Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What is clean eating?
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Now here's a question. I like fries.
I buy frozen, noname brand, packaged fries in a bag with barcode and everything. -> Definitely processed food, no doubt about it.
They only have 2 ingredients though: potatoes and sunflower oil. -> Nothing you can't pronounce and not exceeding the magical 4 ingredients.
Clean or not?
I'd bet you a tenner if we asked 100 clean eaters without each knowing what the others said, the answers would be split almost 50/50.
I go with a similar example on Cape Cod potato chips and Fritos. Each is as close to nature as possible (washed, sliced/ground and cooked), has only 3 ingredients which can be pronounced (chips: Potatoes, sunflower oil, salt; Fritos: Corn, corn oil, salt)
They both meet nearly every definition proposed above (can't meet them all because some are contradictory)
Sure they both have an added chemical preservative (salt). But it seems like the clean eating people are cool with that one chemical preservative.
Fritos are pretty far from the natural state of corn.
Because they're ground?
Does that mean that corn tortillas aren't "clean"? What about polenta?
Or is it something else?
Yes, because they are ground. Technically, shucked, decobbed (or whatever you call removing the kernels from the cob) and ground. I don't see how tortillas any different, polenta maybe a little cleaner as a single food.
Would all ground foods be unclean or is this specific to corn?
I'm not overly comfortable with the term 'unclean' when it comes to food. I'm old school and never heard it described as anything other clean in varying degrees (clean, sort of clean, not clean, stuff like that). And there is plenty of room for argument even amongst those that share my definition as it's not a black and white type definition. Lots of gray.
But to me, no. Ground foods would not be clean. Those ground with the bran and germ included would cleaner than those with it removed. Those with it removed that are then bleached (e.g. white flour) are not clean.
I understand you're not comfortable with it, but if certain foods are clean, what would you call the rest? "Not clean" doesn't seem that different from "unclean."
But I don't want to get on a tangent with the "unclean" thing.
You would consider almond butter, ground beef (let's say it's grass-fed for good measure), coffee, pepper, and oat milk (made from ground oats) to be "not clean" foods?
What if you grind the beef yourself?
I don't see how that would change anything.
So beef is clean (let's say grass-fed, from a local farm, processing passes muster), but if you have a grinder at home and grind it it becomes not clean? I really don't get that.
This is why the term drives me batty. It's applying a label that sounds extremely judgmental to foods that are no worse in any way.
*shrug* Grinding is a process that changes the food from it's 1)natural formshape. The further the food is from it's natural form 2)the less clean it is. Ground beef is cleaner than cured beef, but it's still not 100% clean. I can't think how grass fed makes beef cleaner.
Seems simple to me but then I don't think of the label as a judgment anymore than I'd think of 'sweet' as a judgment. It either is or is not, or it may be just a little.
1) FIFY
2) by who's definition and why?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
Raw honey is natural, HFCS is not. So one is clean and the other is not.
So if a bug makes it then it's clean but if a person makes it then it's unclean?
Brilliant.
It's just the meaning of the word natural. Nothing man-made is natural.
Yes, that's the meaning of the word natural but how is it the meaning of the word "clean?"0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
Raw honey is natural, HFCS is not. So one is clean and the other is not.
So if a bug makes it then it's clean but if a person makes it then it's unclean?
Brilliant.
It's just the meaning of the word natural. Nothing man-made is natural.
Yes, that's the meaning of the word natural but how is it the meaning of the word "clean?"
Because clean eating = eating natural foods.0 -
Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Now here's a question. I like fries.
I buy frozen, noname brand, packaged fries in a bag with barcode and everything. -> Definitely processed food, no doubt about it.
They only have 2 ingredients though: potatoes and sunflower oil. -> Nothing you can't pronounce and not exceeding the magical 4 ingredients.
Clean or not?
I'd bet you a tenner if we asked 100 clean eaters without each knowing what the others said, the answers would be split almost 50/50.
I go with a similar example on Cape Cod potato chips and Fritos. Each is as close to nature as possible (washed, sliced/ground and cooked), has only 3 ingredients which can be pronounced (chips: Potatoes, sunflower oil, salt; Fritos: Corn, corn oil, salt)
They both meet nearly every definition proposed above (can't meet them all because some are contradictory)
Sure they both have an added chemical preservative (salt). But it seems like the clean eating people are cool with that one chemical preservative.
Fritos are pretty far from the natural state of corn.
Because they're ground?
Does that mean that corn tortillas aren't "clean"? What about polenta?
Or is it something else?
Yes, because they are ground. Technically, shucked, decobbed (or whatever you call removing the kernels from the cob) and ground. I don't see how tortillas any different, polenta maybe a little cleaner as a single food.
Would all ground foods be unclean or is this specific to corn?
I'm not overly comfortable with the term 'unclean' when it comes to food. I'm old school and never heard it described as anything other clean in varying degrees (clean, sort of clean, not clean, stuff like that). And there is plenty of room for argument even amongst those that share my definition as it's not a black and white type definition. Lots of gray.
But to me, no. Ground foods would not be clean. Those ground with the bran and germ included would cleaner than those with it removed. Those with it removed that are then bleached (e.g. white flour) are not clean.
I understand you're not comfortable with it, but if certain foods are clean, what would you call the rest? "Not clean" doesn't seem that different from "unclean."
But I don't want to get on a tangent with the "unclean" thing.
You would consider almond butter, ground beef (let's say it's grass-fed for good measure), coffee, pepper, and oat milk (made from ground oats) to be "not clean" foods?
What if you grind the beef yourself?
I don't see how that would change anything.
So beef is clean (let's say grass-fed, from a local farm, processing passes muster), but if you have a grinder at home and grind it it becomes not clean? I really don't get that.
This is why the term drives me batty. It's applying a label that sounds extremely judgmental to foods that are no worse in any way.
*shrug* Grinding is a process that changes the food from it's 1)natural formshape. The further the food is from it's natural form 2)the less clean it is. Ground beef is cleaner than cured beef, but it's still not 100% clean. I can't think how grass fed makes beef cleaner.
Seems simple to me but then I don't think of the label as a judgment anymore than I'd think of 'sweet' as a judgment. It either is or is not, or it may be just a little.
1) FIFY
2) by who's definition and why?
My definition because it's the only one I care about.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Well, I might as well do something with this list and the new debate forums seems as good a place as any for it.
Once upon a time, I was under the belief that clean eating had a simple definition. It was cooking from scratch using as simple ingredients as possible.
MFP has disillusioned me of that idea.
Here on MFP I've seen clean eating defined in a few different ways. These are all answers given by users when asked what clean eating is. Some of them have been formatted to fit the list better, but many of them are copy/pasted directly from their original posts. Be sure to read to the end, where things really start to diverge.- Nothing but minimally processed foods.
- Absolutely no processed foods.
- Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
- Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
- Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
- No take-out or junk food at all.
- Nothing at all with a barcode.
- Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
- Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
- Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
- Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
- No added preservatives.
- No added chemicals.
- No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
- No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
- No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
- Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
- Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
- Don't eat foods that have a mascot.
- If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
- Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
- Eat "food" and not "food-like substances."
- No added sugar.
- No added refined sugar.
- Swap white sugar for brown.
- No "white" foods.
- Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
- Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
- A plant-based whole food diet.
- Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food.
- Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
- Only pesticide-free foods.
- Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation.
- No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
- No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
- Eat a plant based diet consisting of whole plant foods.
- No bad carbs and processed foods.
- Anything that makes a better choice.
- Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
- Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.
- Clean eating means eating optimally.
I like to note that under some of those definitions, Fritos are a clean food (only 3 ingredients). Under some of them, eggs and pistachios are not.
So what is clean eating? And is it a useful descriptor at all?
Since there's been some confusion on other threads, I want to note that this is on the Nutrition Debate board. So it's going to be, you know, a debate. Bring your opinions. Bring your dictionaries. Bring your studies. But if you don't want people to respond to your posts with questions or rebuttals, this might not be the board for you.
I don't know why people argue about this so much on this board. Everywhere else I post agrees that clean eating is only eating foods you could grow/prepare yourself. ypu don't have to do it yourself, you can buy them,but they can't require a laboratory or ingredients you can't buy in a grocery store. So butter is clean (because you could get milk and churn it yourself if you had the time) but margarine isn't because you couldn't make it in your kitchen. Likewise peanut butter made from peanuts and salt is clean. Protein powder isn't. It's pretty obvious really
What if you are a chemist?
But seriously, under this definition chips and ice cream and french fries and bread and pasta and ground beef would all be clean, and many people on these boards have asserted that they are not.
I know they have asserted it but meh. Those things are all clean to me in certain circumstances (French fries would have to be fried in lard, for instance)
That's kind of the point of this thread.
If people can't agree on the basics, is it a useful label or a useful piece of advice?
If only advice that is universally agreed upon is useful, what would qualify?
That's a fair question. And it's one I've asked before multiple times, including a full thread on how to give better advice on the forums. Did you ever participate in that thread? I'll have to go look because I know you've been dissatisfied with my copy/paste advice in the past. But it's broader than what I'm asking in this thread, I suppose.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Now here's a question. I like fries.
I buy frozen, noname brand, packaged fries in a bag with barcode and everything. -> Definitely processed food, no doubt about it.
They only have 2 ingredients though: potatoes and sunflower oil. -> Nothing you can't pronounce and not exceeding the magical 4 ingredients.
Clean or not?
I'd bet you a tenner if we asked 100 clean eaters without each knowing what the others said, the answers would be split almost 50/50.
I go with a similar example on Cape Cod potato chips and Fritos. Each is as close to nature as possible (washed, sliced/ground and cooked), has only 3 ingredients which can be pronounced (chips: Potatoes, sunflower oil, salt; Fritos: Corn, corn oil, salt)
They both meet nearly every definition proposed above (can't meet them all because some are contradictory)
Sure they both have an added chemical preservative (salt). But it seems like the clean eating people are cool with that one chemical preservative.
Fritos are pretty far from the natural state of corn.
Because they're ground?
Does that mean that corn tortillas aren't "clean"? What about polenta?
Or is it something else?
Yes, because they are ground. Technically, shucked, decobbed (or whatever you call removing the kernels from the cob) and ground. I don't see how tortillas any different, polenta maybe a little cleaner as a single food.
Would all ground foods be unclean or is this specific to corn?
I'm not overly comfortable with the term 'unclean' when it comes to food. I'm old school and never heard it described as anything other clean in varying degrees (clean, sort of clean, not clean, stuff like that). And there is plenty of room for argument even amongst those that share my definition as it's not a black and white type definition. Lots of gray.
But to me, no. Ground foods would not be clean. Those ground with the bran and germ included would cleaner than those with it removed. Those with it removed that are then bleached (e.g. white flour) are not clean.
I understand you're not comfortable with it, but if certain foods are clean, what would you call the rest? "Not clean" doesn't seem that different from "unclean."
But I don't want to get on a tangent with the "unclean" thing.
You would consider almond butter, ground beef (let's say it's grass-fed for good measure), coffee, pepper, and oat milk (made from ground oats) to be "not clean" foods?
What if you grind the beef yourself?
I don't see how that would change anything.
So beef is clean (let's say grass-fed, from a local farm, processing passes muster), but if you have a grinder at home and grind it it becomes not clean? I really don't get that.
This is why the term drives me batty. It's applying a label that sounds extremely judgmental to foods that are no worse in any way.
*shrug* Grinding is a process that changes the food from it's natural form. The further the food is from it's natural form the less clean it is. Ground beef is cleaner than cured beef, but it's still not 100% clean. I can't think how grass fed makes beef cleaner.
Seems simple to me but then I don't think of the label as a judgment anymore than I'd think of 'sweet' as a judgment. It either is or is not, or it may be just a little.
If I'm not misunderstanding you, cooking and butchering makes a food not clean.
Butchering, no. The actual consumed food (e.g. muscle) is unchanged. You are simply removing stuff to get to it. Cooking, less clean than raw but not still pretty clean.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
Banter and rebuttal is fine. But I wonder what you were looking for, in the end? Obviously it's useful to the people who use it. As I said, is 'healthy' no longer a useful word because different people have different idea on what 'healthy eating' means? Shall we all decide to ban certain words from the English language because their meaning is fluid?diannethegeek wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »I don't know why people argue about this so much on this board. Everywhere else I post agrees that clean eating is only eating foods you could grow/prepare yourself. ypu don't have to do it yourself, you can buy them,but they can't require a laboratory or ingredients you can't buy in a grocery store. So butter is clean (because you could get milk and churn it yourself if you had the time) but margarine isn't because you couldn't make it in your kitchen. Likewise peanut butter made from peanuts and salt is clean. Protein powder isn't. It's pretty obvious really
Everyone in this *thread* doesn't agree with your definition. We've got people arguing that ground foods (like polenta and peanut butter and ground beef) aren't clean. And I've seen people argue that dairy isn't clean.
Your definitions may be obvious to you, but they aren't universal. Plenty of those who think they are eating clean disagree with you.
Vegans don't consider butter "clean".
Paleo dieters don't consider peanuts "clean".
Whelp. There goes another arbitrary definition of "clean eating" out the window.
No vegans don't consider butter vegan. And paleo eaters don't consider peanuts paleo. That's an additional dietary restriction.
OP I see your point but as I said the pointless arguments about clean only seem to happen on this board because people seem to take it personally that some people don't want to eat artificial ingredients. Everywhere else I post that is the standard.
And I think that attributing it to "taking it personally" or personal offense ignores the broader point. If two clean eaters in this very thread can't agree, I don't think that you can say that the argument is solely caused by those who aren't clean eaters or that it's pointless. I've laid out my point and my reasoning for this thread several times upthread.
Although, I do tend to take it personally when clean eaters tell me, for instance, that I'll get cancer for eating the way I do (though they hardly ever know the details of my diet or health history). But that's not on topic for this thread.
But it's just semantics. It's the same if you asked two people to define a 'healthy' diet. Or 'beautiful'. There are always going to be different definitions of a word. But the OP asked what is clean and I told her the standards definition across the other boards I frequent.
Also to whoever asked about wine, you can make wine yourself with enough grapes and time. But you could never make canola oil in your kitchen.
I am the OP. I did ask what clean eating is. I also asked if it was a useful descriptor at the end of the post. And I added a disclaimer that this would be a post where replies would likely have some amount of banter and rebuttal.
As I said upthread, "Eat clean" is given as advice for everything from "How do I gain muscle?" to "Has my weight loss stalled?" I question whether or not it's useful in those cases. It's a personal label and I don't care if people use personal labels for their WOE. But once you step beyond the personal and start talking about how others should eat I question how useful it is.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
Raw honey is natural, HFCS is not. So one is clean and the other is not.
They're made the same way.
Um, no I don't think so. What kind of bees make HFCS?
oh. You care whether humans or bees made it.
Either way, it's sugar water + enzymes + time.
Why is something natural when a bee makes it and unnatural when a human makes it?
I guess we can add "If it is made by an insect or animal, it's clean and if it is made by a human, it isn't" to the list of clean/not clean attributes.
What if I make my own "honey" in a similar process to how bees do it? Consume sugar-like nectar, swallow and regurgitate several times, spit it into a "wax-like" container before feeding it to my children (or have a giant bee smoke me to sleep and take my "honey"), would it be clean?
I do love honey. I do love HFCS (special love though as a child of an Iowan farmer). Guess I'm one of those weirdos who looks at the base make-up rather than where it comes from.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
Raw honey is natural, HFCS is not. So one is clean and the other is not.
They're made the same way.
Um, no I don't think so. What kind of bees make HFCS?
oh. You care whether humans or bees made it.
Either way, it's sugar water + enzymes + time.
Why is something natural when a bee makes it and unnatural when a human makes it?
I guess we can add "If it is made by an insect or animal, it's clean and if it is made by a human, it isn't" to the list of clean/not clean attributes.
What if I make my own "honey" in a similar process to how bees do it? Consume sugar-like nectar, swallow and regurgitate several times, spit it into a "wax-like" container before feeding it to my children (or have a giant bee smoke me to sleep and take my "honey"), would it be clean?
I do love honey. I do love HFCS (special love though as a child of an Iowan farmer). Guess I'm one of those weirdos who looks at the base make-up rather than where it comes from.
Do you judge whether it's clean by base make-up being same? Same as what?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
Raw honey is natural, HFCS is not. So one is clean and the other is not.
So if a bug makes it then it's clean but if a person makes it then it's unclean?
Brilliant.
It's just the meaning of the word natural. Nothing man-made is natural.
Humans are unnatural?
1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
Raw honey is natural, HFCS is not. So one is clean and the other is not.
So if a bug makes it then it's clean but if a person makes it then it's unclean?
Brilliant.
It's just the meaning of the word natural. Nothing man-made is natural.
Humans are unnatural?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
Simple Definition of natural
1 : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
2 : not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
3 : usual or expected
0 -
bruhaha007 wrote: »Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.
Bagged frozen vegetables are usually on the inner aisles. How is a bag of frozen broccoli less "clean" than the fresh broccoli on the outer aisle in the produce section?
And if I buy the fresh broccoli instead, take it home and wash it, cut it up and portion it into freezer bags, is it now "unclean" because it's been "processed" and bagged? Or is it still "clean" because I "processed" it instead of somebody else doing it for me?0 -
bruhaha007 wrote: »Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.
Bagged frozen vegetables are usually on the inner aisles. How is a bag of frozen broccoli less "clean" than the fresh broccoli on the outer aisle in the produce section?
Deli's on the outside. Nuthin that's not highly processed in the deli ...0 -
bruhaha007 wrote: »Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.
Bagged frozen vegetables are usually on the inner aisles. How is a bag of frozen broccoli less "clean" than the fresh broccoli on the outer aisle in the produce section?
And if I buy the fresh broccoli instead, take it home and wash it, cut it up and portion it into freezer bags, is it now "unclean" because it's been "processed" and bagged? Or is it still "clean" because I "processed" it instead of somebody else doing it for me?
Clean for you. Not clean for anyone who lives with you that might eat it.
I think I'm getting the hang of this ..
0 -
bruhaha007 wrote: »Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.
Bagged frozen vegetables are usually on the inner aisles. How is a bag of frozen broccoli less "clean" than the fresh broccoli on the outer aisle in the produce section?
Deli's on the outside. Nuthin that's not highly processed in the deli ...
Take 'n' bake pizzas are on the outside aisle too, for that matter. Now I feel much better, my pizzas and Italian sub sandwiches are "clean"!
0 -
bruhaha007 wrote: »Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.
I get the idea of this, I just have seen too many new posters on MFP take advice like this to heart. In my store I'd miss frozen fruit and veggies, tuna, rice, canned beans, dry beans, all of the "organic" dairy, all of the dairy substitutes, and a lot of the other "cleaner" staples in my diet (depending on the definition, of course).0 -
bruhaha007 wrote: »Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.
This is a complete myth for any supermarket I use in the UK. Is this perimeter shopping thing just a US thing?0 -
bruhaha007 wrote: »Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.
This is a complete myth for any supermarket I use in the UK. Is this perimeter shopping thing just a US thing?
US supermarkets tend to have the fresh veggies and the meat counter on the perimeter, which is where the idea usually comes from, I think. But ime the rest of the perimeter usually has the Little Debbie snacks, ice cream, bread, bakery (donuts!), and such. It varies from store to store quite a bit.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
Banter and rebuttal is fine. But I wonder what you were looking for, in the end? Obviously it's useful to the people who use it. As I said, is 'healthy' no longer a useful word because different people have different idea on what 'healthy eating' means? Shall we all decide to ban certain words from the English language because their meaning is fluid?diannethegeek wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »I don't know why people argue about this so much on this board. Everywhere else I post agrees that clean eating is only eating foods you could grow/prepare yourself. ypu don't have to do it yourself, you can buy them,but they can't require a laboratory or ingredients you can't buy in a grocery store. So butter is clean (because you could get milk and churn it yourself if you had the time) but margarine isn't because you couldn't make it in your kitchen. Likewise peanut butter made from peanuts and salt is clean. Protein powder isn't. It's pretty obvious really
Everyone in this *thread* doesn't agree with your definition. We've got people arguing that ground foods (like polenta and peanut butter and ground beef) aren't clean. And I've seen people argue that dairy isn't clean.
Your definitions may be obvious to you, but they aren't universal. Plenty of those who think they are eating clean disagree with you.
Vegans don't consider butter "clean".
Paleo dieters don't consider peanuts "clean".
Whelp. There goes another arbitrary definition of "clean eating" out the window.
No vegans don't consider butter vegan. And paleo eaters don't consider peanuts paleo. That's an additional dietary restriction.
OP I see your point but as I said the pointless arguments about clean only seem to happen on this board because people seem to take it personally that some people don't want to eat artificial ingredients. Everywhere else I post that is the standard.
And I think that attributing it to "taking it personally" or personal offense ignores the broader point. If two clean eaters in this very thread can't agree, I don't think that you can say that the argument is solely caused by those who aren't clean eaters or that it's pointless. I've laid out my point and my reasoning for this thread several times upthread.
Although, I do tend to take it personally when clean eaters tell me, for instance, that I'll get cancer for eating the way I do (though they hardly ever know the details of my diet or health history). But that's not on topic for this thread.
But it's just semantics. It's the same if you asked two people to define a 'healthy' diet. Or 'beautiful'. There are always going to be different definitions of a word. But the OP asked what is clean and I told her the standards definition across the other boards I frequent.
Also to whoever asked about wine, you can make wine yourself with enough grapes and time. But you could never make canola oil in your kitchen.
I am the OP. I did ask what clean eating is. I also asked if it was a useful descriptor at the end of the post. And I added a disclaimer that this would be a post where replies would likely have some amount of banter and rebuttal.
As I said upthread, "Eat clean" is given as advice for everything from "How do I gain muscle?" to "Has my weight loss stalled?" I question whether or not it's useful in those cases. It's a personal label and I don't care if people use personal labels for their WOE. But once you step beyond the personal and start talking about how others should eat I question how useful it is.
I see your point but I think in many cases it is helpful. The definition I gave you is especially helpful to people looking to change the way they eat because it makes them more mindful of what they eat.Reading an ingredient list in a store and asking 'could I replicate this at home' does help in terms of being aware of what you eat and where it comes from. Mfp emphasizes reading the nutritional label (cals, macros) etc rather than what a food is actually made of and what has been added to it. It does no harm to be aware of both and 'clean' helps with that.0 -
bruhaha007 wrote: »Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.
This is a complete myth for any supermarket I use in the UK. Is this perimeter shopping thing just a US thing?
I think it must be, because if I went to my local Sainsbury's and shopped the perimeter only I'll be eating Tu Clothing and ciggies.0 -
Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
LOL awesome thought that up until this moment, had completely passed me by
Brain bleach anyone
I'll stick that thought on the shelf with eggs0 -
bruhaha007 wrote: »Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.
This is a complete myth for any supermarket I use in the UK. Is this perimeter shopping thing just a US thing?
Most supermarkets in the US are arranged so that fresh meat, dairy, and produce are somewhere along the perimeter. Produce is generally to the right as you enter, and meat along the back wall. Lots of nutritionists use "shop the perimeter" as shorthand for "buy fresh meats and veg" ... but .. well ... as a rule to live by, it doesn't hold up. There's plenty of things that are arguably good or bad on the perimeter and in the aisles.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
Banter and rebuttal is fine. But I wonder what you were looking for, in the end? Obviously it's useful to the people who use it. As I said, is 'healthy' no longer a useful word because different people have different idea on what 'healthy eating' means? Shall we all decide to ban certain words from the English language because their meaning is fluid?diannethegeek wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »I don't know why people argue about this so much on this board. Everywhere else I post agrees that clean eating is only eating foods you could grow/prepare yourself. ypu don't have to do it yourself, you can buy them,but they can't require a laboratory or ingredients you can't buy in a grocery store. So butter is clean (because you could get milk and churn it yourself if you had the time) but margarine isn't because you couldn't make it in your kitchen. Likewise peanut butter made from peanuts and salt is clean. Protein powder isn't. It's pretty obvious really
Everyone in this *thread* doesn't agree with your definition. We've got people arguing that ground foods (like polenta and peanut butter and ground beef) aren't clean. And I've seen people argue that dairy isn't clean.
Your definitions may be obvious to you, but they aren't universal. Plenty of those who think they are eating clean disagree with you.
Vegans don't consider butter "clean".
Paleo dieters don't consider peanuts "clean".
Whelp. There goes another arbitrary definition of "clean eating" out the window.
No vegans don't consider butter vegan. And paleo eaters don't consider peanuts paleo. That's an additional dietary restriction.
OP I see your point but as I said the pointless arguments about clean only seem to happen on this board because people seem to take it personally that some people don't want to eat artificial ingredients. Everywhere else I post that is the standard.
And I think that attributing it to "taking it personally" or personal offense ignores the broader point. If two clean eaters in this very thread can't agree, I don't think that you can say that the argument is solely caused by those who aren't clean eaters or that it's pointless. I've laid out my point and my reasoning for this thread several times upthread.
Although, I do tend to take it personally when clean eaters tell me, for instance, that I'll get cancer for eating the way I do (though they hardly ever know the details of my diet or health history). But that's not on topic for this thread.
But it's just semantics. It's the same if you asked two people to define a 'healthy' diet. Or 'beautiful'. There are always going to be different definitions of a word. But the OP asked what is clean and I told her the standards definition across the other boards I frequent.
Also to whoever asked about wine, you can make wine yourself with enough grapes and time. But you could never make canola oil in your kitchen.
I am the OP. I did ask what clean eating is. I also asked if it was a useful descriptor at the end of the post. And I added a disclaimer that this would be a post where replies would likely have some amount of banter and rebuttal.
As I said upthread, "Eat clean" is given as advice for everything from "How do I gain muscle?" to "Has my weight loss stalled?" I question whether or not it's useful in those cases. It's a personal label and I don't care if people use personal labels for their WOE. But once you step beyond the personal and start talking about how others should eat I question how useful it is.
I see your point but I think in many cases it is helpful. The definition I gave you is especially helpful to people looking to change the way they eat because it makes them more mindful of what they eat.Reading an ingredient list in a store and asking 'could I replicate this at home' does help in terms of being aware of what you eat and where it comes from. Mfp emphasizes reading the nutritional label (cals, macros) etc rather than what a food is actually made of and what has been added to it. It does no harm to be aware of both and 'clean' helps with that.
As long as people continue to educate themselves and move beyond that - the idea is applied willy nilly to a bunch of products, along with natural and the dietary restrictions end up being senseless. Same with the "avoid sugar" debate where people end up questioning if they can eat a banana.
It's a fantastic marketing tool - from Nakd Energy bars to all sorts of "natural" and clean products.
Just eat food.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »
Banter and rebuttal is fine. But I wonder what you were looking for, in the end? Obviously it's useful to the people who use it. As I said, is 'healthy' no longer a useful word because different people have different idea on what 'healthy eating' means? Shall we all decide to ban certain words from the English language because their meaning is fluid?diannethegeek wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »I don't know why people argue about this so much on this board. Everywhere else I post agrees that clean eating is only eating foods you could grow/prepare yourself. ypu don't have to do it yourself, you can buy them,but they can't require a laboratory or ingredients you can't buy in a grocery store. So butter is clean (because you could get milk and churn it yourself if you had the time) but margarine isn't because you couldn't make it in your kitchen. Likewise peanut butter made from peanuts and salt is clean. Protein powder isn't. It's pretty obvious really
Everyone in this *thread* doesn't agree with your definition. We've got people arguing that ground foods (like polenta and peanut butter and ground beef) aren't clean. And I've seen people argue that dairy isn't clean.
Your definitions may be obvious to you, but they aren't universal. Plenty of those who think they are eating clean disagree with you.
Vegans don't consider butter "clean".
Paleo dieters don't consider peanuts "clean".
Whelp. There goes another arbitrary definition of "clean eating" out the window.
No vegans don't consider butter vegan. And paleo eaters don't consider peanuts paleo. That's an additional dietary restriction.
OP I see your point but as I said the pointless arguments about clean only seem to happen on this board because people seem to take it personally that some people don't want to eat artificial ingredients. Everywhere else I post that is the standard.
And I think that attributing it to "taking it personally" or personal offense ignores the broader point. If two clean eaters in this very thread can't agree, I don't think that you can say that the argument is solely caused by those who aren't clean eaters or that it's pointless. I've laid out my point and my reasoning for this thread several times upthread.
Although, I do tend to take it personally when clean eaters tell me, for instance, that I'll get cancer for eating the way I do (though they hardly ever know the details of my diet or health history). But that's not on topic for this thread.
But it's just semantics. It's the same if you asked two people to define a 'healthy' diet. Or 'beautiful'. There are always going to be different definitions of a word. But the OP asked what is clean and I told her the standards definition across the other boards I frequent.
Also to whoever asked about wine, you can make wine yourself with enough grapes and time. But you could never make canola oil in your kitchen.
I am the OP. I did ask what clean eating is. I also asked if it was a useful descriptor at the end of the post. And I added a disclaimer that this would be a post where replies would likely have some amount of banter and rebuttal.
It's presented as a judgment -- the word itself demonstrates that -- but there are no external standards to allow us to discuss the meaning of "clean" beyond "well, I say so."
With healthy, we can discuss what is a healthful diet, different studies, how certain choices relate to certain goals or outcomes, etc. Sure, we will never be able to agree 100% (any more than we can agree on whether a particular book is great or not) but there are specific things we can look to that allow for a reasoned discussion or argument as to why, in my view, a diet without vegetables is typically not a healthy diet. (And with the book example I'd point to aspects of the writing beyond "I just really enjoyed it!" or "I thought it was dumb!")
With clean, we have two different primary definitions in this thread -- yours (which for the record kind of appeals to me and is more consistent with how I like to eat, although I am not perfect still) and Need2's which would make beef I grind myself at home not clean, because it's no longer in a natural form.
I mean, if she thinks that's so, she does, and there's no basis to argue, but I also don't see how the term has any general applicability or clarity, then, such that it is useful at all. I don't see why killing an animal and skinning it and processing it into specific cuts = natural, but chopping it up beyond that = not. I don't see why grinding wheat and corn (as certain ancestors of mine did in the middle of nowhere Iowa in the 1830s, as they had a mill) = not natural, but corn itself, a crop that has been changed immensely from how it started out (like so many others) and needs help to reproduce = natural. It's impossible to discuss as we would health principles relating to nutrition. It's just kind of "well, this feels natural and this does not."
I kind of get it because I used to be obsessive about "eating natural" to the point of refusing to buy dried pasta or canned tomatoes (I'd buy off-season tasteless tomatoes and make pasta from flour, though) and flirting with the idea of trying a locovore challenge (back then the idea of giving up coffee and wine was too much, and local wine is not acceptable). But it seems just mystical or about feel vs. anything concrete or related to health.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Another one that really gets me is the honey vs high fructose corn syrup debate ... one is awesome and clean and great for you, and the other is the processed scourge of the earth, killing us all.
But they're nearly the same thing. Their Glucose to Fructose ratios are quite similar and they act the same way in the body.
They're both made pretty much the same way too. Both start with sugar water from plants, add enzymes to convert about 45% of the sugar to fructose, evaporate until sticky.
Considering how honey is produced by bees, it's definitely not "clean" (unless eating bee puke is on the Okay to Eat list).
Raw honey is natural, HFCS is not. So one is clean and the other is not.
So if a bug makes it then it's clean but if a person makes it then it's unclean?
Brilliant.
It's just the meaning of the word natural. Nothing man-made is natural.
So if ground beef isn't natural, can I chop up some chicken and stir fry it with vegetables (also chopped)? I don't get why this is more natural than grinding the beef before I cook it, but cooked beef is fine.0 -
bruhaha007 wrote: »Try to avoid the inside aisles of the grocery store on shop on the edges. That is where the "cleaner" food hangs out so I am told.
This is a complete myth for any supermarket I use in the UK. Is this perimeter shopping thing just a US thing?
Doesn't fit my store either, and I'm in Illinois.
Perimeter = bakery, deli, cheese, fish, meat, dairy, eggs, lots of prepared pastas and flavored yogurts and cookie dough, random seasonal stuff, booze. Inside, but near the perimeter (special section) includes kosher stuff and fruits and veg (many of which are pre-cut or bagged). Inside aisles include beans, oatmeal, frozen veg, the special section for health-food stuff and almond milk and soy milk, the various ethnic aisles, and all the usual.
That's the mainstream grocery. The WF has dairy/cheese, soy, and bakery and deli/sushi/prepared foods and booze on the perimeter too, and frozen veg on the inside also, however.0 -
How do you make lard at home in your kitchen?0
-
It seems like a lot of this discussion has turned to things that are "natural" which is an interesting turn for this to take, imo.
We've already discussed how there is no firm definition for "clean" and it seems that the definition for clean that is being referred to often is Natural.
Well, can we take a look at that?
I've been working in the grocery/"natural" foods industry for about 7 years now in various ways. As an employee of a natural chain of grocers working at the corporate level, I can tell you that we rely on these terms to drive sales but unlike the term "organic" which has a legally defined definition in the US, the term "natural" has no such definition. Literally anything can be labelled natural with no repercussions if it isn't, similar to the supplement industry (and we rely on all of those buzzwords to drive sales and marketing)
So, if there is no firmly or legally defined definition of natural, but we are using that term to judge items that are clean, what kind of rabbit hole are we going down here?
That said, working in this industry, I've long since come to know that pretty much any and all claims made on a label, whether they are legally defined, certified, regulated or not... if they are not evaluated by the FDA, mean absolutely nothing in regards to the products they describe. The only purpose, from the business perspective, is marketing... plain and simple. Marketing drives sales and buzzwords are practically free marketing.
Just a thought.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »How do you make lard at home in your kitchen?
it is extremely easy. Render pork fat on low heat. Strain out the Cracklins/lardons. Let the remaining liquid fat solidify.
It's just about the same process as clarifying butter.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions