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
-
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
You're the one claiming there is a distinction, that one is less desirable than the other. I'm not sure why that is and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
You're speaking out against the "tampering mentality." But that mentality has already shaped the pickle you have said is more desirable.
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
One of them is far more intrusive to the course of nature than the other. And it's not adding a few drops of food coloring.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.
This sounds a lot like "I've made a claim that I've assumed to be true (food having a certain color by breeding is inherently better than color added by chemistry) that I can't be bothered to back up, so I'm going to invert the burden of proof".
For a person that seems to insist their food choice is based on some kind of rational process over preference, I see a lack of rational, empirical evidence for it.
I’m working on gathering the empirical evidence of why I like naturally colored food over artificially colored food. At the same time I’m also gathering empirical evidence on why I like real blue eyes over blue-colored contact lenses, real boobs over stuffed bras, and the appearance of Michael Jackson in 1978 over Michael Jackson in 1998. Stay tuned.
Yeah, about that "natural color" thing...
1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
IMO no because the definition of food as clean or unclean has more to do with the individual eater's hangups then the nature of the food itself.Will debating the definition of clean eating here (where we should have debate), lead to clearer discussions in other parts of the forum?
I also think some people really just like debating disagreeing...
FIFY
Wouldn't it be weird for both sides to present the same argument in a debate?
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
You're the one claiming there is a distinction, that one is less desirable than the other. I'm not sure why that is and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
You're speaking out against the "tampering mentality." But that mentality has already shaped the pickle you have said is more desirable.
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
One of them is far more intrusive to the course of nature than the other. And it's not adding a few drops of food coloring.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.
This sounds a lot like "I've made a claim that I've assumed to be true (food having a certain color by breeding is inherently better than color added by chemistry) that I can't be bothered to back up, so I'm going to invert the burden of proof".
For a person that seems to insist their food choice is based on some kind of rational process over preference, I see a lack of rational, empirical evidence for it.
I’m working on gathering the empirical evidence of why I like naturally colored food over artificially colored food. At the same time I’m also gathering empirical evidence on why I like real blue eyes over blue-colored contact lenses, real boobs over stuffed bras, and the appearance of Michael Jackson in 1978 over Michael Jackson in 1998. Stay tuned.
Yeah, about that "natural color" thing...
Carrots come in a variety of colors.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
It is just a preference. Do you want mom's homemade bread with 6-7 ingredients or Subway's with 30+ ingredients? You can go down the list of ingredients that Subway adds and there is a purpose for each one (prolonging the shelf life, firmness, color, texture, etc.), but that doesn't inspire me to choose their bread over the homemade version. (And for the sensitive people out there, I'm not saying you are a bad person for eating at Subway, I have had their bread on countless occasions, so please don't be hurt by my criticism...)
Just to be clear, it's not about being a bad person. It's about priorities and not beating yourself up over dumb things. You can get bread of all sorts from the supermarket (I never buy bread from the supermarket, but just because I don't eat bread at home much and am picky about it) or from restaurants (I'm fond of a sandwich place that is pretty embarrassing in their focus on the the trendy this and that, and I bet their bread doesn't have lots of ingredients, although number of ingredients isn't a focus of mine). So if there are ingredients you'd prefer to avoid or quality differences, I totally get that, but why tell yourself that supermarket bread or bakery bread or whatever is "less clean" or "not clean" (and I still don't get how "less clean" is distinct from dirty). I just don't get that. I am all for eating in an aspirational way -- I have ideas about how I'd like to eat that I don't always live up to -- but I don't get how it helps to tell myself that my meals are clean or not clean or that I eat semi clean or whatever. I try to eat well, to prioritize nutrient dense food and quality and to also enjoy what I eat (which means trying to cook it in a way that makes it taste good).
I don't understand why saying "this meal isn't as clean as I'd like" is much different than "this meal falls short of how I'd like to eat". Sounds like to-may-toes vs. to-mah-toes to me.
Except in the first case the meal could be both not clean and how I'd like eat.
It all comes back to the implication of "clean," and I understand that you cannot see why it bothers some of us when used in the food context.
And again, because in the current commonplace usage, including on MFP, it's not about a continuum, but being either "clean" or not. One can fall short of one's goals for one's diet on a particular day and not conclude "I'm not a healthful eater." If one eats "unclean" foods, presumably one would not be a "clean eater." (Or else, I ask once again, how is being a "clean eater" different from the rest of us who merely try to eat healthful, nutrient-dense meals for the most part such that it is defended as a special, different way of eating that requires special groups and recipes.)
Using my definition the difference would be vocabulary. I do find it amusing that you suggest there is a commonplace usage for the term though. I thought the fact that there is not was the whole point of this thread.
I think the definitions all revolve around "avoiding processed food." People just have weird ideas about what processed means.
Well that's certainly true. I've heard picking vegetables, peeling an apple, cooking, and other silliness listed as examples.
If you're looking at it from a "whole foods" perspective it makes sense why peeling an apple could be considered processing that makes a food less desirable. Removing the peel of the apple removes some of the fiber, so you're actually changing the food. My mom was very into whole foods and when I was growing up, I was taught never to peel foods unless the peel was actually inedible. We never peeled apples or carrots or potatoes.
I have no beef with peeling fruits and vegetables, but I can understand the rationale behind that argument. If nature has packaged a food with certain amounts of fiber and other nutrients and you take some of them away, you no longer have a "whole food" (setting aside the fact that many fruits bear the strong impression of human design in addition to how "nature" created them). I don't think I would call the argument "silly." It's not one I personally use when making food choices, but there is an internal logic there.
I can see how it would make it less whole or less nutritious, but not less natural. The food consumed is unchanged. How would it differ from peeling a banana or orange? Or removing skin from an animal or shell from a nut?
Well, it's possible I've gotten lost in the twists and turns of the conversation, but multiple people in this thread have attempted to define "clean eating" as "eating whole foods."
So my point was that if you are defining "clean eating" as "eating whole foods," then peeling is a potentially relevant form of processing. There is a difference, nutritionally, between eating an apple with the peel and eating the apple without the peel.
I will sometimes see people around the forums say we're "meant" to eat foods in a certain way (as in, don't drink juice because we're "meant" to have the fiber along with the sugar in fruit). That's the logic behind eating the (edible) peels of fruit -- that nature somehow aligned to produce foods that are ideal for the nutritional needs of one species (us) and that we should alter those foods as little as possible.
This kind of thinking seems to be underpinning some of the "eat whole foods" or "processing is undesirable" conversations. So while I disagree, I don't think I would call it "silliness." While I don't agree that we should avoid eating only the parts of the food that we find the most tasty, I don't think it's sillier than some of the other definitions we've seen proposed in this thread (and other threads on "clean eating").
And when you say it doesn't make the food less "natural," I think we are hitting on how "natural" isn't a very useful designation for food. What makes an "apple" natural? That we eat it as it grows (that is, with the peel)? That we eat it in a form that isn't influenced by human choices (that is, wild)? That we eat it only in season? That we eat it only when we have done to work to obtain it ourselves?
Which of these standards do we adopt for "natural"? Why choose one over another?
All good points. I suppose whole would mean eating all edible portions of the food.(?) While I do know people that eat orange peels and peanut shells, let's just put those freaks aside for now. Whole foods still becomes as problematic. Easily as much or more so than 'natural', which I find easier.
Take for example a pumpkin. If you eat the flesh but not the seeds is it not a whole food because the seeds are both edible and nutritious? If you eat broccoli stalks but not the leaves, is that not a whole food? Same for beets or carrots or cauliflower or other vegetables with nutritious edible leaves that are often not consumed.
Is the broccoli not natural because I planted it? Honestly except for sh*ts and giggles on MFP I don't delve into minutiae like that. It seems unnecessary except for wanting to trip someone up.
According to some definitions of "whole food," yeah -- eating just pumpkin flesh or broccoli florets would be making the food less "whole."
You'll often see arguments that we're "supposed" to eat the whole grain or the fat in dairy. I'm not sure why fruits and vegetables would be exempted from this theory.
I would argue that it isn't just your planting it that makes "natural" a pretty meaningless term for the broccoli. There's the whole fact that broccoli wouldn't even exist without human intervention. It's a product of human intervention and decisions just like a Frito. Yeah, they have different nutritional values. But broccoli, like a Frito, doesn't exist in the wild and our consumption of it is pretty far outside any natural order.
I don't think interrogation of the category of "natural" is minutiae. I think it's worth discussing whether it is even a meaningful term.
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"?
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"?
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.
Are you saying that it is inexplicable, that it's something that you have to just feel to be true? Broccoli being more natural is a faith sort of thing?
No, I was suggesting it is common sense.
But "common sense" doesn't mean correct. Lots of things that seem like common sense turn out to be wrong.
Even if broccoli is, on the basis of common sense, more natural than ground corn, we're still left with the issue of why we're valorizing the natural. Dying of typhoid is more natural than flying across the Atlantic ocean on a jet plane. But I know which I would choose.
So let's say I accept the "common sense" declaration that broccoli is more natural than a Frito. What significance does "naturalness" have for food?
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
And again, why is smoked salmon or a tortilla made with ground corn (let's say I buy the corn ground from the green market, and it's made from local corn) less "natural" than a banana in Chicago or "fresh" tomatoes in Chicago in February? Or any corn, given the nature of corn today? These lines about what is and is not natural don't seem clear or obvious. To a certain extent, it's like we pick a period of time and decide that what was available then (1850, say) is "natural," and interventions since are not.
I'm not sure I totally understand the thought behind these questions but I'll try to answer. I think local has little to do with clean, but is salmon more local to Chicago than bananas? Does the smoked salmon contain additives? I don't think I've ever seen a tortilla made with nothing other than corn so I'm not sure why all the focus on that one single ingredient.
When you start talking about "natural" I don't see how local wouldn't be part of it. It requires industrial involvement to trek foods around to the extent we do, and it's not something that would exist absent that. Sure, the spice trade, but having tropical fruits in non tropical places, fresh (or "fresh") produce in the winter, so on, is clearly not "natural" (they could not naturally grow here), but is the result of human interference in nature. Just as is our drinking milk or, sure, the fact we can mill flour and make bread, buy bread at the store, and buy a turkey sandwich.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
You're the one claiming there is a distinction, that one is less desirable than the other. I'm not sure why that is and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
You're speaking out against the "tampering mentality." But that mentality has already shaped the pickle you have said is more desirable.
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
One of them is far more intrusive to the course of nature than the other. And it's not adding a few drops of food coloring.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.
This sounds a lot like "I've made a claim that I've assumed to be true (food having a certain color by breeding is inherently better than color added by chemistry) that I can't be bothered to back up, so I'm going to invert the burden of proof".
For a person that seems to insist their food choice is based on some kind of rational process over preference, I see a lack of rational, empirical evidence for it.
I’m working on gathering the empirical evidence of why I like naturally colored food over artificially colored food. At the same time I’m also gathering empirical evidence on why I like real blue eyes over blue-colored contact lenses, real boobs over stuffed bras, and the appearance of Michael Jackson in 1978 over Michael Jackson in 1998. Stay tuned.
Yeah, about that "natural color" thing...
Carrots come in a variety of colors.
And all of them are as pretty and vibrant as they are because we bred them to be that way, not because of nature.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't go out of my way not to see eye to eye, but as I noted previously it's pretty clear that we do not see eye to eye on this topic and likely never will. I will start off by saying I am 100% in favor of reducing stress whenever possible.
BUT, if someone were interested in living in a clean eating utopia then I don't see why they wouldn't take satisfaction in raising/hunting their own natural foods. Satisfaction leads to reduced stress in my experience.
Because -- AGAIN -- a lot of people think that clean eating is better and somehow more healthy or nutritious and that the reason they are fat is because of "chemicals" or that they eat "processed" foods. Or maybe, like me, they just get drawn to extreme thinking in such matters and so start telling themselves that it's really not good enough to buy some pickles, they must make their own (and if it's not cucumber season they must wait until it is). It's not good enough to buy some canned tomatoes for pasta sauce, it's not good enough to buy dried pasta or canned or even dried beans, so on. Somehow that avoiding these things is more virtuous than not.
I think if you are a crafty sort that enjoys gardening (and has the space) and cooking and so on that these can all be fun things. Some of them I find fun and others I probably would under the right circumstances. But it seems obvious that many people attracted to the term "clean eating" or who buy into the hype wouldn't find these things fun.
Also, one reason I find them fun is that I can admit to myself they are something I do as a hobby, for fun. Not something essential for health or virtue. Just like buying soap isn't inherently worse or less "natural" or virtuous than making it.
It's also true that in the city, where I live, a lot of the options for buying farm-raised, local, organic, free range, etc. stuff (or crafty soaps, for that matter) are both more expensive and really obviously patronized by a certain subculture that is more educated and privileged than the average (and shares various other qualities). I am generally in this subculture, and happily partake of a lot of it (while maintaining a sense of humor about it) -- and there are some cheaper options, although they also are more time-consuming -- but think it's worth being aware that in some ways it's just something else for overly-privileged people to get self-righteous and think they are better because of or blame others for not caring enough to do things that probably don't matter really. To start seeing how one eats as "cleaner" than how others eat seems to me a rather nasty way to think and a step along this direction.
And yes, rather than saying "I don't agree, but see why this might be a concern, however, what about blah, blah" I firmly expect you to say "well, that's just not common sense and I don't see that at all in my world so it must not exist and isn't worth thinking about at all."
Okay, so I'm sensing that you don't want to live in a clean eating utopia. But you didn't ask me about you or whether someone like you should want to live in a clean eating utopia, you asked me about a clean eating utopia.
Any obligation you feel to live there comes from you. I never suggested it.
I find it mind-boggling that you continue to pretend that there's no value judgment or moral judgment in the choice of the term "clean"-- that it is not being asserted that cleaner is of course better.
And this despite consistent examples at MFP of people insisting not only that clean=healthier, but that it is needed for weight loss and health.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
It is just a preference. Do you want mom's homemade bread with 6-7 ingredients or Subway's with 30+ ingredients? You can go down the list of ingredients that Subway adds and there is a purpose for each one (prolonging the shelf life, firmness, color, texture, etc.), but that doesn't inspire me to choose their bread over the homemade version. (And for the sensitive people out there, I'm not saying you are a bad person for eating at Subway, I have had their bread on countless occasions, so please don't be hurt by my criticism...)
Just to be clear, it's not about being a bad person. It's about priorities and not beating yourself up over dumb things. You can get bread of all sorts from the supermarket (I never buy bread from the supermarket, but just because I don't eat bread at home much and am picky about it) or from restaurants (I'm fond of a sandwich place that is pretty embarrassing in their focus on the the trendy this and that, and I bet their bread doesn't have lots of ingredients, although number of ingredients isn't a focus of mine). So if there are ingredients you'd prefer to avoid or quality differences, I totally get that, but why tell yourself that supermarket bread or bakery bread or whatever is "less clean" or "not clean" (and I still don't get how "less clean" is distinct from dirty). I just don't get that. I am all for eating in an aspirational way -- I have ideas about how I'd like to eat that I don't always live up to -- but I don't get how it helps to tell myself that my meals are clean or not clean or that I eat semi clean or whatever. I try to eat well, to prioritize nutrient dense food and quality and to also enjoy what I eat (which means trying to cook it in a way that makes it taste good).
I don't understand why saying "this meal isn't as clean as I'd like" is much different than "this meal falls short of how I'd like to eat". Sounds like to-may-toes vs. to-mah-toes to me.
Except in the first case the meal could be both not clean and how I'd like eat.
It all comes back to the implication of "clean," and I understand that you cannot see why it bothers some of us when used in the food context.
And again, because in the current commonplace usage, including on MFP, it's not about a continuum, but being either "clean" or not. One can fall short of one's goals for one's diet on a particular day and not conclude "I'm not a healthful eater." If one eats "unclean" foods, presumably one would not be a "clean eater." (Or else, I ask once again, how is being a "clean eater" different from the rest of us who merely try to eat healthful, nutrient-dense meals for the most part such that it is defended as a special, different way of eating that requires special groups and recipes.)
Using my definition the difference would be vocabulary. I do find it amusing that you suggest there is a commonplace usage for the term though. I thought the fact that there is not was the whole point of this thread.
I think the definitions all revolve around "avoiding processed food." People just have weird ideas about what processed means.
Well that's certainly true. I've heard picking vegetables, peeling an apple, cooking, and other silliness listed as examples.
If you're looking at it from a "whole foods" perspective it makes sense why peeling an apple could be considered processing that makes a food less desirable. Removing the peel of the apple removes some of the fiber, so you're actually changing the food. My mom was very into whole foods and when I was growing up, I was taught never to peel foods unless the peel was actually inedible. We never peeled apples or carrots or potatoes.
I have no beef with peeling fruits and vegetables, but I can understand the rationale behind that argument. If nature has packaged a food with certain amounts of fiber and other nutrients and you take some of them away, you no longer have a "whole food" (setting aside the fact that many fruits bear the strong impression of human design in addition to how "nature" created them). I don't think I would call the argument "silly." It's not one I personally use when making food choices, but there is an internal logic there.
I can see how it would make it less whole or less nutritious, but not less natural. The food consumed is unchanged. How would it differ from peeling a banana or orange? Or removing skin from an animal or shell from a nut?
Well, it's possible I've gotten lost in the twists and turns of the conversation, but multiple people in this thread have attempted to define "clean eating" as "eating whole foods."
So my point was that if you are defining "clean eating" as "eating whole foods," then peeling is a potentially relevant form of processing. There is a difference, nutritionally, between eating an apple with the peel and eating the apple without the peel.
I will sometimes see people around the forums say we're "meant" to eat foods in a certain way (as in, don't drink juice because we're "meant" to have the fiber along with the sugar in fruit). That's the logic behind eating the (edible) peels of fruit -- that nature somehow aligned to produce foods that are ideal for the nutritional needs of one species (us) and that we should alter those foods as little as possible.
This kind of thinking seems to be underpinning some of the "eat whole foods" or "processing is undesirable" conversations. So while I disagree, I don't think I would call it "silliness." While I don't agree that we should avoid eating only the parts of the food that we find the most tasty, I don't think it's sillier than some of the other definitions we've seen proposed in this thread (and other threads on "clean eating").
And when you say it doesn't make the food less "natural," I think we are hitting on how "natural" isn't a very useful designation for food. What makes an "apple" natural? That we eat it as it grows (that is, with the peel)? That we eat it in a form that isn't influenced by human choices (that is, wild)? That we eat it only in season? That we eat it only when we have done to work to obtain it ourselves?
Which of these standards do we adopt for "natural"? Why choose one over another?
All good points. I suppose whole would mean eating all edible portions of the food.(?) While I do know people that eat orange peels and peanut shells, let's just put those freaks aside for now. Whole foods still becomes as problematic. Easily as much or more so than 'natural', which I find easier.
Take for example a pumpkin. If you eat the flesh but not the seeds is it not a whole food because the seeds are both edible and nutritious? If you eat broccoli stalks but not the leaves, is that not a whole food? Same for beets or carrots or cauliflower or other vegetables with nutritious edible leaves that are often not consumed.
Is the broccoli not natural because I planted it? Honestly except for sh*ts and giggles on MFP I don't delve into minutiae like that. It seems unnecessary except for wanting to trip someone up.
According to some definitions of "whole food," yeah -- eating just pumpkin flesh or broccoli florets would be making the food less "whole."
You'll often see arguments that we're "supposed" to eat the whole grain or the fat in dairy. I'm not sure why fruits and vegetables would be exempted from this theory.
I would argue that it isn't just your planting it that makes "natural" a pretty meaningless term for the broccoli. There's the whole fact that broccoli wouldn't even exist without human intervention. It's a product of human intervention and decisions just like a Frito. Yeah, they have different nutritional values. But broccoli, like a Frito, doesn't exist in the wild and our consumption of it is pretty far outside any natural order.
I don't think interrogation of the category of "natural" is minutiae. I think it's worth discussing whether it is even a meaningful term.
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"?
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"?
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.
Are you saying that it is inexplicable, that it's something that you have to just feel to be true? Broccoli being more natural is a faith sort of thing?
No, I was suggesting it is common sense.
But "common sense" doesn't mean correct. Lots of things that seem like common sense turn out to be wrong.
Even if broccoli is, on the basis of common sense, more natural than ground corn, we're still left with the issue of why we're valorizing the natural. Dying of typhoid is more natural than flying across the Atlantic ocean on a jet plane. But I know which I would choose.
So let's say I accept the "common sense" declaration that broccoli is more natural than a Frito. What significance does "naturalness" have for food?
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
And again, why is smoked salmon or a tortilla made with ground corn (let's say I buy the corn ground from the green market, and it's made from local corn) less "natural" than a banana in Chicago or "fresh" tomatoes in Chicago in February? Or any corn, given the nature of corn today? These lines about what is and is not natural don't seem clear or obvious. To a certain extent, it's like we pick a period of time and decide that what was available then (1850, say) is "natural," and interventions since are not.
I'm not sure I totally understand the thought behind these questions but I'll try to answer. I think local has little to do with clean, but is salmon more local to Chicago than bananas? Does the smoked salmon contain additives? I don't think I've ever seen a tortilla made with nothing other than corn so I'm not sure why all the focus on that one single ingredient.
When you start talking about "natural" I don't see how local wouldn't be part of it. It requires industrial involvement to trek foods around to the extent we do, and it's not something that would exist absent that. Sure, the spice trade, but having tropical fruits in non tropical places, fresh (or "fresh") produce in the winter, so on, is clearly not "natural" (they could not naturally grow here), but is the result of human interference in nature. Just as is our drinking milk or, sure, the fact we can mill flour and make bread, buy bread at the store, and buy a turkey sandwich.
I don't see transporting as any more unnatural than planting. Some may disagree and I'd be happy to hear their reasoning but I don't see the logic right now.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
It is just a preference. Do you want mom's homemade bread with 6-7 ingredients or Subway's with 30+ ingredients? You can go down the list of ingredients that Subway adds and there is a purpose for each one (prolonging the shelf life, firmness, color, texture, etc.), but that doesn't inspire me to choose their bread over the homemade version. (And for the sensitive people out there, I'm not saying you are a bad person for eating at Subway, I have had their bread on countless occasions, so please don't be hurt by my criticism...)
Just to be clear, it's not about being a bad person. It's about priorities and not beating yourself up over dumb things. You can get bread of all sorts from the supermarket (I never buy bread from the supermarket, but just because I don't eat bread at home much and am picky about it) or from restaurants (I'm fond of a sandwich place that is pretty embarrassing in their focus on the the trendy this and that, and I bet their bread doesn't have lots of ingredients, although number of ingredients isn't a focus of mine). So if there are ingredients you'd prefer to avoid or quality differences, I totally get that, but why tell yourself that supermarket bread or bakery bread or whatever is "less clean" or "not clean" (and I still don't get how "less clean" is distinct from dirty). I just don't get that. I am all for eating in an aspirational way -- I have ideas about how I'd like to eat that I don't always live up to -- but I don't get how it helps to tell myself that my meals are clean or not clean or that I eat semi clean or whatever. I try to eat well, to prioritize nutrient dense food and quality and to also enjoy what I eat (which means trying to cook it in a way that makes it taste good).
I don't understand why saying "this meal isn't as clean as I'd like" is much different than "this meal falls short of how I'd like to eat". Sounds like to-may-toes vs. to-mah-toes to me.
Except in the first case the meal could be both not clean and how I'd like eat.
It all comes back to the implication of "clean," and I understand that you cannot see why it bothers some of us when used in the food context.
And again, because in the current commonplace usage, including on MFP, it's not about a continuum, but being either "clean" or not. One can fall short of one's goals for one's diet on a particular day and not conclude "I'm not a healthful eater." If one eats "unclean" foods, presumably one would not be a "clean eater." (Or else, I ask once again, how is being a "clean eater" different from the rest of us who merely try to eat healthful, nutrient-dense meals for the most part such that it is defended as a special, different way of eating that requires special groups and recipes.)
Using my definition the difference would be vocabulary. I do find it amusing that you suggest there is a commonplace usage for the term though. I thought the fact that there is not was the whole point of this thread.
I think the definitions all revolve around "avoiding processed food." People just have weird ideas about what processed means.
Well that's certainly true. I've heard picking vegetables, peeling an apple, cooking, and other silliness listed as examples.
If you're looking at it from a "whole foods" perspective it makes sense why peeling an apple could be considered processing that makes a food less desirable. Removing the peel of the apple removes some of the fiber, so you're actually changing the food. My mom was very into whole foods and when I was growing up, I was taught never to peel foods unless the peel was actually inedible. We never peeled apples or carrots or potatoes.
I have no beef with peeling fruits and vegetables, but I can understand the rationale behind that argument. If nature has packaged a food with certain amounts of fiber and other nutrients and you take some of them away, you no longer have a "whole food" (setting aside the fact that many fruits bear the strong impression of human design in addition to how "nature" created them). I don't think I would call the argument "silly." It's not one I personally use when making food choices, but there is an internal logic there.
I can see how it would make it less whole or less nutritious, but not less natural. The food consumed is unchanged. How would it differ from peeling a banana or orange? Or removing skin from an animal or shell from a nut?
Well, it's possible I've gotten lost in the twists and turns of the conversation, but multiple people in this thread have attempted to define "clean eating" as "eating whole foods."
So my point was that if you are defining "clean eating" as "eating whole foods," then peeling is a potentially relevant form of processing. There is a difference, nutritionally, between eating an apple with the peel and eating the apple without the peel.
I will sometimes see people around the forums say we're "meant" to eat foods in a certain way (as in, don't drink juice because we're "meant" to have the fiber along with the sugar in fruit). That's the logic behind eating the (edible) peels of fruit -- that nature somehow aligned to produce foods that are ideal for the nutritional needs of one species (us) and that we should alter those foods as little as possible.
This kind of thinking seems to be underpinning some of the "eat whole foods" or "processing is undesirable" conversations. So while I disagree, I don't think I would call it "silliness." While I don't agree that we should avoid eating only the parts of the food that we find the most tasty, I don't think it's sillier than some of the other definitions we've seen proposed in this thread (and other threads on "clean eating").
And when you say it doesn't make the food less "natural," I think we are hitting on how "natural" isn't a very useful designation for food. What makes an "apple" natural? That we eat it as it grows (that is, with the peel)? That we eat it in a form that isn't influenced by human choices (that is, wild)? That we eat it only in season? That we eat it only when we have done to work to obtain it ourselves?
Which of these standards do we adopt for "natural"? Why choose one over another?
All good points. I suppose whole would mean eating all edible portions of the food.(?) While I do know people that eat orange peels and peanut shells, let's just put those freaks aside for now. Whole foods still becomes as problematic. Easily as much or more so than 'natural', which I find easier.
Take for example a pumpkin. If you eat the flesh but not the seeds is it not a whole food because the seeds are both edible and nutritious? If you eat broccoli stalks but not the leaves, is that not a whole food? Same for beets or carrots or cauliflower or other vegetables with nutritious edible leaves that are often not consumed.
Is the broccoli not natural because I planted it? Honestly except for sh*ts and giggles on MFP I don't delve into minutiae like that. It seems unnecessary except for wanting to trip someone up.
According to some definitions of "whole food," yeah -- eating just pumpkin flesh or broccoli florets would be making the food less "whole."
You'll often see arguments that we're "supposed" to eat the whole grain or the fat in dairy. I'm not sure why fruits and vegetables would be exempted from this theory.
I would argue that it isn't just your planting it that makes "natural" a pretty meaningless term for the broccoli. There's the whole fact that broccoli wouldn't even exist without human intervention. It's a product of human intervention and decisions just like a Frito. Yeah, they have different nutritional values. But broccoli, like a Frito, doesn't exist in the wild and our consumption of it is pretty far outside any natural order.
I don't think interrogation of the category of "natural" is minutiae. I think it's worth discussing whether it is even a meaningful term.
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"?
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"?
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.
Are you saying that it is inexplicable, that it's something that you have to just feel to be true? Broccoli being more natural is a faith sort of thing?
No, I was suggesting it is common sense.
But "common sense" doesn't mean correct. Lots of things that seem like common sense turn out to be wrong.
Even if broccoli is, on the basis of common sense, more natural than ground corn, we're still left with the issue of why we're valorizing the natural. Dying of typhoid is more natural than flying across the Atlantic ocean on a jet plane. But I know which I would choose.
So let's say I accept the "common sense" declaration that broccoli is more natural than a Frito. What significance does "naturalness" have for food?
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
Salad is (typically) not just lettuce. Unnatural because we're putting multiple ingredients together?
As said previously in this thread, I don't think number of ingredients affects how clean a food is. I realize some others use that criteria but I can only answer for myself.
But you did say that Fritos "are not just ground corn."
So if adding two more ingredients to the ground corn makes it unnatural, I fail to see how adding shredded carrots, shredded cabbage and olive oil to lettuce would not also similarly affect the "naturalness" of salad.
It's not the number, it's the ingredients.
Which ingredients in Fritos make them not clean?0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
It is just a preference. Do you want mom's homemade bread with 6-7 ingredients or Subway's with 30+ ingredients? You can go down the list of ingredients that Subway adds and there is a purpose for each one (prolonging the shelf life, firmness, color, texture, etc.), but that doesn't inspire me to choose their bread over the homemade version. (And for the sensitive people out there, I'm not saying you are a bad person for eating at Subway, I have had their bread on countless occasions, so please don't be hurt by my criticism...)
Just to be clear, it's not about being a bad person. It's about priorities and not beating yourself up over dumb things. You can get bread of all sorts from the supermarket (I never buy bread from the supermarket, but just because I don't eat bread at home much and am picky about it) or from restaurants (I'm fond of a sandwich place that is pretty embarrassing in their focus on the the trendy this and that, and I bet their bread doesn't have lots of ingredients, although number of ingredients isn't a focus of mine). So if there are ingredients you'd prefer to avoid or quality differences, I totally get that, but why tell yourself that supermarket bread or bakery bread or whatever is "less clean" or "not clean" (and I still don't get how "less clean" is distinct from dirty). I just don't get that. I am all for eating in an aspirational way -- I have ideas about how I'd like to eat that I don't always live up to -- but I don't get how it helps to tell myself that my meals are clean or not clean or that I eat semi clean or whatever. I try to eat well, to prioritize nutrient dense food and quality and to also enjoy what I eat (which means trying to cook it in a way that makes it taste good).
I don't understand why saying "this meal isn't as clean as I'd like" is much different than "this meal falls short of how I'd like to eat". Sounds like to-may-toes vs. to-mah-toes to me.
Except in the first case the meal could be both not clean and how I'd like eat.
It all comes back to the implication of "clean," and I understand that you cannot see why it bothers some of us when used in the food context.
And again, because in the current commonplace usage, including on MFP, it's not about a continuum, but being either "clean" or not. One can fall short of one's goals for one's diet on a particular day and not conclude "I'm not a healthful eater." If one eats "unclean" foods, presumably one would not be a "clean eater." (Or else, I ask once again, how is being a "clean eater" different from the rest of us who merely try to eat healthful, nutrient-dense meals for the most part such that it is defended as a special, different way of eating that requires special groups and recipes.)
Using my definition the difference would be vocabulary. I do find it amusing that you suggest there is a commonplace usage for the term though. I thought the fact that there is not was the whole point of this thread.
I think the definitions all revolve around "avoiding processed food." People just have weird ideas about what processed means.
Well that's certainly true. I've heard picking vegetables, peeling an apple, cooking, and other silliness listed as examples.
If you're looking at it from a "whole foods" perspective it makes sense why peeling an apple could be considered processing that makes a food less desirable. Removing the peel of the apple removes some of the fiber, so you're actually changing the food. My mom was very into whole foods and when I was growing up, I was taught never to peel foods unless the peel was actually inedible. We never peeled apples or carrots or potatoes.
I have no beef with peeling fruits and vegetables, but I can understand the rationale behind that argument. If nature has packaged a food with certain amounts of fiber and other nutrients and you take some of them away, you no longer have a "whole food" (setting aside the fact that many fruits bear the strong impression of human design in addition to how "nature" created them). I don't think I would call the argument "silly." It's not one I personally use when making food choices, but there is an internal logic there.
I can see how it would make it less whole or less nutritious, but not less natural. The food consumed is unchanged. How would it differ from peeling a banana or orange? Or removing skin from an animal or shell from a nut?
Well, it's possible I've gotten lost in the twists and turns of the conversation, but multiple people in this thread have attempted to define "clean eating" as "eating whole foods."
So my point was that if you are defining "clean eating" as "eating whole foods," then peeling is a potentially relevant form of processing. There is a difference, nutritionally, between eating an apple with the peel and eating the apple without the peel.
I will sometimes see people around the forums say we're "meant" to eat foods in a certain way (as in, don't drink juice because we're "meant" to have the fiber along with the sugar in fruit). That's the logic behind eating the (edible) peels of fruit -- that nature somehow aligned to produce foods that are ideal for the nutritional needs of one species (us) and that we should alter those foods as little as possible.
This kind of thinking seems to be underpinning some of the "eat whole foods" or "processing is undesirable" conversations. So while I disagree, I don't think I would call it "silliness." While I don't agree that we should avoid eating only the parts of the food that we find the most tasty, I don't think it's sillier than some of the other definitions we've seen proposed in this thread (and other threads on "clean eating").
And when you say it doesn't make the food less "natural," I think we are hitting on how "natural" isn't a very useful designation for food. What makes an "apple" natural? That we eat it as it grows (that is, with the peel)? That we eat it in a form that isn't influenced by human choices (that is, wild)? That we eat it only in season? That we eat it only when we have done to work to obtain it ourselves?
Which of these standards do we adopt for "natural"? Why choose one over another?
All good points. I suppose whole would mean eating all edible portions of the food.(?) While I do know people that eat orange peels and peanut shells, let's just put those freaks aside for now. Whole foods still becomes as problematic. Easily as much or more so than 'natural', which I find easier.
Take for example a pumpkin. If you eat the flesh but not the seeds is it not a whole food because the seeds are both edible and nutritious? If you eat broccoli stalks but not the leaves, is that not a whole food? Same for beets or carrots or cauliflower or other vegetables with nutritious edible leaves that are often not consumed.
Is the broccoli not natural because I planted it? Honestly except for sh*ts and giggles on MFP I don't delve into minutiae like that. It seems unnecessary except for wanting to trip someone up.
According to some definitions of "whole food," yeah -- eating just pumpkin flesh or broccoli florets would be making the food less "whole."
You'll often see arguments that we're "supposed" to eat the whole grain or the fat in dairy. I'm not sure why fruits and vegetables would be exempted from this theory.
I would argue that it isn't just your planting it that makes "natural" a pretty meaningless term for the broccoli. There's the whole fact that broccoli wouldn't even exist without human intervention. It's a product of human intervention and decisions just like a Frito. Yeah, they have different nutritional values. But broccoli, like a Frito, doesn't exist in the wild and our consumption of it is pretty far outside any natural order.
I don't think interrogation of the category of "natural" is minutiae. I think it's worth discussing whether it is even a meaningful term.
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"?
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"?
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.
Are you saying that it is inexplicable, that it's something that you have to just feel to be true? Broccoli being more natural is a faith sort of thing?
No, I was suggesting it is common sense.
But "common sense" doesn't mean correct. Lots of things that seem like common sense turn out to be wrong.
Even if broccoli is, on the basis of common sense, more natural than ground corn, we're still left with the issue of why we're valorizing the natural. Dying of typhoid is more natural than flying across the Atlantic ocean on a jet plane. But I know which I would choose.
So let's say I accept the "common sense" declaration that broccoli is more natural than a Frito. What significance does "naturalness" have for food?
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
Salad is (typically) not just lettuce. Unnatural because we're putting multiple ingredients together?
As said previously in this thread, I don't think number of ingredients affects how clean a food is. I realize some others use that criteria but I can only answer for myself.
But you did say that Fritos "are not just ground corn."
So if adding two more ingredients to the ground corn makes it unnatural, I fail to see how adding shredded carrots, shredded cabbage and olive oil to lettuce would not also similarly affect the "naturalness" of salad.
It's not the number, it's the ingredients.
Which ingredients in Fritos make them not clean?
The unnatural ones, duh.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
It is just a preference. Do you want mom's homemade bread with 6-7 ingredients or Subway's with 30+ ingredients? You can go down the list of ingredients that Subway adds and there is a purpose for each one (prolonging the shelf life, firmness, color, texture, etc.), but that doesn't inspire me to choose their bread over the homemade version. (And for the sensitive people out there, I'm not saying you are a bad person for eating at Subway, I have had their bread on countless occasions, so please don't be hurt by my criticism...)
Just to be clear, it's not about being a bad person. It's about priorities and not beating yourself up over dumb things. You can get bread of all sorts from the supermarket (I never buy bread from the supermarket, but just because I don't eat bread at home much and am picky about it) or from restaurants (I'm fond of a sandwich place that is pretty embarrassing in their focus on the the trendy this and that, and I bet their bread doesn't have lots of ingredients, although number of ingredients isn't a focus of mine). So if there are ingredients you'd prefer to avoid or quality differences, I totally get that, but why tell yourself that supermarket bread or bakery bread or whatever is "less clean" or "not clean" (and I still don't get how "less clean" is distinct from dirty). I just don't get that. I am all for eating in an aspirational way -- I have ideas about how I'd like to eat that I don't always live up to -- but I don't get how it helps to tell myself that my meals are clean or not clean or that I eat semi clean or whatever. I try to eat well, to prioritize nutrient dense food and quality and to also enjoy what I eat (which means trying to cook it in a way that makes it taste good).
I don't understand why saying "this meal isn't as clean as I'd like" is much different than "this meal falls short of how I'd like to eat". Sounds like to-may-toes vs. to-mah-toes to me.
Except in the first case the meal could be both not clean and how I'd like eat.
It all comes back to the implication of "clean," and I understand that you cannot see why it bothers some of us when used in the food context.
And again, because in the current commonplace usage, including on MFP, it's not about a continuum, but being either "clean" or not. One can fall short of one's goals for one's diet on a particular day and not conclude "I'm not a healthful eater." If one eats "unclean" foods, presumably one would not be a "clean eater." (Or else, I ask once again, how is being a "clean eater" different from the rest of us who merely try to eat healthful, nutrient-dense meals for the most part such that it is defended as a special, different way of eating that requires special groups and recipes.)
Using my definition the difference would be vocabulary. I do find it amusing that you suggest there is a commonplace usage for the term though. I thought the fact that there is not was the whole point of this thread.
I think the definitions all revolve around "avoiding processed food." People just have weird ideas about what processed means.
Well that's certainly true. I've heard picking vegetables, peeling an apple, cooking, and other silliness listed as examples.
If you're looking at it from a "whole foods" perspective it makes sense why peeling an apple could be considered processing that makes a food less desirable. Removing the peel of the apple removes some of the fiber, so you're actually changing the food. My mom was very into whole foods and when I was growing up, I was taught never to peel foods unless the peel was actually inedible. We never peeled apples or carrots or potatoes.
I have no beef with peeling fruits and vegetables, but I can understand the rationale behind that argument. If nature has packaged a food with certain amounts of fiber and other nutrients and you take some of them away, you no longer have a "whole food" (setting aside the fact that many fruits bear the strong impression of human design in addition to how "nature" created them). I don't think I would call the argument "silly." It's not one I personally use when making food choices, but there is an internal logic there.
I can see how it would make it less whole or less nutritious, but not less natural. The food consumed is unchanged. How would it differ from peeling a banana or orange? Or removing skin from an animal or shell from a nut?
Well, it's possible I've gotten lost in the twists and turns of the conversation, but multiple people in this thread have attempted to define "clean eating" as "eating whole foods."
So my point was that if you are defining "clean eating" as "eating whole foods," then peeling is a potentially relevant form of processing. There is a difference, nutritionally, between eating an apple with the peel and eating the apple without the peel.
I will sometimes see people around the forums say we're "meant" to eat foods in a certain way (as in, don't drink juice because we're "meant" to have the fiber along with the sugar in fruit). That's the logic behind eating the (edible) peels of fruit -- that nature somehow aligned to produce foods that are ideal for the nutritional needs of one species (us) and that we should alter those foods as little as possible.
This kind of thinking seems to be underpinning some of the "eat whole foods" or "processing is undesirable" conversations. So while I disagree, I don't think I would call it "silliness." While I don't agree that we should avoid eating only the parts of the food that we find the most tasty, I don't think it's sillier than some of the other definitions we've seen proposed in this thread (and other threads on "clean eating").
And when you say it doesn't make the food less "natural," I think we are hitting on how "natural" isn't a very useful designation for food. What makes an "apple" natural? That we eat it as it grows (that is, with the peel)? That we eat it in a form that isn't influenced by human choices (that is, wild)? That we eat it only in season? That we eat it only when we have done to work to obtain it ourselves?
Which of these standards do we adopt for "natural"? Why choose one over another?
All good points. I suppose whole would mean eating all edible portions of the food.(?) While I do know people that eat orange peels and peanut shells, let's just put those freaks aside for now. Whole foods still becomes as problematic. Easily as much or more so than 'natural', which I find easier.
Take for example a pumpkin. If you eat the flesh but not the seeds is it not a whole food because the seeds are both edible and nutritious? If you eat broccoli stalks but not the leaves, is that not a whole food? Same for beets or carrots or cauliflower or other vegetables with nutritious edible leaves that are often not consumed.
Is the broccoli not natural because I planted it? Honestly except for sh*ts and giggles on MFP I don't delve into minutiae like that. It seems unnecessary except for wanting to trip someone up.
According to some definitions of "whole food," yeah -- eating just pumpkin flesh or broccoli florets would be making the food less "whole."
You'll often see arguments that we're "supposed" to eat the whole grain or the fat in dairy. I'm not sure why fruits and vegetables would be exempted from this theory.
I would argue that it isn't just your planting it that makes "natural" a pretty meaningless term for the broccoli. There's the whole fact that broccoli wouldn't even exist without human intervention. It's a product of human intervention and decisions just like a Frito. Yeah, they have different nutritional values. But broccoli, like a Frito, doesn't exist in the wild and our consumption of it is pretty far outside any natural order.
I don't think interrogation of the category of "natural" is minutiae. I think it's worth discussing whether it is even a meaningful term.
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"?
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"?
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.
Are you saying that it is inexplicable, that it's something that you have to just feel to be true? Broccoli being more natural is a faith sort of thing?
No, I was suggesting it is common sense.
But "common sense" doesn't mean correct. Lots of things that seem like common sense turn out to be wrong.
Even if broccoli is, on the basis of common sense, more natural than ground corn, we're still left with the issue of why we're valorizing the natural. Dying of typhoid is more natural than flying across the Atlantic ocean on a jet plane. But I know which I would choose.
So let's say I accept the "common sense" declaration that broccoli is more natural than a Frito. What significance does "naturalness" have for food?
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
And again, why is smoked salmon or a tortilla made with ground corn (let's say I buy the corn ground from the green market, and it's made from local corn) less "natural" than a banana in Chicago or "fresh" tomatoes in Chicago in February? Or any corn, given the nature of corn today? These lines about what is and is not natural don't seem clear or obvious. To a certain extent, it's like we pick a period of time and decide that what was available then (1850, say) is "natural," and interventions since are not.
I'm having trouble constructing an argument for saying something like, say, almond milk, is "clean" and a Frito isn't. They both seem to have the same level of "naturalness." In the end, it just seems to come back to "Well, I can't explain it, you just have to get it."
Clean eating seems more like a religion than a coherent way to choose food.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
It is just a preference. Do you want mom's homemade bread with 6-7 ingredients or Subway's with 30+ ingredients? You can go down the list of ingredients that Subway adds and there is a purpose for each one (prolonging the shelf life, firmness, color, texture, etc.), but that doesn't inspire me to choose their bread over the homemade version. (And for the sensitive people out there, I'm not saying you are a bad person for eating at Subway, I have had their bread on countless occasions, so please don't be hurt by my criticism...)
Just to be clear, it's not about being a bad person. It's about priorities and not beating yourself up over dumb things. You can get bread of all sorts from the supermarket (I never buy bread from the supermarket, but just because I don't eat bread at home much and am picky about it) or from restaurants (I'm fond of a sandwich place that is pretty embarrassing in their focus on the the trendy this and that, and I bet their bread doesn't have lots of ingredients, although number of ingredients isn't a focus of mine). So if there are ingredients you'd prefer to avoid or quality differences, I totally get that, but why tell yourself that supermarket bread or bakery bread or whatever is "less clean" or "not clean" (and I still don't get how "less clean" is distinct from dirty). I just don't get that. I am all for eating in an aspirational way -- I have ideas about how I'd like to eat that I don't always live up to -- but I don't get how it helps to tell myself that my meals are clean or not clean or that I eat semi clean or whatever. I try to eat well, to prioritize nutrient dense food and quality and to also enjoy what I eat (which means trying to cook it in a way that makes it taste good).
I don't understand why saying "this meal isn't as clean as I'd like" is much different than "this meal falls short of how I'd like to eat". Sounds like to-may-toes vs. to-mah-toes to me.
Except in the first case the meal could be both not clean and how I'd like eat.
It all comes back to the implication of "clean," and I understand that you cannot see why it bothers some of us when used in the food context.
And again, because in the current commonplace usage, including on MFP, it's not about a continuum, but being either "clean" or not. One can fall short of one's goals for one's diet on a particular day and not conclude "I'm not a healthful eater." If one eats "unclean" foods, presumably one would not be a "clean eater." (Or else, I ask once again, how is being a "clean eater" different from the rest of us who merely try to eat healthful, nutrient-dense meals for the most part such that it is defended as a special, different way of eating that requires special groups and recipes.)
Using my definition the difference would be vocabulary. I do find it amusing that you suggest there is a commonplace usage for the term though. I thought the fact that there is not was the whole point of this thread.
I think the definitions all revolve around "avoiding processed food." People just have weird ideas about what processed means.
Well that's certainly true. I've heard picking vegetables, peeling an apple, cooking, and other silliness listed as examples.
If you're looking at it from a "whole foods" perspective it makes sense why peeling an apple could be considered processing that makes a food less desirable. Removing the peel of the apple removes some of the fiber, so you're actually changing the food. My mom was very into whole foods and when I was growing up, I was taught never to peel foods unless the peel was actually inedible. We never peeled apples or carrots or potatoes.
I have no beef with peeling fruits and vegetables, but I can understand the rationale behind that argument. If nature has packaged a food with certain amounts of fiber and other nutrients and you take some of them away, you no longer have a "whole food" (setting aside the fact that many fruits bear the strong impression of human design in addition to how "nature" created them). I don't think I would call the argument "silly." It's not one I personally use when making food choices, but there is an internal logic there.
I can see how it would make it less whole or less nutritious, but not less natural. The food consumed is unchanged. How would it differ from peeling a banana or orange? Or removing skin from an animal or shell from a nut?
Well, it's possible I've gotten lost in the twists and turns of the conversation, but multiple people in this thread have attempted to define "clean eating" as "eating whole foods."
So my point was that if you are defining "clean eating" as "eating whole foods," then peeling is a potentially relevant form of processing. There is a difference, nutritionally, between eating an apple with the peel and eating the apple without the peel.
I will sometimes see people around the forums say we're "meant" to eat foods in a certain way (as in, don't drink juice because we're "meant" to have the fiber along with the sugar in fruit). That's the logic behind eating the (edible) peels of fruit -- that nature somehow aligned to produce foods that are ideal for the nutritional needs of one species (us) and that we should alter those foods as little as possible.
This kind of thinking seems to be underpinning some of the "eat whole foods" or "processing is undesirable" conversations. So while I disagree, I don't think I would call it "silliness." While I don't agree that we should avoid eating only the parts of the food that we find the most tasty, I don't think it's sillier than some of the other definitions we've seen proposed in this thread (and other threads on "clean eating").
And when you say it doesn't make the food less "natural," I think we are hitting on how "natural" isn't a very useful designation for food. What makes an "apple" natural? That we eat it as it grows (that is, with the peel)? That we eat it in a form that isn't influenced by human choices (that is, wild)? That we eat it only in season? That we eat it only when we have done to work to obtain it ourselves?
Which of these standards do we adopt for "natural"? Why choose one over another?
All good points. I suppose whole would mean eating all edible portions of the food.(?) While I do know people that eat orange peels and peanut shells, let's just put those freaks aside for now. Whole foods still becomes as problematic. Easily as much or more so than 'natural', which I find easier.
Take for example a pumpkin. If you eat the flesh but not the seeds is it not a whole food because the seeds are both edible and nutritious? If you eat broccoli stalks but not the leaves, is that not a whole food? Same for beets or carrots or cauliflower or other vegetables with nutritious edible leaves that are often not consumed.
Is the broccoli not natural because I planted it? Honestly except for sh*ts and giggles on MFP I don't delve into minutiae like that. It seems unnecessary except for wanting to trip someone up.
According to some definitions of "whole food," yeah -- eating just pumpkin flesh or broccoli florets would be making the food less "whole."
You'll often see arguments that we're "supposed" to eat the whole grain or the fat in dairy. I'm not sure why fruits and vegetables would be exempted from this theory.
I would argue that it isn't just your planting it that makes "natural" a pretty meaningless term for the broccoli. There's the whole fact that broccoli wouldn't even exist without human intervention. It's a product of human intervention and decisions just like a Frito. Yeah, they have different nutritional values. But broccoli, like a Frito, doesn't exist in the wild and our consumption of it is pretty far outside any natural order.
I don't think interrogation of the category of "natural" is minutiae. I think it's worth discussing whether it is even a meaningful term.
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"?
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"?
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.
Are you saying that it is inexplicable, that it's something that you have to just feel to be true? Broccoli being more natural is a faith sort of thing?
No, I was suggesting it is common sense.
But "common sense" doesn't mean correct. Lots of things that seem like common sense turn out to be wrong.
Even if broccoli is, on the basis of common sense, more natural than ground corn, we're still left with the issue of why we're valorizing the natural. Dying of typhoid is more natural than flying across the Atlantic ocean on a jet plane. But I know which I would choose.
So let's say I accept the "common sense" declaration that broccoli is more natural than a Frito. What significance does "naturalness" have for food?
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
And again, why is smoked salmon or a tortilla made with ground corn (let's say I buy the corn ground from the green market, and it's made from local corn) less "natural" than a banana in Chicago or "fresh" tomatoes in Chicago in February? Or any corn, given the nature of corn today? These lines about what is and is not natural don't seem clear or obvious. To a certain extent, it's like we pick a period of time and decide that what was available then (1850, say) is "natural," and interventions since are not.
I'm not sure I totally understand the thought behind these questions but I'll try to answer. I think local has little to do with clean, but is salmon more local to Chicago than bananas? Does the smoked salmon contain additives? I don't think I've ever seen a tortilla made with nothing other than corn so I'm not sure why all the focus on that one single ingredient.
When you start talking about "natural" I don't see how local wouldn't be part of it. It requires industrial involvement to trek foods around to the extent we do, and it's not something that would exist absent that. Sure, the spice trade, but having tropical fruits in non tropical places, fresh (or "fresh") produce in the winter, so on, is clearly not "natural" (they could not naturally grow here), but is the result of human interference in nature. Just as is our drinking milk or, sure, the fact we can mill flour and make bread, buy bread at the store, and buy a turkey sandwich.
I don't see transporting as any more unnatural than planting. Some may disagree and I'd be happy to hear their reasoning but I don't see the logic right now.
I just can't fathom how you are drawing your lines. Giant corporation growing bananas and picking them early to ripen on the truck while taking them all over (to places they would never grow) = natural. Eating foods not available where you live without industrialization = natural. Canning or freezing vegetables (if a big company) so they are available out of season = unnatural. Canning them yourself = natural. Grinding up corn or flour or selling dried pasta = unnatural. Smoking salmon or making cheese = unnatural. Going to a restaurant and having a chef cook you food = unnatural? Raising cows to have their milk = natural. Raising cattle for their meat = natural, even if they are penned up and fed foods which aren't the best for them.
Ultimately, what's the point? You seem to be also saying that you aren't claiming that "natural" or "cleaner" = better. So why make the distinctions which really don't seem all that obvious?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
It is just a preference. Do you want mom's homemade bread with 6-7 ingredients or Subway's with 30+ ingredients? You can go down the list of ingredients that Subway adds and there is a purpose for each one (prolonging the shelf life, firmness, color, texture, etc.), but that doesn't inspire me to choose their bread over the homemade version. (And for the sensitive people out there, I'm not saying you are a bad person for eating at Subway, I have had their bread on countless occasions, so please don't be hurt by my criticism...)
Just to be clear, it's not about being a bad person. It's about priorities and not beating yourself up over dumb things. You can get bread of all sorts from the supermarket (I never buy bread from the supermarket, but just because I don't eat bread at home much and am picky about it) or from restaurants (I'm fond of a sandwich place that is pretty embarrassing in their focus on the the trendy this and that, and I bet their bread doesn't have lots of ingredients, although number of ingredients isn't a focus of mine). So if there are ingredients you'd prefer to avoid or quality differences, I totally get that, but why tell yourself that supermarket bread or bakery bread or whatever is "less clean" or "not clean" (and I still don't get how "less clean" is distinct from dirty). I just don't get that. I am all for eating in an aspirational way -- I have ideas about how I'd like to eat that I don't always live up to -- but I don't get how it helps to tell myself that my meals are clean or not clean or that I eat semi clean or whatever. I try to eat well, to prioritize nutrient dense food and quality and to also enjoy what I eat (which means trying to cook it in a way that makes it taste good).
I don't understand why saying "this meal isn't as clean as I'd like" is much different than "this meal falls short of how I'd like to eat". Sounds like to-may-toes vs. to-mah-toes to me.
Except in the first case the meal could be both not clean and how I'd like eat.
It all comes back to the implication of "clean," and I understand that you cannot see why it bothers some of us when used in the food context.
And again, because in the current commonplace usage, including on MFP, it's not about a continuum, but being either "clean" or not. One can fall short of one's goals for one's diet on a particular day and not conclude "I'm not a healthful eater." If one eats "unclean" foods, presumably one would not be a "clean eater." (Or else, I ask once again, how is being a "clean eater" different from the rest of us who merely try to eat healthful, nutrient-dense meals for the most part such that it is defended as a special, different way of eating that requires special groups and recipes.)
Using my definition the difference would be vocabulary. I do find it amusing that you suggest there is a commonplace usage for the term though. I thought the fact that there is not was the whole point of this thread.
I think the definitions all revolve around "avoiding processed food." People just have weird ideas about what processed means.
Well that's certainly true. I've heard picking vegetables, peeling an apple, cooking, and other silliness listed as examples.
If you're looking at it from a "whole foods" perspective it makes sense why peeling an apple could be considered processing that makes a food less desirable. Removing the peel of the apple removes some of the fiber, so you're actually changing the food. My mom was very into whole foods and when I was growing up, I was taught never to peel foods unless the peel was actually inedible. We never peeled apples or carrots or potatoes.
I have no beef with peeling fruits and vegetables, but I can understand the rationale behind that argument. If nature has packaged a food with certain amounts of fiber and other nutrients and you take some of them away, you no longer have a "whole food" (setting aside the fact that many fruits bear the strong impression of human design in addition to how "nature" created them). I don't think I would call the argument "silly." It's not one I personally use when making food choices, but there is an internal logic there.
I can see how it would make it less whole or less nutritious, but not less natural. The food consumed is unchanged. How would it differ from peeling a banana or orange? Or removing skin from an animal or shell from a nut?
Well, it's possible I've gotten lost in the twists and turns of the conversation, but multiple people in this thread have attempted to define "clean eating" as "eating whole foods."
So my point was that if you are defining "clean eating" as "eating whole foods," then peeling is a potentially relevant form of processing. There is a difference, nutritionally, between eating an apple with the peel and eating the apple without the peel.
I will sometimes see people around the forums say we're "meant" to eat foods in a certain way (as in, don't drink juice because we're "meant" to have the fiber along with the sugar in fruit). That's the logic behind eating the (edible) peels of fruit -- that nature somehow aligned to produce foods that are ideal for the nutritional needs of one species (us) and that we should alter those foods as little as possible.
This kind of thinking seems to be underpinning some of the "eat whole foods" or "processing is undesirable" conversations. So while I disagree, I don't think I would call it "silliness." While I don't agree that we should avoid eating only the parts of the food that we find the most tasty, I don't think it's sillier than some of the other definitions we've seen proposed in this thread (and other threads on "clean eating").
And when you say it doesn't make the food less "natural," I think we are hitting on how "natural" isn't a very useful designation for food. What makes an "apple" natural? That we eat it as it grows (that is, with the peel)? That we eat it in a form that isn't influenced by human choices (that is, wild)? That we eat it only in season? That we eat it only when we have done to work to obtain it ourselves?
Which of these standards do we adopt for "natural"? Why choose one over another?
All good points. I suppose whole would mean eating all edible portions of the food.(?) While I do know people that eat orange peels and peanut shells, let's just put those freaks aside for now. Whole foods still becomes as problematic. Easily as much or more so than 'natural', which I find easier.
Take for example a pumpkin. If you eat the flesh but not the seeds is it not a whole food because the seeds are both edible and nutritious? If you eat broccoli stalks but not the leaves, is that not a whole food? Same for beets or carrots or cauliflower or other vegetables with nutritious edible leaves that are often not consumed.
Is the broccoli not natural because I planted it? Honestly except for sh*ts and giggles on MFP I don't delve into minutiae like that. It seems unnecessary except for wanting to trip someone up.
According to some definitions of "whole food," yeah -- eating just pumpkin flesh or broccoli florets would be making the food less "whole."
You'll often see arguments that we're "supposed" to eat the whole grain or the fat in dairy. I'm not sure why fruits and vegetables would be exempted from this theory.
I would argue that it isn't just your planting it that makes "natural" a pretty meaningless term for the broccoli. There's the whole fact that broccoli wouldn't even exist without human intervention. It's a product of human intervention and decisions just like a Frito. Yeah, they have different nutritional values. But broccoli, like a Frito, doesn't exist in the wild and our consumption of it is pretty far outside any natural order.
I don't think interrogation of the category of "natural" is minutiae. I think it's worth discussing whether it is even a meaningful term.
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"?
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"?
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.
Are you saying that it is inexplicable, that it's something that you have to just feel to be true? Broccoli being more natural is a faith sort of thing?
No, I was suggesting it is common sense.
But "common sense" doesn't mean correct. Lots of things that seem like common sense turn out to be wrong.
Even if broccoli is, on the basis of common sense, more natural than ground corn, we're still left with the issue of why we're valorizing the natural. Dying of typhoid is more natural than flying across the Atlantic ocean on a jet plane. But I know which I would choose.
So let's say I accept the "common sense" declaration that broccoli is more natural than a Frito. What significance does "naturalness" have for food?
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
There is also corn oil and salt. You consider these unnatural?
Neither are used in their natural state.
The salt in a Frito isn't in its "natural state"? How do you mean? By being applied to a food?
How does one use salt naturally?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
You're the one claiming there is a distinction, that one is less desirable than the other. I'm not sure why that is and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
You're speaking out against the "tampering mentality." But that mentality has already shaped the pickle you have said is more desirable.
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
One of them is far more intrusive to the course of nature than the other. And it's not adding a few drops of food coloring.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.
This sounds a lot like "I've made a claim that I've assumed to be true (food having a certain color by breeding is inherently better than color added by chemistry) that I can't be bothered to back up, so I'm going to invert the burden of proof".
For a person that seems to insist their food choice is based on some kind of rational process over preference, I see a lack of rational, empirical evidence for it.
I’m working on gathering the empirical evidence of why I like naturally colored food over artificially colored food. At the same time I’m also gathering empirical evidence on why I like real blue eyes over blue-colored contact lenses, real boobs over stuffed bras, and the appearance of Michael Jackson in 1978 over Michael Jackson in 1998. Stay tuned.
Yeah, about that "natural color" thing...
Interesting, although I'm not sure how domesticated crops are "unnatural" for the purposes of this subject, ie, splicing seeds and altering the soil nutrients that results in an orange color in a carrot versus adding an orange chemical into something to make it look more carrot-like. If we can't recognize a significant distinction, than this is just the typical "dig in your heels" type of conversation that always happens in these forums.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
You're the one claiming there is a distinction, that one is less desirable than the other. I'm not sure why that is and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
You're speaking out against the "tampering mentality." But that mentality has already shaped the pickle you have said is more desirable.
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
One of them is far more intrusive to the course of nature than the other. And it's not adding a few drops of food coloring.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.
This sounds a lot like "I've made a claim that I've assumed to be true (food having a certain color by breeding is inherently better than color added by chemistry) that I can't be bothered to back up, so I'm going to invert the burden of proof".
For a person that seems to insist their food choice is based on some kind of rational process over preference, I see a lack of rational, empirical evidence for it.
I’m working on gathering the empirical evidence of why I like naturally colored food over artificially colored food. At the same time I’m also gathering empirical evidence on why I like real blue eyes over blue-colored contact lenses, real boobs over stuffed bras, and the appearance of Michael Jackson in 1978 over Michael Jackson in 1998. Stay tuned.
Yeah, about that "natural color" thing...
Interesting, although I'm not sure how domesticated crops are "unnatural" for the purposes of this subject, ie, splicing seeds and altering the soil nutrients that results in an orange color in a carrot versus adding an orange chemical into something to make it look more carrot-like. If we can't recognize a significant distinction, than this is just the typical "dig in your heels" type of conversation that always happens in these forums.
You keep saying it is significant, but you haven't explained *why* it is significant.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
It is just a preference. Do you want mom's homemade bread with 6-7 ingredients or Subway's with 30+ ingredients? You can go down the list of ingredients that Subway adds and there is a purpose for each one (prolonging the shelf life, firmness, color, texture, etc.), but that doesn't inspire me to choose their bread over the homemade version. (And for the sensitive people out there, I'm not saying you are a bad person for eating at Subway, I have had their bread on countless occasions, so please don't be hurt by my criticism...)
Just to be clear, it's not about being a bad person. It's about priorities and not beating yourself up over dumb things. You can get bread of all sorts from the supermarket (I never buy bread from the supermarket, but just because I don't eat bread at home much and am picky about it) or from restaurants (I'm fond of a sandwich place that is pretty embarrassing in their focus on the the trendy this and that, and I bet their bread doesn't have lots of ingredients, although number of ingredients isn't a focus of mine). So if there are ingredients you'd prefer to avoid or quality differences, I totally get that, but why tell yourself that supermarket bread or bakery bread or whatever is "less clean" or "not clean" (and I still don't get how "less clean" is distinct from dirty). I just don't get that. I am all for eating in an aspirational way -- I have ideas about how I'd like to eat that I don't always live up to -- but I don't get how it helps to tell myself that my meals are clean or not clean or that I eat semi clean or whatever. I try to eat well, to prioritize nutrient dense food and quality and to also enjoy what I eat (which means trying to cook it in a way that makes it taste good).
I don't understand why saying "this meal isn't as clean as I'd like" is much different than "this meal falls short of how I'd like to eat". Sounds like to-may-toes vs. to-mah-toes to me.
Except in the first case the meal could be both not clean and how I'd like eat.
It all comes back to the implication of "clean," and I understand that you cannot see why it bothers some of us when used in the food context.
And again, because in the current commonplace usage, including on MFP, it's not about a continuum, but being either "clean" or not. One can fall short of one's goals for one's diet on a particular day and not conclude "I'm not a healthful eater." If one eats "unclean" foods, presumably one would not be a "clean eater." (Or else, I ask once again, how is being a "clean eater" different from the rest of us who merely try to eat healthful, nutrient-dense meals for the most part such that it is defended as a special, different way of eating that requires special groups and recipes.)
Using my definition the difference would be vocabulary. I do find it amusing that you suggest there is a commonplace usage for the term though. I thought the fact that there is not was the whole point of this thread.
I think the definitions all revolve around "avoiding processed food." People just have weird ideas about what processed means.
Well that's certainly true. I've heard picking vegetables, peeling an apple, cooking, and other silliness listed as examples.
If you're looking at it from a "whole foods" perspective it makes sense why peeling an apple could be considered processing that makes a food less desirable. Removing the peel of the apple removes some of the fiber, so you're actually changing the food. My mom was very into whole foods and when I was growing up, I was taught never to peel foods unless the peel was actually inedible. We never peeled apples or carrots or potatoes.
I have no beef with peeling fruits and vegetables, but I can understand the rationale behind that argument. If nature has packaged a food with certain amounts of fiber and other nutrients and you take some of them away, you no longer have a "whole food" (setting aside the fact that many fruits bear the strong impression of human design in addition to how "nature" created them). I don't think I would call the argument "silly." It's not one I personally use when making food choices, but there is an internal logic there.
I can see how it would make it less whole or less nutritious, but not less natural. The food consumed is unchanged. How would it differ from peeling a banana or orange? Or removing skin from an animal or shell from a nut?
Well, it's possible I've gotten lost in the twists and turns of the conversation, but multiple people in this thread have attempted to define "clean eating" as "eating whole foods."
So my point was that if you are defining "clean eating" as "eating whole foods," then peeling is a potentially relevant form of processing. There is a difference, nutritionally, between eating an apple with the peel and eating the apple without the peel.
I will sometimes see people around the forums say we're "meant" to eat foods in a certain way (as in, don't drink juice because we're "meant" to have the fiber along with the sugar in fruit). That's the logic behind eating the (edible) peels of fruit -- that nature somehow aligned to produce foods that are ideal for the nutritional needs of one species (us) and that we should alter those foods as little as possible.
This kind of thinking seems to be underpinning some of the "eat whole foods" or "processing is undesirable" conversations. So while I disagree, I don't think I would call it "silliness." While I don't agree that we should avoid eating only the parts of the food that we find the most tasty, I don't think it's sillier than some of the other definitions we've seen proposed in this thread (and other threads on "clean eating").
And when you say it doesn't make the food less "natural," I think we are hitting on how "natural" isn't a very useful designation for food. What makes an "apple" natural? That we eat it as it grows (that is, with the peel)? That we eat it in a form that isn't influenced by human choices (that is, wild)? That we eat it only in season? That we eat it only when we have done to work to obtain it ourselves?
Which of these standards do we adopt for "natural"? Why choose one over another?
All good points. I suppose whole would mean eating all edible portions of the food.(?) While I do know people that eat orange peels and peanut shells, let's just put those freaks aside for now. Whole foods still becomes as problematic. Easily as much or more so than 'natural', which I find easier.
Take for example a pumpkin. If you eat the flesh but not the seeds is it not a whole food because the seeds are both edible and nutritious? If you eat broccoli stalks but not the leaves, is that not a whole food? Same for beets or carrots or cauliflower or other vegetables with nutritious edible leaves that are often not consumed.
Is the broccoli not natural because I planted it? Honestly except for sh*ts and giggles on MFP I don't delve into minutiae like that. It seems unnecessary except for wanting to trip someone up.
According to some definitions of "whole food," yeah -- eating just pumpkin flesh or broccoli florets would be making the food less "whole."
You'll often see arguments that we're "supposed" to eat the whole grain or the fat in dairy. I'm not sure why fruits and vegetables would be exempted from this theory.
I would argue that it isn't just your planting it that makes "natural" a pretty meaningless term for the broccoli. There's the whole fact that broccoli wouldn't even exist without human intervention. It's a product of human intervention and decisions just like a Frito. Yeah, they have different nutritional values. But broccoli, like a Frito, doesn't exist in the wild and our consumption of it is pretty far outside any natural order.
I don't think interrogation of the category of "natural" is minutiae. I think it's worth discussing whether it is even a meaningful term.
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"?
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"?
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.
Are you saying that it is inexplicable, that it's something that you have to just feel to be true? Broccoli being more natural is a faith sort of thing?
No, I was suggesting it is common sense.
But "common sense" doesn't mean correct. Lots of things that seem like common sense turn out to be wrong.
Even if broccoli is, on the basis of common sense, more natural than ground corn, we're still left with the issue of why we're valorizing the natural. Dying of typhoid is more natural than flying across the Atlantic ocean on a jet plane. But I know which I would choose.
So let's say I accept the "common sense" declaration that broccoli is more natural than a Frito. What significance does "naturalness" have for food?
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
And again, why is smoked salmon or a tortilla made with ground corn (let's say I buy the corn ground from the green market, and it's made from local corn) less "natural" than a banana in Chicago or "fresh" tomatoes in Chicago in February? Or any corn, given the nature of corn today? These lines about what is and is not natural don't seem clear or obvious. To a certain extent, it's like we pick a period of time and decide that what was available then (1850, say) is "natural," and interventions since are not.
I'm not sure I totally understand the thought behind these questions but I'll try to answer. I think local has little to do with clean, but is salmon more local to Chicago than bananas? Does the smoked salmon contain additives? I don't think I've ever seen a tortilla made with nothing other than corn so I'm not sure why all the focus on that one single ingredient.
When you start talking about "natural" I don't see how local wouldn't be part of it. It requires industrial involvement to trek foods around to the extent we do, and it's not something that would exist absent that. Sure, the spice trade, but having tropical fruits in non tropical places, fresh (or "fresh") produce in the winter, so on, is clearly not "natural" (they could not naturally grow here), but is the result of human interference in nature. Just as is our drinking milk or, sure, the fact we can mill flour and make bread, buy bread at the store, and buy a turkey sandwich.
I don't see transporting as any more unnatural than planting. Some may disagree and I'd be happy to hear their reasoning but I don't see the logic right now.
I just can't fathom how you are drawing your lines. Giant corporation growing bananas and picking them early to ripen on the truck while taking them all over (to places they would never grow) = natural. Eating foods not available where you live without industrialization = natural. Canning or freezing vegetables (if a big company) so they are available out of season = unnatural. Canning them yourself = natural. Grinding up corn or flour or selling dried pasta = unnatural. Smoking salmon or making cheese = unnatural. Going to a restaurant and having a chef cook you food = unnatural? Raising cows to have their milk = natural. Raising cattle for their meat = natural, even if they are penned up and fed foods which aren't the best for them.
Ultimately, what's the point? You seem to be also saying that you aren't claiming that "natural" or "cleaner" = better. So why make the distinctions which really don't seem all that obvious?
Hmm, you seem to be confusing who said what. I never said canning or freezing vegetables was unnatural. I never said anything about smoked salmon or cheese or going to a restaurant or selling pasta or milk being natural.
I don't see how who grows the food or how it gets to your table affects how natural an ingredient is. Diet can affect how natural meat is according to how natural the food is, not by who provides the food. Natural is affected by things like additives and processes that change the ingredient.
These are my general thoughts which allow for much interpretation and waffling on my part. Sorry you are having a hard time understanding.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
You're the one claiming there is a distinction, that one is less desirable than the other. I'm not sure why that is and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
You're speaking out against the "tampering mentality." But that mentality has already shaped the pickle you have said is more desirable.
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
One of them is far more intrusive to the course of nature than the other. And it's not adding a few drops of food coloring.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.
This sounds a lot like "I've made a claim that I've assumed to be true (food having a certain color by breeding is inherently better than color added by chemistry) that I can't be bothered to back up, so I'm going to invert the burden of proof".
For a person that seems to insist their food choice is based on some kind of rational process over preference, I see a lack of rational, empirical evidence for it.
I’m working on gathering the empirical evidence of why I like naturally colored food over artificially colored food. At the same time I’m also gathering empirical evidence on why I like real blue eyes over blue-colored contact lenses, real boobs over stuffed bras, and the appearance of Michael Jackson in 1978 over Michael Jackson in 1998. Stay tuned.
Yeah, about that "natural color" thing...
Interesting, although I'm not sure how domesticated crops are "unnatural" for the purposes of this subject, ie, splicing seeds and altering the soil nutrients that results in an orange color in a carrot versus adding an orange chemical into something to make it look more carrot-like. If we can't recognize a significant distinction, than this is just the typical "dig in your heels" type of conversation that always happens in these forums.
The orange chemical is most likely to be beta carotene, extracted from carrots.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
It is just a preference. Do you want mom's homemade bread with 6-7 ingredients or Subway's with 30+ ingredients? You can go down the list of ingredients that Subway adds and there is a purpose for each one (prolonging the shelf life, firmness, color, texture, etc.), but that doesn't inspire me to choose their bread over the homemade version. (And for the sensitive people out there, I'm not saying you are a bad person for eating at Subway, I have had their bread on countless occasions, so please don't be hurt by my criticism...)
Just to be clear, it's not about being a bad person. It's about priorities and not beating yourself up over dumb things. You can get bread of all sorts from the supermarket (I never buy bread from the supermarket, but just because I don't eat bread at home much and am picky about it) or from restaurants (I'm fond of a sandwich place that is pretty embarrassing in their focus on the the trendy this and that, and I bet their bread doesn't have lots of ingredients, although number of ingredients isn't a focus of mine). So if there are ingredients you'd prefer to avoid or quality differences, I totally get that, but why tell yourself that supermarket bread or bakery bread or whatever is "less clean" or "not clean" (and I still don't get how "less clean" is distinct from dirty). I just don't get that. I am all for eating in an aspirational way -- I have ideas about how I'd like to eat that I don't always live up to -- but I don't get how it helps to tell myself that my meals are clean or not clean or that I eat semi clean or whatever. I try to eat well, to prioritize nutrient dense food and quality and to also enjoy what I eat (which means trying to cook it in a way that makes it taste good).
I don't understand why saying "this meal isn't as clean as I'd like" is much different than "this meal falls short of how I'd like to eat". Sounds like to-may-toes vs. to-mah-toes to me.
Except in the first case the meal could be both not clean and how I'd like eat.
It all comes back to the implication of "clean," and I understand that you cannot see why it bothers some of us when used in the food context.
And again, because in the current commonplace usage, including on MFP, it's not about a continuum, but being either "clean" or not. One can fall short of one's goals for one's diet on a particular day and not conclude "I'm not a healthful eater." If one eats "unclean" foods, presumably one would not be a "clean eater." (Or else, I ask once again, how is being a "clean eater" different from the rest of us who merely try to eat healthful, nutrient-dense meals for the most part such that it is defended as a special, different way of eating that requires special groups and recipes.)
Using my definition the difference would be vocabulary. I do find it amusing that you suggest there is a commonplace usage for the term though. I thought the fact that there is not was the whole point of this thread.
I think the definitions all revolve around "avoiding processed food." People just have weird ideas about what processed means.
Well that's certainly true. I've heard picking vegetables, peeling an apple, cooking, and other silliness listed as examples.
If you're looking at it from a "whole foods" perspective it makes sense why peeling an apple could be considered processing that makes a food less desirable. Removing the peel of the apple removes some of the fiber, so you're actually changing the food. My mom was very into whole foods and when I was growing up, I was taught never to peel foods unless the peel was actually inedible. We never peeled apples or carrots or potatoes.
I have no beef with peeling fruits and vegetables, but I can understand the rationale behind that argument. If nature has packaged a food with certain amounts of fiber and other nutrients and you take some of them away, you no longer have a "whole food" (setting aside the fact that many fruits bear the strong impression of human design in addition to how "nature" created them). I don't think I would call the argument "silly." It's not one I personally use when making food choices, but there is an internal logic there.
I can see how it would make it less whole or less nutritious, but not less natural. The food consumed is unchanged. How would it differ from peeling a banana or orange? Or removing skin from an animal or shell from a nut?
Well, it's possible I've gotten lost in the twists and turns of the conversation, but multiple people in this thread have attempted to define "clean eating" as "eating whole foods."
So my point was that if you are defining "clean eating" as "eating whole foods," then peeling is a potentially relevant form of processing. There is a difference, nutritionally, between eating an apple with the peel and eating the apple without the peel.
I will sometimes see people around the forums say we're "meant" to eat foods in a certain way (as in, don't drink juice because we're "meant" to have the fiber along with the sugar in fruit). That's the logic behind eating the (edible) peels of fruit -- that nature somehow aligned to produce foods that are ideal for the nutritional needs of one species (us) and that we should alter those foods as little as possible.
This kind of thinking seems to be underpinning some of the "eat whole foods" or "processing is undesirable" conversations. So while I disagree, I don't think I would call it "silliness." While I don't agree that we should avoid eating only the parts of the food that we find the most tasty, I don't think it's sillier than some of the other definitions we've seen proposed in this thread (and other threads on "clean eating").
And when you say it doesn't make the food less "natural," I think we are hitting on how "natural" isn't a very useful designation for food. What makes an "apple" natural? That we eat it as it grows (that is, with the peel)? That we eat it in a form that isn't influenced by human choices (that is, wild)? That we eat it only in season? That we eat it only when we have done to work to obtain it ourselves?
Which of these standards do we adopt for "natural"? Why choose one over another?
All good points. I suppose whole would mean eating all edible portions of the food.(?) While I do know people that eat orange peels and peanut shells, let's just put those freaks aside for now. Whole foods still becomes as problematic. Easily as much or more so than 'natural', which I find easier.
Take for example a pumpkin. If you eat the flesh but not the seeds is it not a whole food because the seeds are both edible and nutritious? If you eat broccoli stalks but not the leaves, is that not a whole food? Same for beets or carrots or cauliflower or other vegetables with nutritious edible leaves that are often not consumed.
Is the broccoli not natural because I planted it? Honestly except for sh*ts and giggles on MFP I don't delve into minutiae like that. It seems unnecessary except for wanting to trip someone up.
According to some definitions of "whole food," yeah -- eating just pumpkin flesh or broccoli florets would be making the food less "whole."
You'll often see arguments that we're "supposed" to eat the whole grain or the fat in dairy. I'm not sure why fruits and vegetables would be exempted from this theory.
I would argue that it isn't just your planting it that makes "natural" a pretty meaningless term for the broccoli. There's the whole fact that broccoli wouldn't even exist without human intervention. It's a product of human intervention and decisions just like a Frito. Yeah, they have different nutritional values. But broccoli, like a Frito, doesn't exist in the wild and our consumption of it is pretty far outside any natural order.
I don't think interrogation of the category of "natural" is minutiae. I think it's worth discussing whether it is even a meaningful term.
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"?
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"?
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.
Are you saying that it is inexplicable, that it's something that you have to just feel to be true? Broccoli being more natural is a faith sort of thing?
No, I was suggesting it is common sense.
But "common sense" doesn't mean correct. Lots of things that seem like common sense turn out to be wrong.
Even if broccoli is, on the basis of common sense, more natural than ground corn, we're still left with the issue of why we're valorizing the natural. Dying of typhoid is more natural than flying across the Atlantic ocean on a jet plane. But I know which I would choose.
So let's say I accept the "common sense" declaration that broccoli is more natural than a Frito. What significance does "naturalness" have for food?
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
And again, why is smoked salmon or a tortilla made with ground corn (let's say I buy the corn ground from the green market, and it's made from local corn) less "natural" than a banana in Chicago or "fresh" tomatoes in Chicago in February? Or any corn, given the nature of corn today? These lines about what is and is not natural don't seem clear or obvious. To a certain extent, it's like we pick a period of time and decide that what was available then (1850, say) is "natural," and interventions since are not.
I'm having trouble constructing an argument for saying something like, say, almond milk, is "clean" and a Frito isn't. They both seem to have the same level of "naturalness."
I agree with this.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
You're the one claiming there is a distinction, that one is less desirable than the other. I'm not sure why that is and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
You're speaking out against the "tampering mentality." But that mentality has already shaped the pickle you have said is more desirable.
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
One of them is far more intrusive to the course of nature than the other. And it's not adding a few drops of food coloring.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.
This sounds a lot like "I've made a claim that I've assumed to be true (food having a certain color by breeding is inherently better than color added by chemistry) that I can't be bothered to back up, so I'm going to invert the burden of proof".
For a person that seems to insist their food choice is based on some kind of rational process over preference, I see a lack of rational, empirical evidence for it.
I’m working on gathering the empirical evidence of why I like naturally colored food over artificially colored food. At the same time I’m also gathering empirical evidence on why I like real blue eyes over blue-colored contact lenses, real boobs over stuffed bras, and the appearance of Michael Jackson in 1978 over Michael Jackson in 1998. Stay tuned.
Cool. I'll be collecting why I like artificial sweeteners in my beverage over caloric sugar for weight loss, why I feel milk fortified with vitamin D is superior to unpasteurized milk, and real arguments over cherry-picked examples that have nothing to do with food.
You've also generally just conceded that all of it is about personal preference - in particular as someone with contacts probably has several advantages over a naturally blue-eyed person, such as less risk of macular degeneration and the ability to correct their visual acuity if it is lacking. Yet your preference is for the thing that seems more natural to you.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
You're the one claiming there is a distinction, that one is less desirable than the other. I'm not sure why that is and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
You're speaking out against the "tampering mentality." But that mentality has already shaped the pickle you have said is more desirable.
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
One of them is far more intrusive to the course of nature than the other. And it's not adding a few drops of food coloring.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.
This sounds a lot like "I've made a claim that I've assumed to be true (food having a certain color by breeding is inherently better than color added by chemistry) that I can't be bothered to back up, so I'm going to invert the burden of proof".
For a person that seems to insist their food choice is based on some kind of rational process over preference, I see a lack of rational, empirical evidence for it.
I’m working on gathering the empirical evidence of why I like naturally colored food over artificially colored food. At the same time I’m also gathering empirical evidence on why I like real blue eyes over blue-colored contact lenses, real boobs over stuffed bras, and the appearance of Michael Jackson in 1978 over Michael Jackson in 1998. Stay tuned.
Yeah, about that "natural color" thing...
Carrots come in a variety of colors.
Dogs come in a variety of shapes in sizes, many that are more varied than wolves or the common ancestor that wolves and dogs share. This doesn't mean there are pug shaped wolves out there.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
It is just a preference. Do you want mom's homemade bread with 6-7 ingredients or Subway's with 30+ ingredients? You can go down the list of ingredients that Subway adds and there is a purpose for each one (prolonging the shelf life, firmness, color, texture, etc.), but that doesn't inspire me to choose their bread over the homemade version. (And for the sensitive people out there, I'm not saying you are a bad person for eating at Subway, I have had their bread on countless occasions, so please don't be hurt by my criticism...)
Just to be clear, it's not about being a bad person. It's about priorities and not beating yourself up over dumb things. You can get bread of all sorts from the supermarket (I never buy bread from the supermarket, but just because I don't eat bread at home much and am picky about it) or from restaurants (I'm fond of a sandwich place that is pretty embarrassing in their focus on the the trendy this and that, and I bet their bread doesn't have lots of ingredients, although number of ingredients isn't a focus of mine). So if there are ingredients you'd prefer to avoid or quality differences, I totally get that, but why tell yourself that supermarket bread or bakery bread or whatever is "less clean" or "not clean" (and I still don't get how "less clean" is distinct from dirty). I just don't get that. I am all for eating in an aspirational way -- I have ideas about how I'd like to eat that I don't always live up to -- but I don't get how it helps to tell myself that my meals are clean or not clean or that I eat semi clean or whatever. I try to eat well, to prioritize nutrient dense food and quality and to also enjoy what I eat (which means trying to cook it in a way that makes it taste good).
I don't understand why saying "this meal isn't as clean as I'd like" is much different than "this meal falls short of how I'd like to eat". Sounds like to-may-toes vs. to-mah-toes to me.
Except in the first case the meal could be both not clean and how I'd like eat.
It all comes back to the implication of "clean," and I understand that you cannot see why it bothers some of us when used in the food context.
And again, because in the current commonplace usage, including on MFP, it's not about a continuum, but being either "clean" or not. One can fall short of one's goals for one's diet on a particular day and not conclude "I'm not a healthful eater." If one eats "unclean" foods, presumably one would not be a "clean eater." (Or else, I ask once again, how is being a "clean eater" different from the rest of us who merely try to eat healthful, nutrient-dense meals for the most part such that it is defended as a special, different way of eating that requires special groups and recipes.)
Using my definition the difference would be vocabulary. I do find it amusing that you suggest there is a commonplace usage for the term though. I thought the fact that there is not was the whole point of this thread.
I think the definitions all revolve around "avoiding processed food." People just have weird ideas about what processed means.
Well that's certainly true. I've heard picking vegetables, peeling an apple, cooking, and other silliness listed as examples.
If you're looking at it from a "whole foods" perspective it makes sense why peeling an apple could be considered processing that makes a food less desirable. Removing the peel of the apple removes some of the fiber, so you're actually changing the food. My mom was very into whole foods and when I was growing up, I was taught never to peel foods unless the peel was actually inedible. We never peeled apples or carrots or potatoes.
I have no beef with peeling fruits and vegetables, but I can understand the rationale behind that argument. If nature has packaged a food with certain amounts of fiber and other nutrients and you take some of them away, you no longer have a "whole food" (setting aside the fact that many fruits bear the strong impression of human design in addition to how "nature" created them). I don't think I would call the argument "silly." It's not one I personally use when making food choices, but there is an internal logic there.
I can see how it would make it less whole or less nutritious, but not less natural. The food consumed is unchanged. How would it differ from peeling a banana or orange? Or removing skin from an animal or shell from a nut?
Well, it's possible I've gotten lost in the twists and turns of the conversation, but multiple people in this thread have attempted to define "clean eating" as "eating whole foods."
So my point was that if you are defining "clean eating" as "eating whole foods," then peeling is a potentially relevant form of processing. There is a difference, nutritionally, between eating an apple with the peel and eating the apple without the peel.
I will sometimes see people around the forums say we're "meant" to eat foods in a certain way (as in, don't drink juice because we're "meant" to have the fiber along with the sugar in fruit). That's the logic behind eating the (edible) peels of fruit -- that nature somehow aligned to produce foods that are ideal for the nutritional needs of one species (us) and that we should alter those foods as little as possible.
This kind of thinking seems to be underpinning some of the "eat whole foods" or "processing is undesirable" conversations. So while I disagree, I don't think I would call it "silliness." While I don't agree that we should avoid eating only the parts of the food that we find the most tasty, I don't think it's sillier than some of the other definitions we've seen proposed in this thread (and other threads on "clean eating").
And when you say it doesn't make the food less "natural," I think we are hitting on how "natural" isn't a very useful designation for food. What makes an "apple" natural? That we eat it as it grows (that is, with the peel)? That we eat it in a form that isn't influenced by human choices (that is, wild)? That we eat it only in season? That we eat it only when we have done to work to obtain it ourselves?
Which of these standards do we adopt for "natural"? Why choose one over another?
All good points. I suppose whole would mean eating all edible portions of the food.(?) While I do know people that eat orange peels and peanut shells, let's just put those freaks aside for now. Whole foods still becomes as problematic. Easily as much or more so than 'natural', which I find easier.
Take for example a pumpkin. If you eat the flesh but not the seeds is it not a whole food because the seeds are both edible and nutritious? If you eat broccoli stalks but not the leaves, is that not a whole food? Same for beets or carrots or cauliflower or other vegetables with nutritious edible leaves that are often not consumed.
Is the broccoli not natural because I planted it? Honestly except for sh*ts and giggles on MFP I don't delve into minutiae like that. It seems unnecessary except for wanting to trip someone up.
According to some definitions of "whole food," yeah -- eating just pumpkin flesh or broccoli florets would be making the food less "whole."
You'll often see arguments that we're "supposed" to eat the whole grain or the fat in dairy. I'm not sure why fruits and vegetables would be exempted from this theory.
I would argue that it isn't just your planting it that makes "natural" a pretty meaningless term for the broccoli. There's the whole fact that broccoli wouldn't even exist without human intervention. It's a product of human intervention and decisions just like a Frito. Yeah, they have different nutritional values. But broccoli, like a Frito, doesn't exist in the wild and our consumption of it is pretty far outside any natural order.
I don't think interrogation of the category of "natural" is minutiae. I think it's worth discussing whether it is even a meaningful term.
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"?
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"?
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.
Are you saying that it is inexplicable, that it's something that you have to just feel to be true? Broccoli being more natural is a faith sort of thing?
No, I was suggesting it is common sense.
But "common sense" doesn't mean correct. Lots of things that seem like common sense turn out to be wrong.
Even if broccoli is, on the basis of common sense, more natural than ground corn, we're still left with the issue of why we're valorizing the natural. Dying of typhoid is more natural than flying across the Atlantic ocean on a jet plane. But I know which I would choose.
So let's say I accept the "common sense" declaration that broccoli is more natural than a Frito. What significance does "naturalness" have for food?
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
And again, why is smoked salmon or a tortilla made with ground corn (let's say I buy the corn ground from the green market, and it's made from local corn) less "natural" than a banana in Chicago or "fresh" tomatoes in Chicago in February? Or any corn, given the nature of corn today? These lines about what is and is not natural don't seem clear or obvious. To a certain extent, it's like we pick a period of time and decide that what was available then (1850, say) is "natural," and interventions since are not.
I'm having trouble constructing an argument for saying something like, say, almond milk, is "clean" and a Frito isn't. They both seem to have the same level of "naturalness."
I agree with this.
So where would cream of broccoli soup fall on your "natural" meter? I can make both almond milk and cream of broccoli soup using my blender. Are they equally unnatural?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions