What is clean eating?

ndj1979

Lol is this still going?????

lizzelspark

I'm blonde but I can totally get what they are trying to say about clean eating

trollerskates

I think " eating varies from person to person. Everybody is different. You might feel best/ have the best resaults with no, carb, low carb, moderate carb, or high carb, or fat or protien. Biology in every person is,different. Its about self experimentation with each consistency with each change you make to see the resaults. Also since genomes can be switched on and off given there environment these things might change.

Need2Exerc1se

trollerskates wrote: »

I think " eating varies from person to person. Everybody is different. You might feel best/ have the best resaults with no, carb, low carb, moderate carb, or high carb, or fat or protien. Biology in every person is,different. Its about self experimentation with each consistency with each change you make to see the resaults. Also since genomes can be switched on and off given there environment these things might change.

I'm not disagreeing, but what does this have to do with the definition of clean eating?

Carlos_421

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

trollerskates wrote: »

I think " eating varies from person to person. Everybody is different. You might feel best/ have the best resaults with no, carb, low carb, moderate carb, or high carb, or fat or protien. Biology in every person is,different. Its about self experimentation with each consistency with each change you make to see the resaults. Also since genomes can be switched on and off given there environment these things might change.

I'm not disagreeing, but what does this have to do with the definition of clean eating?

He's saying it's different for everyone?

therealfitt

Anything u can put under warm running water and can still consume

JaneSnowe

fitton4fitness wrote: »

Anything u can put under warm running water and can still consume

So not olive oil. Got it.

stealthq

Bry_Lander wrote: »

snikkins wrote: »

Bry_Lander wrote: »

Ruatine wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

Ruatine wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

ReaderGirl3 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.

I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.

While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?

Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.

Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.

I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...

It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.

Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?

Not directly, no. It's quite obviously a marketing ploy designed to capitalize on the clean eating fad. However, the way it's marketed, it's as if they're saying by removing the ingredients on their "no-no list" that people are somehow eating healthier, and that's just not the case. If they had emphasized lower calorie items being added or expanded nutritional information displayed in-store, I could get behind that. The way it stands, they're equating fresh/whole foods with healthy, and that's a "no-no" in my book.

http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/panera-promises-a-clean-pumpkin-spice-latte-for-this-fall/
"Panera’s head chef, Dan Kish, told Fortune the beverage changes were all part of an evolution at the fast casual chain, as the company moves to offer diners healthier options and be transparent about the ingredients it uses."

https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
"That, he says, is what drives the effort; as much as the move toward clean food is about health, it’s also about taste. [...] It all comes down to freshness and flavor, says John—but in the end everything comes down to the customer. “We need to do this work so that our customers can feel great about what we represent, what we deliver, who we are.” He jokes, “We read labels so you don’t have to.”"

I think it is a marketing campaign that goes beyond the “clean eating” appeal, and is focusing on the general perception of most fast food and chain sit down restaurant chains by people who actually take the time to investigate their practices: none of these restaurants really care about the food quality they serve, they buy the cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with, they ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives so that they can maximize its shelf life and ensure that it will hold up nicely under a heat lamp for long a duration, they infuse their food with enough sugar and sodium so that there is maximum taste appeal, and serve it in huge portions so that there is a perception of good value for the money. I don’t think one has to be a self-declared “clean eater” to be concerned about the shady ingredients and processing practices associated with their food.

Panera thanks you for your contributions.

In all seriousness, I think it's bizarre that anyone believes that any restaurant's goal is to buy food "stuffed with preservatives" as though the buyer for the company is sitting in a dark office Mr. Burns style.

Is it perhaps a byproduct of trying to make their product cheaper? Sure. Is it the goal? I'm highly skeptical.

I'm not a regular at Panera and I honestly don't know a lot about their corporate practices.

Sure, fast food corporations set up multi-million dollar R&D laboratories that churn out countless additives and preservatives solely to make the customer happy and healthy, without regard to profitability

*blink*

No, they set up multi-million dollar R&D laboratories that churn out countless additives and preservatives solely to make the customer happy and healthy, because that's part of how they make money.

They need food that stores well, travels well, re-heats well. Let's be honest, given that food safety adherence in fast food restaurants is probably not 100% it's best if the food can take a good bit of neglect and not make clientele sick. Oh, and they need it to taste good and look good enough for people to come back for more, too.

All of that, and they need those solutions to be cheap, at least on the mass-production level (or bye-bye profit). That's where research comes in.

brucealfred3

Healthy eating in a few words....
Organic-NonGMO-Plants-Non chemical meat. That literally describes every food in the world.

Need2Exerc1se

brucealfred3 wrote: »

Healthy eating in a few words....
Organic-NonGMO-Plants-Non chemical meat. That literally describes every food in the world.

Meat with no chemicals? Where does one find that?