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
-
And then finally, I think there are at least three types of "clean eaters" and probably more.
- There's the "minimally processed" group, the
- "no sign of industrialization" group which would then incorporate organically grown, non-GMO, and no use of chemicals in food preparation, and the
- ethical group, who may be vegetarian, may avoid dairy for the sake of the cows, and quiz the grocer on the state of their egg-laying chickens
Hence, the difficulty nailing down a common definition. In the middle of the Venn diagram is my hypothetical Kale.
Some ethical "clean eaters" may reject your high alps kale for not being local. I've seen locally grown food incorporated in some definitions of "clean."0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
People advocate that there is no such thing as unhealthy food. That CICO trumps all. Now they can either prove it or not. I'm betting not will be the option of choice.
Sidenote: does MFP offer a calories burned for googling?
People advocate that pretty much any food can fit within the context of an overall healthy DIET. I made this statement yesterday almost to the letter in another thread and another person jumping to a strawman argument quoted me and asked how I can recommend someone eat nothing but pizza, pop and cookies and still be healthy.A lot of my food looks like yours; the vast majority in fact. But, I'll also be ok with a bowl of ice cream. Why? Because I don't actually live the crazy strawman lifestyle. Most of my foods are whole, fresh ingredients. But I don't deny myself some treats.
I'm not criticizing what people do or don't eat. It's the notion of this intentional obtuseness with regards to the concept of healthy or clean food.
To me it isn't a crazy strawman lifestyle. The only thing I'm missing out on is feeling like crap and weighing more. And I don't really miss that very much.
Your comments around intentional obtusity go both ways.
This is a discussion about what the definition of clean eating is and if it is a helpful term for people to use in order to build a diet around. It is my contention, and many here I think as well, that no, that is not a helpful term, because it is subjective to the individual and applies morality and judgement around a particular way of eating. You say that you aren't criticizing what people eat, but in your first statement, you challenged those people eating nothing but twinkies and bacon to show up in 6 months to compare a blood panel, if they are still alive.
How is that not a criticism of what people eat, other than the fact that I don't know anyone who eats that way so I guess you are criticizing that poor strawman?
I'm glad you have improved your health issues and that you are feeling better. I too have lost weight and feel great. However I still eat ice cream and bacon (not much of a twinkie person to be honest). I also eat hummus and popcorn. And vegetables. And greek yogurt. And lean protein. Whole grains. Dairy. Etc....
Oh and your pictures that you originally posted, that would be very unhealthy for me. I'm allergic to strawberries.
Just as a point here, why post a judgement on another persons judgement?
At some point most of us humans do just that, but to me this thread is another one of trying to define a a word or term with a singular definition, and then attach a judgement as being good, bad, accurate, inaccurate, helpful, unhelpful, etc, etc. I think the same applies to what people view as a strawman argument. The judgement that already exists helps define what is a valid or invalid argument.
I'm all for getting rid of questionable statements, but when it reaches a point where we think we have acted without judgement of some sort, that would imply not giving it much thought at all.
Coming up next, judging the semantics of semantics, and why judgements about judgements can form some type of undefined relationship with what is helpful.
.... and for the record, not in disagreement with your context, but the use of the judgement statement stuck out to me!
And for the overall record, the way I see it, even if I only ate minimally process food I found or killed myself, it all gets processed once it goes into my mouth (or even before if I combine "clean" ingredients make say a salad), so in the end, it's all processed in some way.
Should that make me feel dirty that I feel that way?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I guess no one wants to take on my challenge of only eating celery for half a year?
Well, clearly no one's responding to the call for celery with celerity.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »And then finally, I think there are at least three types of "clean eaters" and probably more.
- There's the "minimally processed" group, the
- "no sign of industrialization" group which would then incorporate organically grown, non-GMO, and no use of chemicals in food preparation, and the
- ethical group, who may be vegetarian, may avoid dairy for the sake of the cows, and quiz the grocer on the state of their egg-laying chickens
Hence, the difficulty nailing down a common definition. In the middle of the Venn diagram is my hypothetical Kale.
Some ethical "clean eaters" may reject your high alps kale for not being local. I've seen locally grown food incorporated in some definitions of "clean."
Fair point. High alps Kale eaten by high alps resident. But then again, they have found dioxins in polar bear fat, so no earthly place may be perfectly clean.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »And then finally, I think there are at least three types of "clean eaters" and probably more.
- There's the "minimally processed" group, the
- "no sign of industrialization" group which would then incorporate organically grown, non-GMO, and no use of chemicals in food preparation, and the
- ethical group, who may be vegetarian, may avoid dairy for the sake of the cows, and quiz the grocer on the state of their egg-laying chickens
Hence, the difficulty nailing down a common definition. In the middle of the Venn diagram is my hypothetical Kale.
Some ethical "clean eaters" may reject your high alps kale for not being local. I've seen locally grown food incorporated in some definitions of "clean."
Fair point. High alps Kale eaten by high alps resident. But then again, they have found dioxins in polar bear fat, so no earthly place may be perfectly clean.
Eh, those probably end up in the liver, and if you're eating polar bear liver, dioxins are the least of your concerns.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I guess no one wants to take on my challenge of only eating celery for half a year?
Will that induce some sort of celery epiphany leading to a clear universal definition of "eating clean"?
0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I've had to admit that we do not live in a clearly ordered universe. Even terms that we think are universally understood turn out to have fuzzy edges. Take "furniture" for instance. We all think we know what that means, right? But how do you classify a "stool"? Is it furniture or something else? The big stuff, like sofas, we all agree, but for people who make a living classifying, debates over what a "stool" really is creates ever sharpening definitions.
I actually argue about definitions all the time in my real life job. Maybe that's why this serves as a fun break.
Definitions are important. Words mean things. Definitions delineate ideas.
A well formed definition means that much thought has gone into the meanings of the terms. Wars have been fought over meanings. Fortunes have been won and lost based on meanings.
True, but not all words have definitive meanings in isolation. Sometimes you need context to get to the actual meaning of a particular word in a particular situation.
Agreed, but in this case no one seems to agree and the context seems to be understood. I'm really declaiming against those who assert "you know what I mean".0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I guess no one wants to take on my challenge of only eating celery for half a year?
Will that induce some sort of celery epiphany leading to a clear universal definition of "eating clean"?
Maybe, dunno. The guy who told us to eat only twinkies or bacon for 6 months and see what happens seemed to be pretty sure he knew what clean eating is.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I've had to admit that we do not live in a clearly ordered universe. Even terms that we think are universally understood turn out to have fuzzy edges. Take "furniture" for instance. We all think we know what that means, right? But how do you classify a "stool"? Is it furniture or something else? The big stuff, like sofas, we all agree, but for people who make a living classifying, debates over what a "stool" really is creates ever sharpening definitions.
I actually argue about definitions all the time in my real life job. Maybe that's why this serves as a fun break.
Definitions are important. Words mean things. Definitions delineate ideas.
A well formed definition means that much thought has gone into the meanings of the terms. Wars have been fought over meanings. Fortunes have been won and lost based on meanings.
True, but not all words have definitive meanings in isolation. Sometimes you need context to get to the actual meaning of a particular word in a particular situation.
Agreed, but in this case no one seems to agree and the context seems to be understood. I'm really declaiming against those who assert "you know what I mean".
I know what you mean, man.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
People advocate that there is no such thing as unhealthy food. That CICO trumps all. Now they can either prove it or not. I'm betting not will be the option of choice.
Sidenote: does MFP offer a calories burned for googling?
People advocate that pretty much any food can fit within the context of an overall healthy DIET. I made this statement yesterday almost to the letter in another thread and another person jumping to a strawman argument quoted me and asked how I can recommend someone eat nothing but pizza, pop and cookies and still be healthy.A lot of my food looks like yours; the vast majority in fact. But, I'll also be ok with a bowl of ice cream. Why? Because I don't actually live the crazy strawman lifestyle. Most of my foods are whole, fresh ingredients. But I don't deny myself some treats.
I'm not criticizing what people do or don't eat. It's the notion of this intentional obtuseness with regards to the concept of healthy or clean food.
To me it isn't a crazy strawman lifestyle. The only thing I'm missing out on is feeling like crap and weighing more. And I don't really miss that very much.
Your comments around intentional obtusity go both ways.
This is a discussion about what the definition of clean eating is and if it is a helpful term for people to use in order to build a diet around. It is my contention, and many here I think as well, that no, that is not a helpful term, because it is subjective to the individual and applies morality and judgement around a particular way of eating. You say that you aren't criticizing what people eat, but in your first statement, you challenged those people eating nothing but twinkies and bacon to show up in 6 months to compare a blood panel, if they are still alive.
How is that not a criticism of what people eat, other than the fact that I don't know anyone who eats that way so I guess you are criticizing that poor strawman?
I'm glad you have improved your health issues and that you are feeling better. I too have lost weight and feel great. However I still eat ice cream and bacon (not much of a twinkie person to be honest). I also eat hummus and popcorn. And vegetables. And greek yogurt. And lean protein. Whole grains. Dairy. Etc....
Oh and your pictures that you originally posted, that would be very unhealthy for me. I'm allergic to strawberries.
Just as a point here, why post a judgement on another persons judgement?
At some point most of us humans do just that, but to me this thread is another one of trying to define a a word or term with a singular definition, and then attach a judgement as being good, bad, accurate, inaccurate, helpful, unhelpful, etc, etc.
It's about communication. People say "eat clean" or "is X clean?" -- it's helpful to be able to understand what clean is. Beyond that, I am weirdly intrigued by why some people seem to cling to this term so much -- seem to really get off on saying they eat clean or claiming (contrary to actual truth) that they don't eat processed foods, and I wish I understood why, what's up with that?
Also, many people claim that a "clean" diet is healthier than a "not clean" diet. I do not agree -- I think a diet that includes some processed food and even "junk" in moderation can be just as healthy, and as I am interested in eating a healthy diet I think this is something worth discussing. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Maybe someone will convince me that I should go "clean," who knows.I think the same applies to what people view as a strawman argument. The judgement that already exists helps define what is a valid or invalid argument.
No clue what you are trying to say here, but if you are suggesting that "eating only bacon and Twinkies is not healthy" is other than a strawman, and a worthless, insulting one at that, I think you are wrong. Pushing the boundaries of an analogy is one thing, and a valid form of argument. Asserting that people are defending an idea (what we eat doesn't matter at all) that no one has expressed is something else entirely.0 -
Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
It seems to me that they dance around the issue. I don't disagree with the approach, by the way. I do wonder if some (many) of the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" would agree with this, or not? Is bread "clean?" How about their "Clean Pairings" menu? Are broccoli cheddar soup, Thai chicken flatbread, or Mediterranean quinoa salad "clean?" Not according to many of the definitions here. Maybe they fit into @jgnatca 's "no sign of industrialization" set, but that's kind of laughable coming from a restaurant chain.
2. Leviticus 11: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11&version=NIV
You may say that these restrictions are ridiculous, but I'm not sure they are more ridiculous than some of the restrictions I've read here.Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.Every creature that moves along the ground is to be regarded as unclean; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean.0 -
@lemurcat12 I gotta say, I think you are fighting a losing battle. I had occasion to watch a little daytime television this week and a Dancing With the Stars regular, Kym Johnson, was promoting her 5-6-7-8 diet. The first words out of her mouth, "Eating Clean".0
-
Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
It seems to me that they dance around the issue. I don't disagree with the approach, by the way. I do wonder if some (many) of the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" would agree with this, or not? Is bread "clean?" How about their "Clean Pairings" menu? Are broccoli cheddar soup, Thai chicken flatbread, or Mediterranean quinoa salad "clean?" Not according to many of the definitions here. Maybe they fit into @jgnatca 's "no sign of industrialization" set, but that's kind of laughable coming from a restaurant chain.
2. Leviticus 11: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11&version=NIV
You may say that these restrictions are ridiculous, but I'm not sure they are more ridiculous than some of the restrictions I've read here.Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.Every creature that moves along the ground is to be regarded as unclean; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean.
Four legged insects?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's about communication. People say "eat clean" or "is X clean?" -- it's helpful to be able to understand what clean is. Beyond that, I am weirdly intrigued by why some people seem to cling to this term so much -- seem to really get off on saying they eat clean or claiming (contrary to actual truth) that they don't eat processed foods, and I wish I understood why, what's up with that?
Also, many people claim that a "clean" diet is healthier than a "not clean" diet. I do not agree -- I think a diet that includes some processed food and even "junk" in moderation can be just as healthy, and as I am interested in eating a healthy diet I think this is something worth discussing. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Maybe someone will convince me that I should go "clean," who knows.
My point is that short of a single definition that is absolute, it all comes down to communicating beyond simple word definition. Overall context, usage of the word within that context, and the words and phrases surrounding the word in question come into play. Absolutes are rare in communications, especially when dealing with written words.
For the sake of discussion, assume that everyone watching or participating in this thread agrees to a singular definition (simple or complex) of how the term "clean eating" is to be used. We agree that we will only use that singular definition until the day we die. We put it in writing with severe financial and worse penalties should we ever break the trust of the others that sign the document in the presence of the lawyers and others who will impose the penalties.
What would happen? Someone who hasn't made the agreement would join the forums 10 minutes later and muddy the waters, and all that work would have been for nothing.lemurcat12 wrote: »No clue what you are trying to say here, but if you are suggesting that "eating only bacon and Twinkies is not healthy" is other than a strawman, and a worthless, insulting one at that, I think you are wrong. Pushing the boundaries of an analogy is one thing, and a valid form of argument. Asserting that people are defending an idea (what we eat doesn't matter at all) that no one has expressed is something else entirely.
I've already stated that I didn't disagree with any of Wino Gelato's context. My point here is that how we define "strawman" is also highly subjective. And most likely influenced by our position on the point being debated.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
It seems to me that they dance around the issue. I don't disagree with the approach, by the way. I do wonder if some (many) of the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" would agree with this, or not? Is bread "clean?" How about their "Clean Pairings" menu? Are broccoli cheddar soup, Thai chicken flatbread, or Mediterranean quinoa salad "clean?" Not according to many of the definitions here. Maybe they fit into @jgnatca 's "no sign of industrialization" set, but that's kind of laughable coming from a restaurant chain.
2. Leviticus 11: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11&version=NIV
You may say that these restrictions are ridiculous, but I'm not sure they are more ridiculous than some of the restrictions I've read here.Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.Every creature that moves along the ground is to be regarded as unclean; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean.
Four legged insects?
An error in translation.
The King James uses the term "creeping thing." The original Hebrew used here is "sherets" which denotes "a swarm, that is, active mass of minute animals: - creep (-ing thing), move (-ing creature)."
Long story short, the original language essentially meant "bug" but the NIV got it wrong in translation.0 -
A & W has taken steps to reduce their carbon footprint and serve hormone and steroid free beef.
The fast food chains have removed styrofoam containers, replaced ketchup packets with ketchup dispensers, and now include salads on their menu.
I played an imaginary scenario, what it would be like to open a pristine pure restaurant, but I would have to eliminate all baking, salt, frying, basically all the tasty stuff. It would be bland and a hard sell. I would have to be deceptive in my descriptions just to put an attractive meal together, as in "NON-GMO/five ingredient fresh baked bread." And say nothing about the gluuuuuuuten.0 -
"lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, many people claim that a "clean" diet is healthier than a "not clean" diet. I do not agree -- I think a diet that includes some processed food and even "junk" in moderation can be just as healthy, and as I am interested in eating a healthy diet I think this is something worth discussing. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Maybe someone will convince me that I should go "clean," who knows.
This doesn't sound any different than the "healthy food" arguments seen so often on here. Which is more likely to be healthy - a diet of mostly clean and junk in moderation, or a diet of mostly junk with clean food in moderation?
And if we are looking at the diet in black and white, then we'd have to compare 100% clean to 100% junk. Luckily such a hard line is rarely drawn outside the internet.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Two more definitions to throw into the mix.
1. Panera has been touting their "Clean Eating" menu. They know how to make tasty food at Panera, to be sure. Here is the link to their page:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
It seems to me that they dance around the issue. I don't disagree with the approach, by the way. I do wonder if some (many) of the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" would agree with this, or not? Is bread "clean?" How about their "Clean Pairings" menu? Are broccoli cheddar soup, Thai chicken flatbread, or Mediterranean quinoa salad "clean?" Not according to many of the definitions here. Maybe they fit into @jgnatca 's "no sign of industrialization" set, but that's kind of laughable coming from a restaurant chain.
2. Leviticus 11: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11&version=NIV
You may say that these restrictions are ridiculous, but I'm not sure they are more ridiculous than some of the restrictions I've read here.Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.Every creature that moves along the ground is to be regarded as unclean; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean.
Four legged insects?
I'm just putting it out there. The ancient Hebrews weren't stupid - they knew what insects looked like - so my guess is that "walk on all fours" is idiomatic.0 -
Ingredient list don't tell the whole story. Beyond residual pesticides, herbicides, and environmental pollutants present on even "whole foods", any processed food may contain small amounts of foreign materials within allowable parameters set by the FDA (defect action levels).
Also government regulations do not require chemicals deemed as "food processing aids" be disclosed by manufacturers on ingredient labels:
"Depending on the role they filled in the various stages of food preparation, it aids the class into 16 categories: defoamers, catalysts, clarifying agents / filter, bleaches agents, washing agents and hair / peeling, Staff plucking and waxing, ion exchange resins, agents freezing on contact to cooling agents, drying agents / anti-caking, enzymes, agents of acidification, alkalinization or neutralizing agents, flocculants and coagulants, biocides, preventatives and extraction solvents." -http://www.azaquar.com/en/doc/food-processing-aids0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions