Viewing the message boards in:
Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What is clean eating?

Options
1151618202131

Replies

  • Posts: 1,776 Member
    Annie_01 wrote: »

    Every group of people has its fanatics...even those that believe in eating everything in moderation.

    "Moderation fanatic " makes about as much sense as "militant agnostic "
  • Posts: 25,763 Member

    If I plant a broccoli seed in the right weather and soil conditions nature will take it's course and a vegetable will grow. Not so with a Frito. That's a difference that seems simple and obvious to me.

    You're confident that the process that led to the creation of broccoli and the existence of the seed is irrelevant to the question of what "natural" means. I don't share that confidence.

    Yeah -- the end result of a recipe will never grow from the ground. Corn will, but a Frito won't. Are you saying that the end result of a recipe is always "unnatural"?
  • Posts: 3,096 Member

    "Moderation fanatic " makes about as much sense as "militant agnostic "

    I was once told by a eat everything in moderation eater...

    I cut a certain food item(not an entire food group...just one certain food) out of my diet. I was informed that I had mental issues...an eating disorder...that I would fail despite having already losing 80lbs. IMO...that moderation eater was a fanatic. You might not agree and that is okay.
  • Posts: 8,911 Member

    If I plant a broccoli seed in the right weather and soil conditions nature will take it's course and a vegetable will grow. Not so with a Frito. That's a difference that seems simple and obvious to me.

    Jane already mentioned it, but the broccoli seed only exists because of long term human intervention over hundreds and thousands of years, making it unnatural by the definition that was provided somewhere upthread. As would be every single thing you could get anywhere to buy, processed or not.
  • Posts: 13,575 Member

    Jane already mentioned it, but the broccoli seed only exists because of long term human intervention over hundreds and thousands of years, making it unnatural by the definition that was provided somewhere upthread. As would be every single thing you could get anywhere to buy, processed or not.

    Quite true. But I don't think nature doesn't exists because man has changed the world.
  • Posts: 25,763 Member

    Jane already mentioned it, but the broccoli seed only exists because of long term human intervention over hundreds and thousands of years, making it unnatural by the definition that was provided somewhere upthread. As would be every single thing you could get anywhere to buy, processed or not.

    Fruits and vegetables are often upheld as the paragons of "natural" foods, but when you look into many of them, they're as much the product of human tastes and decisions as foods like Fritos are.

  • Posts: 8,911 Member

    Fruits and vegetables are often upheld as the paragons of "natural" foods, but when you look into many of them, they're as much the product of human tastes and decisions as foods like Fritos are.

    Even more so. We didn't spend centuries trying to perfect the frito. Yet.
  • Posts: 13,575 Member

    You're confident that the process that led to the creation of broccoli and the existence of the seed is irrelevant to the question of what "natural" means. I don't share that confidence.

    Yeah -- the end result of a recipe will never grow from the ground. Corn will, but a Frito won't. Are you saying that the end result of a recipe is always "unnatural"?

    No, I would not say it is irrelevant. But the definition I know of clean isn't 100% natural.

    No, if I'd wanted to say that, I'd say it.
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    so the fact that processed food like protein powder, ground flour, soy beans, or Chipotle find its way into my diet isn't blasphemy or a concession that clean eating is a flawed concept, it is just a realistic understanding that the world isn't a clean eating Garden of Eden type of Utopia and that most us don't have the time or the inclination to completely (or even mostly) reject the industrialized food products that we are conveniently inundated with.

    Then let me ask this sincere question which has always confused me.

    The self-identified "clean eaters" on MFP seem to think that there's a huge difference between what they do and what others of us who are concerned about health and nutrition do (let's call us moderates). For example, they ask for others who self-identify as "clean eaters" to friend and enter into exclusive groups with, they ask for "clean eating" recipes as if those would be vastly different than normal recipes in cookbooks (the cookbooks I use seem to be based on whole foods, but shrug, maybe there's something I'm not seeing), they seem to think that menu ideas from non clean eaters aren't worthwhile (perhaps we pour sugar on our chicken?), so on.

    But from your explanation I'm not seeing much difference in how you eat and how I eat (in fact, it seems that you may be more open to certain kinds of "industrialized food products" than I am). Hmm, except perhaps for certain judgment calls and that you identify with the term "clean eater" whereas I do not (in part because I find it obviously false and laughable to claim that I don't eat processed foods). Again, I see people making that weird claim all the time on MFP, and also I don't see it as an ideal -- because of stuff like the smoked salmon, and some "clean eater" claiming a homemade strawberry rhubarb pie was "processed junk" (technically, perhaps, but I think there's room in my life for some homemade pie on occasion and don't consider that hugely "industrial).

    So if you acknowledge that your definition of "clean eating" is basically, well, moderation, why all the arguments and the claim that clean eating is somehow better or nutritionally superior that always seem to be at the basis of these discussions? Instead, it seems like we are using different language for basically the same thing (and anyone who claims not to eat any processed food is probably lying).
  • Posts: 13,575 Member
    edited February 2016
    Annie_01 wrote: »

    I was once told by a eat everything in moderation eater...

    I cut a certain food item(not an entire food group...just one certain food) out of my diet. I was informed that I had mental issues...an eating disorder...that I would fail despite having already losing 80lbs. IMO...that moderation eater was a fanatic. You might not agree and that is okay.

    Ha! I'm pretty sure at least one poster in this thread told me that because I said I hadn't eaten cheesecake in over a decade. Apparently I have a bad relationship with cheesecake. Which seems a pretty good reason to avoid it if you ask me. ;)
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »

    I think those types you listed are the opposite fringe of those who are citing processed food to include food that is washed, shelled nuts, grinding wheat/corn", etc., and providing these as examples of the types of processing that clean eating people are opposed to. That is just a cartoonish characterization that doesn't lend to a productive discussion.

    I disagree with respect to grinding wheat. That flour/pasta/bread = processed (and bad) seems to me to be one of the more common assertions by a certain faction of clean eater. It's one reason my strawberry rhubarb pie got called processed junk. (Also, of course, sugar.)

    I think flour is obviously processed, but that it's bad or "not recognized by your grandparents" or whatever else is often claimed has always amused me (my family had a mill in Iowa in the 1830s -- and I'm not claiming that was some early date for grinding at all).
  • Posts: 339 Member

    I like the intent of this idea but wouldn't that mean a meal you make would be clean for you but not for me, and vice versa?

    if the food was prepared by someone you know cares about quality, freshness, ingredients and preparation then yes, it would be "clean" by that definition. By that same definition no restaurant food can be "clean" because we don't know what went into it exactly.
  • Posts: 25,763 Member

    No, I would not say it is irrelevant. But the definition I know of clean isn't 100% natural.

    No, if I'd wanted to say that, I'd say it.

    Then why bother to point out that a Frito would never grow from the ground if it isn't relevant to whether or not it is "natural"?
  • Posts: 30,886 Member

    Quite true. But I don't think nature doesn't exists because man has changed the world.

    Okay, let's follow this to the end.

    You seem to be saying -- and I would agree -- that a clean eater utopia would be the ability to grow, raise, or hunt everything you eat.

    The question is if there's some actual benefit to this -- is it healthier? And, if so, is it healthier given the extra work and stress?

    For someone who lives on a farm or close to it in a moderate climate and who is skilled at and knows how to preserve foods -- maybe. I'm not convinced even of that, but won't say it's not.

    But for someone who lives in a city in a northern climate, so cannot grow so much stuff or raise livestock, who may need to pay more for farm produce (I'm lucky, so can generally get this stuff), and -- and this is my big issue -- who has to deal with the reality that much of the year very little is in season? No, I don't think that we were always better off from a health perspective.

    My grandparents lived on a farm. I don't think how they were able to eat was inherently better or healthier than I can. Part of that is availability -- they actually probably ate more from cans than I do (including cans from the store). They definitely ate a smaller variety of fish and produce in some respects than I can, and had much less access to really good restaurants and ethnic foods and the like. So did they live in a utopia vs. what I have? I am not convinced.
  • Posts: 13,454 Member

    Even more so. We didn't spend centuries trying to perfect the frito. Yet.

    Um, why would we need to? It has been perfect since its inception. It does have a mascot though, so therefore it can't be clean...

    frito_bandito1.jpg~c200

    Ay - Yi - Yi - Yi....
  • Posts: 936 Member
    I can't believe this thread is still going!
  • Posts: 14,464 Member
    j7dqim0fzwzf.jpg

    Turns out there is some commonality. Fruit, beans, and vegetables.

    As an aside, I attended a documentary on the weekend (Elder in the Making) where a prairie naturalist pointed out that humans are a "keystone species". We transform any habitat we are a part of. Everything we do, everything we eat has a human touch to it.
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    j7dqim0fzwzf.jpg

    Turns out there is some commonality. Fruit, beans, and vegetables.

    As an aside, I attended a documentary on the weekend (Elder in the Making) where a prairie naturalist pointed out that humans are a "keystone species". We transform any habitat we are a part of. Everything we do, everything we eat has a human touch to it.

    Paleo folks consider legumes not clean.
  • Posts: 13,575 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    Okay, let's follow this to the end.

    You seem to be saying -- and I would agree -- that a clean eater utopia would be the ability to grow, raise, or hunt everything you eat.

    The question is if there's some actual benefit to this -- is it healthier? And, if so, is it healthier given the extra work and stress?

    For someone who lives on a farm or close to it in a moderate climate and who is skilled at and knows how to preserve foods -- maybe. I'm not convinced even of that, but won't say it's not.

    But for someone who lives in a city in a northern climate, so cannot grow so much stuff or raise livestock, who may need to pay more for farm produce (I'm lucky, so can generally get this stuff), and -- and this is my big issue -- who has to deal with the reality that much of the year very little is in season? No, I don't think that we were always better off from a health perspective.

    My grandparents lived on a farm. I don't think how they were able to eat was inherently better or healthier than I can. Part of that is availability -- they actually probably ate more from cans than I do (including cans from the store). They definitely ate a smaller variety of fish and produce in some respects than I can, and had much less access to really good restaurants and ethnic foods and the like. So did they live in a utopia vs. what I have? I am not convinced.

    A clean eating utopia? :laugh: Well, never gave that much thought but off the top of my head I guess it would be all your food was grown without synthetic additives (fertilizer or pesticides) and as few pesticides as possible and your meats were naturally caught/raised/hunted without anything synthetic. I don't think it would necessarily have to all be grown by you.

    I think the extra work is a very good thing, because exercise. I don't know about stress because I find this type of life rewarding and reduces stress. But if you did find it stressful then spend the extra money to buy from someone else that raises food this way.

    I really don't know how to address your need to think of one way as better than the other. If I thought clean eating was the only way to be healthy I'm sure I'd eat cleaner than I do.

    *use of the word you is used generally and not intended to mean anyone in particular
  • Posts: 14,464 Member
    edited February 2016
    57lehx0d5g5b.jpg
    Paleo would be a subset of Natural, right?
  • Posts: 13,575 Member
    edited February 2016

    Then why bother to point out that a Frito would never grow from the ground if it isn't relevant to whether or not it is "natural"?

    I don't think "the process that led to the creation of broccoli and the existence of the seed is irrelevant to the question of what "natural" means". That it can be grown naturally once planted does seem relevant. But seriously, if you can't understand why broccoli is more natural than a Frito I don't think I could ever clear that up for you.
  • Posts: 8,911 Member
    Annie_01 wrote: »

    Every group of people has its fanatics...even those that believe in eating everything in moderation.
    Bry_Lander wrote: »

    I think those types you listed are the opposite fringe of those who are citing processed food to include food that is washed, shelled nuts, grinding wheat/corn", etc., and providing these as examples of the types of processing that clean eating people are opposed to. That is just a cartoonish characterization that doesn't lend to a productive discussion.

    If those types of posts were few and far between, I wouldn't mention them. But just like you can keep a checklist of certain things that 100% will be said in any thread about diet coke (which has been filled within 2 pages on the newest one already), you can expect certain things to always be said when it comes to clean eating. The strawman of "eat only twinkies or whatever and see how your health goes" one being the most prominent that even was in this very thread.
  • Posts: 13,575 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    Um, why would we need to? It has been perfect since its inception. It does have a mascot though, so therefore it can't be clean...

    frito_bandito1.jpg~c200

    Ay - Yi - Yi - Yi....

    Used to have a mascot. Apparently mascots need to be PC whether the food is clean or not.
  • Posts: 13,575 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    57lehx0d5g5b.jpg
    Paleo would be a subset of Natural, right?

    IDK They seem to have a weird obsession with coconut oil which is obviously a processed food.
  • Posts: 14,464 Member
    The extra work from home preparing food from scratch, along with the washing machine, plumbing, and the vacuum cleaner, freed the woman from the kitchen. Which might be argued also allowed for the industrial revolution, feminism, and first world problems.

    I've experimented with home-made cottage cheese, bread, noodles, and yogurt. The amount of time required to produce these basic foodstuffs make it very, very expensive compared to the factory produced versions. And I've found it virtually impossible to maintain a thriving community of natural yeasts or bacteria from batch to batch. I've developed a whole new level of respect for the stainless steel laboratories that supply us with genetically identical, thriving, and reliable bread yeasts and yogurt strains.
  • Posts: 5,377 Member

    I talked about this earlier from an insider perspective... I think you were the only person to comment on it.

    Shhhhh. I'm a programmer, but it is for an advertising company. I'm the deepest of shills.
  • Posts: 14,464 Member
    edited February 2016
    8nn2gobkmoi8.jpg
    Coconut oil is added. I put it under "Natural".
  • Posts: 5,377 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »

    It is fascinating how the same companies that spent 50+ years jamming extra salt, sugar, fat, and industrially strategic (for lack of a better term) ingredients in food to make it taste, look, feel, and smell better while giving it an incredibly long shelf life changed strategies fairly recently, removing a lot of the industrial additives they pioneered and touting that as a revolutionary product development initiative.

    Well if for the price of a few ads and puff pieces in magazines you can convince people to accept sooner expiration dates, charge them more for it, and now use less inputs, why wouldn't you if your goal is maximizing profits?
    It is kind of brilliant from that perspective.
  • Posts: 5,377 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Or people excluding protein powder or Chipotle or focusing on whether or not something has a bar code or comes in packaging.

    The barcodes aren't the problem, it is that it causes them to touch your food with lasers. You can buy any of the barcode foods at Whole Foods so long as you demand the cashier key in the bar code by hand so the laser doesn't touch your food.
    I wish that was completely a joke and not based on things people have actually told cashiers at Whole Foods. I wish I lived in that world where it is only a joke.
  • Posts: 14,464 Member
    I always thought the 100 calorie snack packaging was brilliant. Less food for more money.
This discussion has been closed.