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
-
When I was a young man about town "clean eating" meant trying to base your diet around food which was as minimally processed and / or as close to its natural state as possible - apples rather than apple sauce.
Now? Don't have a clue. It seems to have multiple definitions and applications to the extent the term is probably not that much use.
I like this one because it made me think ... when I was a young girl/woman. clean eating meant rinsing the dirt off your vegetables and fruit, and soaking you meat in salted water before cooking it.0 -
Clean eating is very personal and involves perception. And the definition of clean tells you how most people will think when taking it into context with eating. The term is useless to me. Just google the word and see how much crap comes up for dieting. But if someone uses the term for themselves to create a better healthy lifestyle that is sustainable then more power to them. Congrats... I do hate when people use the word to be douchey.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.
Huh, neat. Not like I'd ever make some, but still neat.
Next question: Wine was mentioned. You need quite a bit of equipment to make wine that is not found in your average kitchen or needs to be made DIY. What differentiates that equipment needed for equipment to make anything else that you'd not usually make yourself?
For example there's kits to make your own candy for sale, with all ingredients you need. Does that make candy clean?0 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »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.
I would get (in that order....)... fruit, meat, juices, bread, magazines and birthday cards, frozen foods, household cleaning stuff and booze!
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
So since nature doesn't soak leaves in steaming hot water, tea isn't clean?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
So since nature doesn't soak leaves in steaming hot water, tea isn't clean?
I thought we'd already established that coffee and tea aren't "clean" because they're "processed" (ground). Just as free-range, grass-fed, hormone-free beef becomes "unclean" when it's ground, and corn becomes "unclean" when it's ground.
Besides, if you heat water and strain it through tea leaves, your water is no longer "clean" because you've processed it (heat is an intervention by humans, which we know aren't natural), and nature doesn't strain hot water through ground leaves.1 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »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.
I would get (in that order....)... fruit, meat, juices, bread, magazines and birthday cards, frozen foods, household cleaning stuff and booze!
Just a normal Saturday meal, right? Mmmm I love a light spray of Old English furniture polish. Goes great with my vodka birthday card flambé.
Outside of my grocery store is produce, the bakery, meat and seafood, cheese, eggs, dairy, frozen foods (not the veg, I don't even know I never go down that aisle), pet food, random holiday crap (right now Easter) for the US.
I get the concept as a learning tool however (at least in the US) to kind of explain what is meant. However, as the dead horse that has been beaten, there's no hard and fast definition of what it means anyways.0 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »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.
I would get (in that order....)... fruit, meat, juices, bread, magazines and birthday cards, frozen foods, household cleaning stuff and booze!
Just a normal Saturday meal, right? Mmmm I love a light spray of Old English furniture polish. Goes great with my vodka birthday card flambé.
Outside of my grocery store is produce, the bakery, meat and seafood, cheese, eggs, dairy, frozen foods (not the veg, I don't even know I never go down that aisle), pet food, random holiday crap (right now Easter) for the US.
I get the concept as a learning tool however (at least in the US) to kind of explain what is meant. However, as the dead horse that has been beaten, there's no hard and fast definition of what it means anyways.
I shop at Walmart on work days because it's the only store that wouldn't add an hour commute to run to the store. I can eat bike helmets, automotive parts, and gardening supplies in addition to the typical fare.0 -
Pork fat is natural right? So clean?0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Pork fat is natural right? So clean?
If you don't grind it up, it'll be kosher.0 -
People have made and produced wine and other alcoholic beverages for thousands of years. You don't need 'quite a bit of equipment'. But obviously your knowledge of wine-making is similar to your knowledge of lard-making.stevencloser wrote: »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.
Huh, neat. Not like I'd ever make some, but still neat.
Next question: Wine was mentioned. You need quite a bit of equipment to make wine that is not found in your average kitchen or needs to be made DIY. What differentiates that equipment needed for equipment to make anything else that you'd not usually make yourself?
For example there's kits to make your own candy for sale, with all ingredients you need. Does that make candy clean?
0 -
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
Macguyver has a lot of options when eating clean.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Huh, neat. Not like I'd ever make some, but still neat.
Next question: Wine was mentioned. You need quite a bit of equipment to make wine that is not found in your average kitchen or needs to be made DIY. What differentiates that equipment needed for equipment to make anything else that you'd not usually make yourself?
For example there's kits to make your own candy for sale, with all ingredients you need. Does that make candy clean?
Also you don't seem to understand my point about 'clean'. The question is if you could replicate all the ingredients shown on a good item and make it at home. If the ingredients for a loaf of bread are flour, yeast, salt then yes, you could. If there are 10+ ingredients most of which you have no idea what they are then no, you couldn't. It's not a complicated idea but you seem to be unable to grasp it.0 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.
The funny thing about "raw honey" is that it has no control on antibiotics, metals, or pesticides. The best quality honey is filtered and certified - well unless you like dead bees and wasps in your honey (and the acaricides that go with them...)0 -
I'm stuck on why I can eat coffee beans and they be clean but if I grind them up and pour water on them it's not clean.
Beans, clean. Water, clean. Bean water, not clean.
Whatever.0 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.
Well yes, Need2 has her own definition and I don't really see her logic but if it helps her eat and feel better then there's no point arguing it further.
But it seems we agree on many things, just not the term. it may be a value judgement but life is full of those. Personally I am more disturbed by the many threads on mfp of 'I can eat what I like within my calories' or discussing various junk foods as if eating them was some kind of prize or achievement. I really don't care what people do or don't eat but it seems to be that on a site full of obese or formerly obese people threads glorifying Oreos etc is almost like a kid sticking it's tongue out at the teacher. I just wish people would pay more attention to what's actually in the food they eat (and glorify as if it was something worth being worshipped) rather than acting like big shots because they ate some nutritionally bereft food (which is probably why they became obese in the first place). No one jumps on these people but if some newbie says timidly 'I want to eat clean' a whole bunch of people jump on them. I guess it comes with the territory on a calorie-counting website but there is more to food than calories. Where your food comes from matter. How/where it was raised or produced matters. What was added to it matters. And if the word 'clean' makes someone look into those things a little more closely, I am all for it.1 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Huh, neat. Not like I'd ever make some, but still neat.
Next question: Wine was mentioned. You need quite a bit of equipment to make wine that is not found in your average kitchen or needs to be made DIY. What differentiates that equipment needed for equipment to make anything else that you'd not usually make yourself?
For example there's kits to make your own candy for sale, with all ingredients you need. Does that make candy clean?
Also you don't seem to understand my point about 'clean'. The question is if you could replicate all the ingredients shown on a good item and make it at home. If the ingredients for a loaf of bread are flour, yeast, salt then yes, you could. If there are 10+ ingredients most of which you have no idea what they are then no, you couldn't. It's not a complicated idea but you seem to be unable to grasp it.
Why is yeast clean? Can't really make it at home, S. cerevisiae doesn't really remain that pure if you do so, generally must be store bought.
Is blue cheese clean?
Cazu marzu?
Yoghurt? Only if you make it?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Huh, neat. Not like I'd ever make some, but still neat.
Next question: Wine was mentioned. You need quite a bit of equipment to make wine that is not found in your average kitchen or needs to be made DIY. What differentiates that equipment needed for equipment to make anything else that you'd not usually make yourself?
For example there's kits to make your own candy for sale, with all ingredients you need. Does that make candy clean?
Also you don't seem to understand my point about 'clean'. The question is if you could replicate all the ingredients shown on a good item and make it at home. If the ingredients for a loaf of bread are flour, yeast, salt then yes, you could. If there are 10+ ingredients most of which you have no idea what they are then no, you couldn't. It's not a complicated idea but you seem to be unable to grasp it.
Why is yeast clean? Can't really make it at home, S. cerevisiae doesn't really remain that pure if you do so, generally must be store bought.
Is blue cheese clean?
Cazu marzu?
Yoghurt? Only if you make it?
I Make sourdough bread so I have a 'mother'. She's a ball of pulsating life. But once again, I never said this was about not buying things from a store. It's about paying attention to what's in what you're buying from a store.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Huh, neat. Not like I'd ever make some, but still neat.
Next question: Wine was mentioned. You need quite a bit of equipment to make wine that is not found in your average kitchen or needs to be made DIY. What differentiates that equipment needed for equipment to make anything else that you'd not usually make yourself?
For example there's kits to make your own candy for sale, with all ingredients you need. Does that make candy clean?
Also you don't seem to understand my point about 'clean'. The question is if you could replicate all the ingredients shown on a good item and make it at home. If the ingredients for a loaf of bread are flour, yeast, salt then yes, you could. If there are 10+ ingredients most of which you have no idea what they are then no, you couldn't. It's not a complicated idea but you seem to be unable to grasp it.
Why is yeast clean? Can't really make it at home, S. cerevisiae doesn't really remain that pure if you do so, generally must be store bought.
Is blue cheese clean?
Cazu marzu?
Yoghurt? Only if you make it?
I Make sourdough bread so I have a 'mother'. She's a ball of pulsating life. But once again, I never said this was about not buying things from a store. It's about paying attention to what's in what you're buying from a store.
What kinds of things might be in food from the store that I should avoid?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Huh, neat. Not like I'd ever make some, but still neat.
Next question: Wine was mentioned. You need quite a bit of equipment to make wine that is not found in your average kitchen or needs to be made DIY. What differentiates that equipment needed for equipment to make anything else that you'd not usually make yourself?
For example there's kits to make your own candy for sale, with all ingredients you need. Does that make candy clean?
Also you don't seem to understand my point about 'clean'. The question is if you could replicate all the ingredients shown on a good item and make it at home. If the ingredients for a loaf of bread are flour, yeast, salt then yes, you could. If there are 10+ ingredients most of which you have no idea what they are then no, you couldn't. It's not a complicated idea but you seem to be unable to grasp it.
Why is yeast clean? Can't really make it at home, S. cerevisiae doesn't really remain that pure if you do so, generally must be store bought.
Is blue cheese clean?
Cazu marzu?
Yoghurt? Only if you make it?
I Make sourdough bread so I have a 'mother'. She's a ball of pulsating life. But once again, I never said this was about not buying things from a store. It's about paying attention to what's in what you're buying from a store.
What kinds of things might be in food from the store that I should avoid?
Whatever you choose.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?
It's not even a thing here.
Our stores have the produce in a front corner, usually sided by the baked goods then proceeding around the perimeter to lunch meats/sausages to dairy to frozen pizzas to soda then down the main drive aisle (separating grocery from pet supplies, sporting goods and apparel) for all the sale items like the new pop tart flavor, townhouse crackers, cookies and chocolates.0 -
Who knows. Some bro at the gym just told me that eating McDonalds is clean eating.0
-
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Huh, neat. Not like I'd ever make some, but still neat.
Next question: Wine was mentioned. You need quite a bit of equipment to make wine that is not found in your average kitchen or needs to be made DIY. What differentiates that equipment needed for equipment to make anything else that you'd not usually make yourself?
For example there's kits to make your own candy for sale, with all ingredients you need. Does that make candy clean?
Also you don't seem to understand my point about 'clean'. The question is if you could replicate all the ingredients shown on a good item and make it at home. If the ingredients for a loaf of bread are flour, yeast, salt then yes, you could. If there are 10+ ingredients most of which you have no idea what they are then no, you couldn't. It's not a complicated idea but you seem to be unable to grasp it.
Why is yeast clean? Can't really make it at home, S. cerevisiae doesn't really remain that pure if you do so, generally must be store bought.
Is blue cheese clean?
Cazu marzu?
Yoghurt? Only if you make it?
I Make sourdough bread so I have a 'mother'. She's a ball of pulsating life. But once again, I never said this was about not buying things from a store. It's about paying attention to what's in what you're buying from a store.
What kinds of things might be in food from the store that I should avoid?
Whatever you choose.
Then I choose.......coconut......and mint.
ETA but seriously? There's no guidance for what should be avoided in processed foods? Just whatever I want to choose? Is this clean eating agnosticism?0 -
arditarose wrote: »Who knows. Some bro at the gym just told me that eating McDonalds is clean eating.
Unless they drop your fries then put em back in the cup.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Huh, neat. Not like I'd ever make some, but still neat.
Next question: Wine was mentioned. You need quite a bit of equipment to make wine that is not found in your average kitchen or needs to be made DIY. What differentiates that equipment needed for equipment to make anything else that you'd not usually make yourself?
For example there's kits to make your own candy for sale, with all ingredients you need. Does that make candy clean?
Also you don't seem to understand my point about 'clean'. The question is if you could replicate all the ingredients shown on a good item and make it at home. If the ingredients for a loaf of bread are flour, yeast, salt then yes, you could. If there are 10+ ingredients most of which you have no idea what they are then no, you couldn't. It's not a complicated idea but you seem to be unable to grasp it.
You arbitrarily choose what the ingredients are you don't like. It's, to be quite frank, dumb.
Also you need at the very least an airtight container with a way to release carbon dioxide for proper alcoholic fermentation. I don't know about you, but I don't have such a thing just lying around my apartment, I'd have to buy one or make one first.
I don't have a coffee mill at home -> coffee is not clean?
Same with flour, and getting your own yeast.
No, that's dumb. I can just buy a coffee mill and make my own coffee, no problem.
But I can also just get everything that's in the 10+ ingredients bread if I want to, it's not made in some secret government research lab unavailable for the public, or get other things that have the same purpose, as you should be able to grasp that they don't throw in ingredients just for fun, they serve a purpose.
There is absolutely no sense in dividing ingredients like this.0 -
BTW. my cheapest of the cheap, white toast presliced, noname brand white bread made to last until the end of a nuclear winter probably contains exactly 1 ingredient that I would have to look for a bit to get: sodium acetate.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Huh, neat. Not like I'd ever make some, but still neat.
Next question: Wine was mentioned. You need quite a bit of equipment to make wine that is not found in your average kitchen or needs to be made DIY. What differentiates that equipment needed for equipment to make anything else that you'd not usually make yourself?
For example there's kits to make your own candy for sale, with all ingredients you need. Does that make candy clean?
Also you don't seem to understand my point about 'clean'. The question is if you could replicate all the ingredients shown on a good item and make it at home. If the ingredients for a loaf of bread are flour, yeast, salt then yes, you could. If there are 10+ ingredients most of which you have no idea what they are then no, you couldn't. It's not a complicated idea but you seem to be unable to grasp it.
Why is yeast clean? Can't really make it at home, S. cerevisiae doesn't really remain that pure if you do so, generally must be store bought.
Is blue cheese clean?
Cazu marzu?
Yoghurt? Only if you make it?
Well, you see men aren't allowed to make those things, but they're clean for women...0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »lemurcat12 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.
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.
Well yes, Need2 has her own definition and I don't really see her logic but if it helps her eat and feel better then there's no point arguing it further.
But it seems we agree on many things, just not the term. it may be a value judgement but life is full of those. Personally I am more disturbed by the many threads on mfp of 'I can eat what I like within my calories' or discussing various junk foods as if eating them was some kind of prize or achievement.
I don't see this. I see lots of people being told that they should eat a healthy diet of mostly nutrient dense foods and adequate macros and micros but that they can include within that foods they particularly love that might be higher cal/lower nutrient in appropriate portions or on occasion. I expect I've made such posts myself. And I don't do it to discourage people who have decided to give up something or other (I often post about how I have dropped foods for a time for my own reasons), but because I think a lot of people assume that to lose weight they have to eat a special "diet" diet that is all about low cals or self-punishment and must look virtuous and dull -- the number of people I see eating only chicken breast and rice cakes or diet frozen meals or the like (often not with a good variety of vegetables) is sad, as I doubt they enjoy the meals (I don't comment unless invited to, though). Similarly, people post about only eating fruits and veg, assuming that's a good diet. My frustration with clean eating (usually defined as "no processed food" here, but that means weird things to people) is that it's just another manner of eating that seems to distract from actually understanding nutrition (Need2 may have a definition of clean eating I don't understand, but she doesn't say it's the same as eating healthy and she does understand nutrition). IMO, if you have some reason of your own to eat "clean" under some individual definition, I don't care (although I hate the term). I eat according to my own principles, which means making things from scratch at home, sourcing from local farms when possible, not eating ultra processed stuff (but then I'm a total hypocrite since I get into phases where I buy lunch all the time, although from places that meet my standards), eating lots of veg, etc. But what I don't do is confuse the fact that I would never, ever buy jarred pasta sauce and prefer to make my own salad dressing and don't buy supermarket bread with a claim that doing those things is healthier or has a thing to do with weight loss. I despise American cheese product and love trying new European cheeses or local American varieties, but I don't pretend that snobby cheeses are any better for the waistline. They just taste better. In fact, the best cheese for me for weight loss is my supermarket feta, since it has a strong taste, is low cal, and is easily available and inexpensive.
I do think there's fun with people talking about how they still enjoy ice cream or pizza (which can be made at home) or the like, or even Oreos, although I haven't yet read that thread, but I don't see what that has to do with clean eating or whether it helps with a diet. Under your definition of clean eating, if I'm understanding, I can made a strawberry rhubarb pie (which another MFP clean eater told me was "processed junk" and inherently too sweet although he never tasted my pie, obviously) or a homemade cookie or cupcake and that's fine, but those foods are as calorific (and IMO harder to resist) as any store-bought sweet.
I guess I'm partially skeptical of the clean eating craze because I managed to gain plenty of weight when I was much more into a "natural" approach to eating.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »lemurcat12 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.
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.
Well yes, Need2 has her own definition and I don't really see her logic but if it helps her eat and feel better then there's no point arguing it further.
But it seems we agree on many things, just not the term. it may be a value judgement but life is full of those. Personally I am more disturbed by the many threads on mfp of 'I can eat what I like within my calories' or discussing various junk foods as if eating them was some kind of prize or achievement.
I don't see this. I see lots of people being told that they should eat a healthy diet of mostly nutrient dense foods and adequate macros and micros but that they can include within that foods they particularly love that might be higher cal/lower nutrient in appropriate portions or on occasion. I expect I've made such posts myself. And I don't do it to discourage people who have decided to give up something or other (I often post about how I have dropped foods for a time for my own reasons), but because I think a lot of people assume that to lose weight they have to eat a special "diet" diet that is all about low cals or self-punishment and must look virtuous and dull -- the number of people I see eating only chicken breast and rice cakes or diet frozen meals or the like (often not with a good variety of vegetables) is sad, as I doubt they enjoy the meals (I don't comment unless invited to, though). Similarly, people post about only eating fruits and veg, assuming that's a good diet. My frustration with clean eating (usually defined as "no processed food" here, but that means weird things to people) is that it's just another manner of eating that seems to distract from actually understanding nutrition (Need2 may have a definition of clean eating I don't understand, but she doesn't say it's the same as eating healthy and she does understand nutrition). IMO, if you have some reason of your own to eat "clean" under some individual definition, I don't care (although I hate the term). I eat according to my own principles, which means making things from scratch at home, sourcing from local farms when possible, not eating ultra processed stuff (but then I'm a total hypocrite since I get into phases where I buy lunch all the time, although from places that meet my standards), eating lots of veg, etc. But what I don't do is confuse the fact that I would never, ever buy jarred pasta sauce and prefer to make my own salad dressing and don't buy supermarket bread with a claim that doing those things is healthier or has a thing to do with weight loss. I despise American cheese product and love trying new European cheeses or local American varieties, but I don't pretend that snobby cheeses are any better for the waistline. They just taste better. In fact, the best cheese for me for weight loss is my supermarket feta, since it has a strong taste, is low cal, and is easily available and inexpensive.
I do think there's fun with people talking about how they still enjoy ice cream or pizza (which can be made at home) or the like, or even Oreos, although I haven't yet read that thread, but I don't see what that has to do with clean eating or whether it helps with a diet. Under your definition of clean eating, if I'm understanding, I can made a strawberry rhubarb pie (which another MFP clean eater told me was "processed junk" and inherently too sweet although he never tasted my pie, obviously) or a homemade cookie or cupcake and that's fine, but those foods are as calorific (and IMO harder to resist) as any store-bought sweet.
I guess I'm partially skeptical of the clean eating craze because I managed to gain plenty of weight when I was much more into a "natural" approach to eating.
I think it's interesting because we were asked to give a definition of clean eating. I gave one. I didn't say that I followed it or what people should eat. I simply said that people should pay more attention to the food that they eat and where it comes from. Ultimately someone eating 'clean' (regardless of their personal definition) will probably pay more attention to the additives in their foods and come to their own conclusions about what they want to ingest. Personally I think knowledge is power so 'I want to eat clean' is not a terrible statement and doesn't deserve the pariah status it gets on these boards.
0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »lemurcat12 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.
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.
Well yes, Need2 has her own definition and I don't really see her logic but if it helps her eat and feel better then there's no point arguing it further.
But it seems we agree on many things, just not the term. it may be a value judgement but life is full of those. Personally I am more disturbed by the many threads on mfp of 'I can eat what I like within my calories' or discussing various junk foods as if eating them was some kind of prize or achievement.
I don't see this. I see lots of people being told that they should eat a healthy diet of mostly nutrient dense foods and adequate macros and micros but that they can include within that foods they particularly love that might be higher cal/lower nutrient in appropriate portions or on occasion. I expect I've made such posts myself. And I don't do it to discourage people who have decided to give up something or other (I often post about how I have dropped foods for a time for my own reasons), but because I think a lot of people assume that to lose weight they have to eat a special "diet" diet that is all about low cals or self-punishment and must look virtuous and dull -- the number of people I see eating only chicken breast and rice cakes or diet frozen meals or the like (often not with a good variety of vegetables) is sad, as I doubt they enjoy the meals (I don't comment unless invited to, though). Similarly, people post about only eating fruits and veg, assuming that's a good diet. My frustration with clean eating (usually defined as "no processed food" here, but that means weird things to people) is that it's just another manner of eating that seems to distract from actually understanding nutrition (Need2 may have a definition of clean eating I don't understand, but she doesn't say it's the same as eating healthy and she does understand nutrition). IMO, if you have some reason of your own to eat "clean" under some individual definition, I don't care (although I hate the term). I eat according to my own principles, which means making things from scratch at home, sourcing from local farms when possible, not eating ultra processed stuff (but then I'm a total hypocrite since I get into phases where I buy lunch all the time, although from places that meet my standards), eating lots of veg, etc. But what I don't do is confuse the fact that I would never, ever buy jarred pasta sauce and prefer to make my own salad dressing and don't buy supermarket bread with a claim that doing those things is healthier or has a thing to do with weight loss. I despise American cheese product and love trying new European cheeses or local American varieties, but I don't pretend that snobby cheeses are any better for the waistline. They just taste better. In fact, the best cheese for me for weight loss is my supermarket feta, since it has a strong taste, is low cal, and is easily available and inexpensive.
I do think there's fun with people talking about how they still enjoy ice cream or pizza (which can be made at home) or the like, or even Oreos, although I haven't yet read that thread, but I don't see what that has to do with clean eating or whether it helps with a diet. Under your definition of clean eating, if I'm understanding, I can made a strawberry rhubarb pie (which another MFP clean eater told me was "processed junk" and inherently too sweet although he never tasted my pie, obviously) or a homemade cookie or cupcake and that's fine, but those foods are as calorific (and IMO harder to resist) as any store-bought sweet.
I guess I'm partially skeptical of the clean eating craze because I managed to gain plenty of weight when I was much more into a "natural" approach to eating.
I think it's interesting because we were asked to give a definition of clean eating. I gave one. I didn't say that I followed it or what people should eat. I simply said that people should pay more attention to the food that they eat and where it comes from. Ultimately someone eating 'clean' (regardless of their personal definition) will probably pay more attention to the additives in their foods and come to their own conclusions about what they want to ingest. Personally I think knowledge is power so 'I want to eat clean' is not a terrible statement and doesn't deserve the pariah status it gets on these boards.
Because "I want to eat clean" actually tends to mean wanting to avoid true knowledge, frankly. Paying attention to food additives is shallow, listicle knowledge when the person doesn't actually know what those additives are.
The classic example for MFP being someone going off about sodium bicarbonate (baking soda!) being a deadly toxin because it can remove paint. That kind it'd thing is why the clean eating "I want to know what is in my food" gets "pariah" status - people that want to know what is in food to scare themselves out of foods because they want to know things but have no interest in doing the hard work of understanding things.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