickle and balancing those against what ingredients / processes a company uses to mass produce pickles in an effort to minimize the cost of processing and maximize the product's shelf life. In most cases I would rather eat a home processed pickle from the farmer's wife's fridge that she grew and canned herself than one from the jar that rolled off the assembly line at Vlasic. The addition of Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 are not there to benefit my nutrition.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »@nikkimendez666 if you have followed the thread you must know your answer is full of holes. What is a "whole food"?
Eggs are whole but aren't plant-based.
I imagine you'll allow grains and nuts to be shelled and hulled. How about grinding for flour? Is that much processing allowed in your plan?
How about pressing olives for their oil?
Drying grapes in to raisins?
If you eat only unprocessed "whole foods" could you eat a meal of hemp seeds, raisins, and broccoli as long as they weren't mixed together?
I don't think people consider applying physical force (crushing, mixing, shucking, grinding, pressing, etc.) to food as unacceptable processing, at least that is my interpretation. Unwanted processing to me is industrially injecting / mixing / treating food with chemicals to make them more profitable for corporations, ie, food coloring, preservatives mixed in a test tube, steroids, anti-biotics, hormones, etc., that don't add to the nutritional value of the food.
Aye, there's the rub, isn't it? We are dealing with many interpretations for the same idea. Hence my Venn diagram. Your use is dastardly difficult to define, as one must speak to motive.
What if a farmer's wife is doctoring her family's food in order to extend it's shelf-life, and thereby save the family money? The additives in her arsenal include salt, sugar, vinegar, gelatin, and pectin. If she mixes these ingredients in a bowl instead of a test-tube, does her final product become "clean"?
Take the lowly pickle. It has at least three of the preservatives mentioned above. None of the processing adds to the food's nutritional value; all it does is extend the shelf-life of the cucumber, saving the family money. Is a pickle dirty?
Yes, it is tricky. Maybe the line is drawn between the processing that is inherent in the creation of the food, like a pickle, and the processing that is just a corporate strategy by companies that industrially create and distribute foods to increase profitability.
So perhaps it is analyzing what ingredients / processes that are required to make a pickle and balancing those against what ingredients / processes a company uses to mass produce pickles in an effort to minimize the cost of processing and maximize the product's shelf life. In most cases I would rather eat a home processed pickle from the farmer's wife's fridge that she grew and canned herself than one from the jar that rolled off the assembly line at Vlasic. The addition of Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 are not there to benefit my nutrition.
Home cooks frequently add ingredients that aren't there to benefit the nutritional value of the food. I'm not sure why a company doing this is worse or less "clean" than a home cook doing it.0 -
I'm not against reading labels and learning about ingredients if one is unsure what they are/why they are there, but this is actually related to why I don't like the clean eating thing. Back when I was over-neurotic about food (from my current perspective), I'd do things like refuse to eat pickles unless I made them myself, but the truth is that my lifestyle is such that it's something of a hassle to make pickles (but yay for those of you who make them regularly, I always mean to start doing that and canning stuff and so on) and it was kind of silly to avoid eating perfectly good store-bought pickles just because in theory I wanted to be making them myself. It's also silly to feel that logging them is a failure and not living up to some standard.
I realize that for some you don't get all self-judgmental or neurotic about it, and that's great, but I worry that newbies get the message that their eating habits aren't good enough unless they cut out all such foods that really has nothing at all to do with weight loss (or, IMO, health/nutrition) and end up making the perfect the enemy of the good so it all just seems way more hard and time-consuming than it needs to be. Easy healthy or simply improving one's diet is much simpler and need not require a huge investment of time. I can whip up a dinner with lots of vegetables and some lean protein in a snap (and part of why I can do that is that I will live with relying on dried pasta or canned beans from time to time and not see that as some failure or lesser-than option vs what I should be doing).0 -
I agree, taste is as big or a bigger priority than nutrition for a lot of people. That still doesn’t sell me on consuming Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80.janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »@nikkimendez666 if you have followed the thread you must know your answer is full of holes. What is a "whole food"?
Eggs are whole but aren't plant-based.
I imagine you'll allow grains and nuts to be shelled and hulled. How about grinding for flour? Is that much processing allowed in your plan?
How about pressing olives for their oil?
Drying grapes in to raisins?
If you eat only unprocessed "whole foods" could you eat a meal of hemp seeds, raisins, and broccoli as long as they weren't mixed together?
I don't think people consider applying physical force (crushing, mixing, shucking, grinding, pressing, etc.) to food as unacceptable processing, at least that is my interpretation. Unwanted processing to me is industrially injecting / mixing / treating food with chemicals to make them more profitable for corporations, ie, food coloring, preservatives mixed in a test tube, steroids, anti-biotics, hormones, etc., that don't add to the nutritional value of the food.
Aye, there's the rub, isn't it? We are dealing with many interpretations for the same idea. Hence my Venn diagram. Your use is dastardly difficult to define, as one must speak to motive.
What if a farmer's wife is doctoring her family's food in order to extend it's shelf-life, and thereby save the family money? The additives in her arsenal include salt, sugar, vinegar, gelatin, and pectin. If she mixes these ingredients in a bowl instead of a test-tube, does her final product become "clean"?
Take the lowly pickle. It has at least three of the preservatives mentioned above. None of the processing adds to the food's nutritional value; all it does is extend the shelf-life of the cucumber, saving the family money. Is a pickle dirty?
Yes, it is tricky. Maybe the line is drawn between the processing that is inherent in the creation of the food, like a pickle, and the processing that is just a corporate strategy by companies that industrially create and distribute foods to increase profitability.
So perhaps it is analyzing what ingredients / processes that are required to make a pickle and balancing those against what ingredients / processes a company uses to mass produce pickles in an effort to minimize the cost of processing and maximize the product's shelf life. In most cases I would rather eat a home processed pickle from the farmer's wife's fridge that she grew and canned herself than one from the jar that rolled off the assembly line at Vlasic. The addition of Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 are not there to benefit my nutrition.
Home cooks frequently add ingredients that aren't there to benefit the nutritional value of the food. I'm not sure why a company doing this is worse or less "clean" than a home cook doing it.
I agree with all of this. Eating the perfect diet is aspirational, and completely unrealistic (in my life, anyways). I don’t have a jar of pickles made by a farmer’s wife in my fridge, I have Vlasic pickles, and I get my dose of food coloring and emulsifiers accordinglylemurcat12 wrote: »I'm not against reading labels and learning about ingredients if one is unsure what they are/why they are there, but this is actually related to why I don't like the clean eating thing. Back when I was over-neurotic about food (from my current perspective), I'd do things like refuse to eat pickles unless I made them myself, but the truth is that my lifestyle is such that it's something of a hassle to make pickles (but yay for those of you who make them regularly, I always mean to start doing that and canning stuff and so on) and it was kind of silly to avoid eating perfectly good store-bought pickles just because in theory I wanted to be making them myself. It's also silly to feel that logging them is a failure and not living up to some standard.
I realize that for some you don't get all self-judgmental or neurotic about it, and that's great, but I worry that newbies get the message that their eating habits aren't good enough unless they cut out all such foods that really has nothing at all to do with weight loss (or, IMO, health/nutrition) and end up making the perfect the enemy of the good so it all just seems way more hard and time-consuming than it needs to be. Easy healthy or simply improving one's diet is much simpler and need not require a huge investment of time. I can whip up a dinner with lots of vegetables and some lean protein in a snap (and part of why I can do that is that I will live with relying on dried pasta or canned beans from time to time and not see that as some failure or lesser-than option vs what I should be doing).
I would hope that the new people understand the failures that are inherent in attempting to eat a less-processed diet, and not get too discouraged at having to settle for what is readily available.
0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »@nikkimendez666 if you have followed the thread you must know your answer is full of holes. What is a "whole food"?
Eggs are whole but aren't plant-based.
I imagine you'll allow grains and nuts to be shelled and hulled. How about grinding for flour? Is that much processing allowed in your plan?
How about pressing olives for their oil?
Drying grapes in to raisins?
If you eat only unprocessed "whole foods" could you eat a meal of hemp seeds, raisins, and broccoli as long as they weren't mixed together?
I don't think people consider applying physical force (crushing, mixing, shucking, grinding, pressing, etc.) to food as unacceptable processing, at least that is my interpretation. Unwanted processing to me is industrially injecting / mixing / treating food with chemicals to make them more profitable for corporations, ie, food coloring, preservatives mixed in a test tube, steroids, anti-biotics, hormones, etc., that don't add to the nutritional value of the food.
Aye, there's the rub, isn't it? We are dealing with many interpretations for the same idea. Hence my Venn diagram. Your use is dastardly difficult to define, as one must speak to motive.
What if a farmer's wife is doctoring her family's food in order to extend it's shelf-life, and thereby save the family money? The additives in her arsenal include salt, sugar, vinegar, gelatin, and pectin. If she mixes these ingredients in a bowl instead of a test-tube, does her final product become "clean"?
Take the lowly pickle. It has at least three of the preservatives mentioned above. None of the processing adds to the food's nutritional value; all it does is extend the shelf-life of the cucumber, saving the family money. Is a pickle dirty?
I think the only thing that would make a pickle dirty is getting dirt on it.
I think a pickle is less clean than a fresh cucumber. And a pickle that is naturally fermented is more clean than one that is not.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
I agree, taste is as big or a bigger priority than nutrition for a lot of people. That still doesn’t sell me on consuming Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80.janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »@nikkimendez666 if you have followed the thread you must know your answer is full of holes. What is a "whole food"?
Eggs are whole but aren't plant-based.
I imagine you'll allow grains and nuts to be shelled and hulled. How about grinding for flour? Is that much processing allowed in your plan?
How about pressing olives for their oil?
Drying grapes in to raisins?
If you eat only unprocessed "whole foods" could you eat a meal of hemp seeds, raisins, and broccoli as long as they weren't mixed together?
I don't think people consider applying physical force (crushing, mixing, shucking, grinding, pressing, etc.) to food as unacceptable processing, at least that is my interpretation. Unwanted processing to me is industrially injecting / mixing / treating food with chemicals to make them more profitable for corporations, ie, food coloring, preservatives mixed in a test tube, steroids, anti-biotics, hormones, etc., that don't add to the nutritional value of the food.
Aye, there's the rub, isn't it? We are dealing with many interpretations for the same idea. Hence my Venn diagram. Your use is dastardly difficult to define, as one must speak to motive.
What if a farmer's wife is doctoring her family's food in order to extend it's shelf-life, and thereby save the family money? The additives in her arsenal include salt, sugar, vinegar, gelatin, and pectin. If she mixes these ingredients in a bowl instead of a test-tube, does her final product become "clean"?
Take the lowly pickle. It has at least three of the preservatives mentioned above. None of the processing adds to the food's nutritional value; all it does is extend the shelf-life of the cucumber, saving the family money. Is a pickle dirty?
Yes, it is tricky. Maybe the line is drawn between the processing that is inherent in the creation of the food, like a pickle, and the processing that is just a corporate strategy by companies that industrially create and distribute foods to increase profitability.
So perhaps it is analyzing what ingredients / processes that are required to make a pickle and balancing those against what ingredients / processes a company uses to mass produce pickles in an effort to minimize the cost of processing and maximize the product's shelf life. In most cases I would rather eat a home processed pickle from the farmer's wife's fridge that she grew and canned herself than one from the jar that rolled off the assembly line at Vlasic. The addition of Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 are not there to benefit my nutrition.
Home cooks frequently add ingredients that aren't there to benefit the nutritional value of the food. I'm not sure why a company doing this is worse or less "clean" than a home cook doing it.
I agree with all of this. Eating the perfect diet is aspirational, and completely unrealistic (in my life, anyways). I don’t have a jar of pickles made by a farmer’s wife in my fridge, I have Vlasic pickles, and I get my dose of food coloring and emulsifiers accordinglylemurcat12 wrote: »I'm not against reading labels and learning about ingredients if one is unsure what they are/why they are there, but this is actually related to why I don't like the clean eating thing. Back when I was over-neurotic about food (from my current perspective), I'd do things like refuse to eat pickles unless I made them myself, but the truth is that my lifestyle is such that it's something of a hassle to make pickles (but yay for those of you who make them regularly, I always mean to start doing that and canning stuff and so on) and it was kind of silly to avoid eating perfectly good store-bought pickles just because in theory I wanted to be making them myself. It's also silly to feel that logging them is a failure and not living up to some standard.
I realize that for some you don't get all self-judgmental or neurotic about it, and that's great, but I worry that newbies get the message that their eating habits aren't good enough unless they cut out all such foods that really has nothing at all to do with weight loss (or, IMO, health/nutrition) and end up making the perfect the enemy of the good so it all just seems way more hard and time-consuming than it needs to be. Easy healthy or simply improving one's diet is much simpler and need not require a huge investment of time. I can whip up a dinner with lots of vegetables and some lean protein in a snap (and part of why I can do that is that I will live with relying on dried pasta or canned beans from time to time and not see that as some failure or lesser-than option vs what I should be doing).
I would hope that the new people understand the failures that are inherent in attempting to eat a less-processed diet, and not get too discouraged at having to settle for what is readily available.
I'm not trying to sell you on consuming anything you don't want to consume. But I'm asking you what is the distinction between a company adding an ingredient to a food to enhance taste, appearance, or texture and a home cook doing the same? I don't see a meaningful difference.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