Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What is clean eating?
Options
Replies
-
I've found something amusing about the number of ingredients versions.
According to the 1 ingredient, or any version of less ingredients is cleaner, my common lunch is half clean and half dirty:
The clean half is the textured vegetable protein - it has 1 ingredient, defatted soy flour. Never mind it is a byproduct (almost viewed as waste) of using hexane to extract soy fat for making oil, it is only 1 ingredient.
The dirty half is the frozen vegetables - there are 6 different kinds of vegetables that all come in one frozen container.0 -
A cookie that passes the 5 second rule0
-
It is different for everyone. I consider clean eating to be whole natural plant base foods.0
-
I've found something amusing about the number of ingredients versions.
According to the 1 ingredient, or any version of less ingredients is cleaner, my common lunch is half clean and half dirty:
The clean half is the textured vegetable protein - it has 1 ingredient, defatted soy flour. Never mind it is a byproduct (almost viewed as waste) of using hexane to extract soy fat for making oil, it is only 1 ingredient.
The dirty half is the frozen vegetables - there are 6 different kinds of vegetables that all come in one frozen container.
And by the "little to no processing" definition, the roles would be reversed.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I've found something amusing about the number of ingredients versions.
According to the 1 ingredient, or any version of less ingredients is cleaner, my common lunch is half clean and half dirty:
The clean half is the textured vegetable protein - it has 1 ingredient, defatted soy flour. Never mind it is a byproduct (almost viewed as waste) of using hexane to extract soy fat for making oil, it is only 1 ingredient.
The dirty half is the frozen vegetables - there are 6 different kinds of vegetables that all come in one frozen container.
And by the "little to no processing" definition, the roles would be reversed.
I must have missed this:who gave a definition of number of ingredients or 'little or no processing'?0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I've found something amusing about the number of ingredients versions.
According to the 1 ingredient, or any version of less ingredients is cleaner, my common lunch is half clean and half dirty:
The clean half is the textured vegetable protein - it has 1 ingredient, defatted soy flour. Never mind it is a byproduct (almost viewed as waste) of using hexane to extract soy fat for making oil, it is only 1 ingredient.
The dirty half is the frozen vegetables - there are 6 different kinds of vegetables that all come in one frozen container.
And by the "little to no processing" definition, the roles would be reversed.
I must have missed this:who gave a definition of number of ingredients or 'little or no processing'?
The OP0 -
bclarke1990 wrote: »I think we put far too many labels on everything. Everyone is either cutting bulking or maintaining, eating clean or flexible dieting. Too much emphasis is put on macros and body types, rather than overall health.
We're all human, and yet you rarely see people say, "I'm just living day to day trying to be healthy and happy". I think goals and labels can be great, but sometimes I think we go too far and take things like "clean eating" too literally.
I'm in school right now, and while I eat at a slight caloric deficit, I try to just eat healthy so my body is fueled. I have a sweet tooth and indulge in things probably more often than I should, but everyone makes mistakes. I try to fit in kale, spinach, seeds and micro dense foods everywhere I can and just focus on being a healthy functioning organism.
/rant
I mostly agree. But as far as the bolded part, macros (specifically fat and protein) are important for overall health and body composition. The balance of macros is, to a large degree, personal preference (I've seen everything from keto to 80/10/10 with 80 being % carbs), but it is a pretty good idea to know what works best for you and to pay attention to those macros.
(I do disagree with somatotypes, but I also think there's value in paying attention to one's approximate % body fat, even if it's just by visual assessment).
ETA: None of this applies directly to "eating clean." You can eat "clean" or not within just about any macro profile.
When I said macros, I moreso meant people look at food and say "Oh this ice cream has great macros it has 4 grams of protein and only 3g of fat!" or "wow this cereal only has 45 carb and 1g of fat those macros aren't bad", and they don't even consider the calories per micronutrient or satiation or even just how processed something can be.
At least in a lot of the youtube channels I'll follow people seem to only think in terms of macros.
0 -
bclarke1990 wrote: »bclarke1990 wrote: »I think we put far too many labels on everything. Everyone is either cutting bulking or maintaining, eating clean or flexible dieting. Too much emphasis is put on macros and body types, rather than overall health.
We're all human, and yet you rarely see people say, "I'm just living day to day trying to be healthy and happy". I think goals and labels can be great, but sometimes I think we go too far and take things like "clean eating" too literally.
I'm in school right now, and while I eat at a slight caloric deficit, I try to just eat healthy so my body is fueled. I have a sweet tooth and indulge in things probably more often than I should, but everyone makes mistakes. I try to fit in kale, spinach, seeds and micro dense foods everywhere I can and just focus on being a healthy functioning organism.
/rant
I mostly agree. But as far as the bolded part, macros (specifically fat and protein) are important for overall health and body composition. The balance of macros is, to a large degree, personal preference (I've seen everything from keto to 80/10/10 with 80 being % carbs), but it is a pretty good idea to know what works best for you and to pay attention to those macros.
(I do disagree with somatotypes, but I also think there's value in paying attention to one's approximate % body fat, even if it's just by visual assessment).
ETA: None of this applies directly to "eating clean." You can eat "clean" or not within just about any macro profile.
When I said macros, I moreso meant people look at food and say "Oh this ice cream has great macros it has 4 grams of protein and only 3g of fat!" or "wow this cereal only has 45 carb and 1g of fat those macros aren't bad", and they don't even consider the calories per micronutrient or satiation or even just how processed something can be.
At least in a lot of the youtube channels I'll follow people seem to only think in terms of macros.
I've not encountered any real people who don't take satiation into strong consideration.
As for YouTube fitness personalities, they aren't going to put too much effort into deciding whether or not something's going to make them feel full because they already know how different macro splits satiate them.
As for worrying about whether something is more processed or not, most well informed eaters don't.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I've not encountered any real people who don't take satiation into strong consideration...
Yep. I'm all about bang for the buck. I don't like being hungry and I've learned what foods offer the greatest satiety for me and are still maximally tasty/enjoyable.
As far as the macros on ice cream (or pop tarts, or oreos, or whatever else) - if I've got room for it calorie-wise and I'm hitting my protein/fat goals for the day, I don't give a rip what the macros are. I'm going to eat them, log them, and enjoy every.single.bite.Carlos_421 wrote: »As for worrying about whether something is more processed or not, most well informed eaters don't.
Never even crosses my mind. But I'm admittedly not a "clean" eater by anybody's definition (and couldn't care less). Balanced? Yes. Varied? Yes. Moderation in some things? Yes. Plenty of meat, grains and veggies? Yes. Indulgences/treats, as long as they fit my calories/macros? Absolutely.0 -
6502programmer wrote: »clean eating: washing my vegetables before cooking them
This was my definition as well.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I've found something amusing about the number of ingredients versions.
According to the 1 ingredient, or any version of less ingredients is cleaner, my common lunch is half clean and half dirty:
The clean half is the textured vegetable protein - it has 1 ingredient, defatted soy flour. Never mind it is a byproduct (almost viewed as waste) of using hexane to extract soy fat for making oil, it is only 1 ingredient.
The dirty half is the frozen vegetables - there are 6 different kinds of vegetables that all come in one frozen container.
And by the "little to no processing" definition, the roles would be reversed.
I must have missed this:who gave a definition of number of ingredients or 'little or no processing'?
The OP
So nobody actually said they follow or believe those definitions.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I've found something amusing about the number of ingredients versions.
According to the 1 ingredient, or any version of less ingredients is cleaner, my common lunch is half clean and half dirty:
The clean half is the textured vegetable protein - it has 1 ingredient, defatted soy flour. Never mind it is a byproduct (almost viewed as waste) of using hexane to extract soy fat for making oil, it is only 1 ingredient.
The dirty half is the frozen vegetables - there are 6 different kinds of vegetables that all come in one frozen container.
And by the "little to no processing" definition, the roles would be reversed.
I must have missed this:who gave a definition of number of ingredients or 'little or no processing'?
The OP
So nobody actually said they follow or believe those definitions.
I think the OP has compiled those definitions from actual threads so yes, they have been mentioned by people that follow that philosophy.
0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I've found something amusing about the number of ingredients versions.
According to the 1 ingredient, or any version of less ingredients is cleaner, my common lunch is half clean and half dirty:
The clean half is the textured vegetable protein - it has 1 ingredient, defatted soy flour. Never mind it is a byproduct (almost viewed as waste) of using hexane to extract soy fat for making oil, it is only 1 ingredient.
The dirty half is the frozen vegetables - there are 6 different kinds of vegetables that all come in one frozen container.
And by the "little to no processing" definition, the roles would be reversed.
I must have missed this:who gave a definition of number of ingredients or 'little or no processing'?
The OP
So nobody actually said they follow or believe those definitions.
Incorrect. Every definition given in that list has been given by someone in these forums. Dianne is very strict with the list. She does not add to it unless someone expressly says that they define clean eating as (insert definition).0 -
Minimally processed is used in the Brazilian nutritional guidelines and I have certainly seen it used here on MFP for clean eating.
http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Brazilian-Dietary-Guidelines-2014.pdf0 -
Minimally processed is used in the Brazilian nutritional guidelines and I have certainly seen it used here on MFP for clean eating.
http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Brazilian-Dietary-Guidelines-2014.pdf
Wait, so now anything that has a Brazilian ingredients or less is clean?0 -
Minimally processed is used in the Brazilian nutritional guidelines and I have certainly seen it used here on MFP for clean eating.
http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Brazilian-Dietary-Guidelines-2014.pdf
Wait, so now anything that has a Brazilian ingredients or less is clean?
0 -
bclarke1990 wrote: »bclarke1990 wrote: »I think we put far too many labels on everything. Everyone is either cutting bulking or maintaining, eating clean or flexible dieting. Too much emphasis is put on macros and body types, rather than overall health.
We're all human, and yet you rarely see people say, "I'm just living day to day trying to be healthy and happy". I think goals and labels can be great, but sometimes I think we go too far and take things like "clean eating" too literally.
I'm in school right now, and while I eat at a slight caloric deficit, I try to just eat healthy so my body is fueled. I have a sweet tooth and indulge in things probably more often than I should, but everyone makes mistakes. I try to fit in kale, spinach, seeds and micro dense foods everywhere I can and just focus on being a healthy functioning organism.
/rant
I mostly agree. But as far as the bolded part, macros (specifically fat and protein) are important for overall health and body composition. The balance of macros is, to a large degree, personal preference (I've seen everything from keto to 80/10/10 with 80 being % carbs), but it is a pretty good idea to know what works best for you and to pay attention to those macros.
(I do disagree with somatotypes, but I also think there's value in paying attention to one's approximate % body fat, even if it's just by visual assessment).
ETA: None of this applies directly to "eating clean." You can eat "clean" or not within just about any macro profile.
When I said macros, I moreso meant people look at food and say "Oh this ice cream has great macros it has 4 grams of protein and only 3g of fat!" or "wow this cereal only has 45 carb and 1g of fat those macros aren't bad", and they don't even consider the calories per micronutrient or satiation or even just how processed something can be.
At least in a lot of the youtube channels I'll follow people seem to only think in terms of macros.
I tend to think more focus is placed on macros than is necessary too, although some people have goals where that's helpful and sometimes it's an easy way to structure your meals when starting out. Personally, I do aim for a certain amount of protein and have experimented some with increasing carbs vs fat, but I find that food choices make more difference for me than getting a certain percentage of fat or carbs.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I've found something amusing about the number of ingredients versions.
According to the 1 ingredient, or any version of less ingredients is cleaner, my common lunch is half clean and half dirty:
The clean half is the textured vegetable protein - it has 1 ingredient, defatted soy flour. Never mind it is a byproduct (almost viewed as waste) of using hexane to extract soy fat for making oil, it is only 1 ingredient.
The dirty half is the frozen vegetables - there are 6 different kinds of vegetables that all come in one frozen container.
And by the "little to no processing" definition, the roles would be reversed.
I must have missed this:who gave a definition of number of ingredients or 'little or no processing'?
The OP
So nobody actually said they follow or believe those definitions.
I think the OP has compiled those definitions from actual threads so yes, they have been mentioned by people that follow that philosophy.
This. They are definitions that people on MFP who describe themselves as "clean eaters" have given.0 -
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.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.
There's a particular poster I was thinking of who likes to go on about eating something like 1200 calories from oil and other things added to coffee daily. My only objection to a more reasonable amount would be the taste.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions