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
-
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.
You say that like it's true0 -
To me clean means foods that grow out of the ground, or that come from living things with faces. Not that I eat only those foods, but if I want to be satiated so I don't overindulge in junkier foods I make sure foods in those categories make up the majority of my diet.
It seems this discussion is similar to the criticism of Paleo because there's a perception that people who follow Paleo care about the historical significance of eating vegetables and meats. The reality is that most people who eat clean (see definition above) don't give a rat's *kitten* what cavemen ate. It just happens to be that when you go from eating junk to eating clean, you tend to eat less, lose weight and perform better in the gym. This was my experience as I followed Paleo from 2010 to 2013. Lost 60# of fat, gained 25# of muscle and went from no lifting experience to squatting, deadlifting and pressing hundreds of lbs. Is this the only way to do all of the above? Nope, but it works. I don't see the big deal.
Seems ragging on someone's food choices because they can't define it is in the same category as criticizing someone's exercise on YouTube. It's like a snarky, unnecessary circle jerk.0 -
Yep. This, FTW!2snakeswoman wrote: »To me, it means foods that are not processed, that you can take directly from nature and eat or drink with 0 to minimal preparation.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.
This response kinda proves the point that telling someone to "eat clean" as advice is unhelpful and vague.0 -
It's just another buzzword that for some reason inflames people here on the forums. Why I don't know, because "eating clean" if we accept it as a buzzword would mean eating things we would eat regardless, maybe in different forms. I see it as no more incorrect than a lot of other advice on here that attaches the yes or no labels to absolutes needed in diet composition.
Being that the reality is that more processed foods in a less natural state (unclean I assume) would really be no less or more healthy, I see no point in suggesting either. But the diet industry loves the buzzwords, so many people will think it's going to change things.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.
Oh, don't get me wrong -- I appreciate the input and I actually like your definition. I wish it were more the norm around here. I still wouldn't think it mapped to weight loss or better nutrition, but I'd understand it more (and I sort of try to follow it myself without doing so 100% or calling it clean).
This is petty, but one reason I get bugged by the "I clean eat" thing is that most of them eat like me, and yet I would never call myself a clean eater not only because the term irritates me, but because I know I break the rules (under any version) all the time. But people who also do are acting all superior and claiming that non clean eaters don't care what they put in their body because they won't use a special label or decide that perfectly healthful foods like smoked salmon or occasional ice cream are unclean.I simply said that people should pay more attention to the food that they eat and where it comes from.
I doubt you will get much pushback on this. I certainly agree and recommend reading labels (for ingredients as well as calories) and being mindful in general all the time.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.
Agree that knowledge is to be valued. Disagreed that "eating clean" as I've seen it on MFP gets you there. After all, lots of people seem to assume any supermarket bacon or deli meat is clean or define "clean" to exclude the processed junk that is my homemade strawberry rhubarb pie (no additives of the sort I assume you mean) or claim that all processed stuff is "packed with" added sugar (not true for my smoked salmon or cottage cheese, although they are not void of sugar, of course, and also not true of the ground beef I buy from a local farm). But my point is that "clean" or not doesn't seem to directly map to nutrition or weight loss, so people should stop suggesting "eat clean" as how to lose weight for someone already counting calories. If the person wants to, great, but processed foods (like my smoked salmon or ice cream) don't prevent you from losing weight.0 -
To me clean means foods that grow out of the ground, or that come from living things with faces. Not that I eat only those foods, but if I want to be satiated so I don't overindulge in junkier foods I make sure foods in those categories make up the majority of my diet.
Maybe I'm nutty, but I can't think of anything I eat that doesn't fit those categories.
For example, I'd say that olive oil or coconut oil = foods that grow out of the ground. The processing doesn't change that (for example, pressing the olive).
But it's well established I am not a clean eater, so that definition must be too inclusive.It seems this discussion is similar to the criticism of Paleo because there's a perception that people who follow Paleo care about the historical significance of eating vegetables and meats. The reality is that most people who eat clean (see definition above) don't give a rat's *kitten* what cavemen ate. It just happens to be that when you go from eating junk to eating clean, you tend to eat less, lose weight and perform better in the gym. This was my experience as I followed Paleo from 2010 to 2013. Lost 60# of fat, gained 25# of muscle and went from no lifting experience to squatting, deadlifting and pressing hundreds of lbs. Is this the only way to do all of the above? Nope, but it works. I don't see the big deal.
If you ate a bad diet it can be a way of forcing yourself to eat a good diet. If you already eat a pretty good diet (lots of protein, veg, whole grains, fiber), it likely will not improve your diet and may worsen it. I tried paleo because I wanted to cut out sweets and try out the grains are bad thing, and besides I don't much like grains (unless mixed with sugar or fat) so figured it would be an easy way to cut calories. It was an easy way to cut calories, but I ended up deciding it didn't make sense as I thought dairy and legumes made my diet healthier (still agree with this) and since I don't care about grains I'm not going to overeat them, so they are a dumb thing to cut out.Seems ragging on someone's food choices because they can't define it is in the same category as criticizing someone's exercise on YouTube. It's like a snarky, unnecessary circle jerk.
Hmm. I see claiming "I eat clean, you don't" to be the snarky thing (especially since they rarely even follow their own rules). If they are claiming to be superior based on how they eat I want evidence supporting the idea.0 -
Yep. This, FTW!2snakeswoman wrote: »To me, it means foods that are not processed, that you can take directly from nature and eat or drink with 0 to minimal preparation.
So meat is out, cooked vegetables are out, obviously bread is out. Today, we are all raw vegans. Cool, but not IMO the most nutritious way of eating. Nor especially feasible where I live, when there are essentially no fruits and veg available (and canning is a process) for a portion of the year (including, of course, February). So under your definition, not sure what I could eat.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »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.
I don't see "clean eaters" relegated to pariah status - just as I don't see vegans, paleo, keto or any other way of eating relegated to such. What I see is that when people insist that you have to "eat clean" to lose weight, break through a plateau, gain muscle, etc., or when an adherent to a particular way of eating starts attributing magical powers to it, others jump in to clear up misconceptions and dispel falsehoods. Which is as it should be, in an effort to provide the most scientifically sound information to other members.
Actually, the way of eating I see most often relegated to pariah status is 'flexible dieting' or 'IIFYM' or whatever you'd like to call it. There have already been a few examples of it in this thread. They're accused of eating nothing but junk, living on sugar, shoveling fast food down their throats all day, etc. - complete ignorance of the overall context of the diet.
I've been active in the MFP forums for 4 years and I have yet to see anybody in any thread anywhere advocate eating a diet consisting entirely (or even mostly) of fast food, candy, ice cream, pop tarts, oreos, beer, etc. I've seen plenty of people say they ate those things in moderation while successfully losing weight and improving their health/fitness (myself included), but not telling anybody that their diet should consist mostly/entirely of such things. The usual advice (and what IIFYM actually stands for) is to eat a balanced diet which provides adequate macro and micronutrients while staying within one's calorie goals, but there's nothing wrong with having a few oreos or a bowl of ice cream or a pop tart or whatever if your nutritional needs have been met and you still have room in your calorie goal. As the quote from (nutrition researcher/bodybuilder) Eric Helms says, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!".1 -
I can see the "pariah status" going both ways on these forums to be fair. I think that's the sad thing that happens, when people perceive themselves to be attacked or shamed, is that everyone feels cornered and desperate to defend their position. Somehow everyone stops listening and no one feels they can learn anything from the other.
I have have seen many a sanctimonious clean eater, often still in the honeymoon phase with their new epiphany, come on to the forum and quickly do everyone's nut in. But often the response by some people to want to ram virtual doughnuts down their throats probably isn't all that helpful either.
So it does go back to moderation, but moderation is precisely what a lot of people struggle with. You hear many people say they have a small amount of chocolate/ice cream/biscuits (whatever...) every day as long as it fits their calorie goal. But some people can't just have one chocolate, it's got to be nothing or the whole pack, and I suppose for them there is an attraction in the fantasy of control by complete elimination. All the evil fat gaining is blamed and projected on whatever the eliminated food is and Bob's Your Uncle. I think it's a human trait to want something external to blame, simple black and white answers and a quick fix. It often takes a few times of failing (and looking for another quick fix, something to blame etc) before people can look up and take on board that things are not black and white and that it's a bit of a case of "horses for courses".
0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »harrybananas wrote: »No such thing.
And the prize for the most useful comment of the day..
Oh wait did I say useful I meant useless.
As opposed tho this one...
Touche, my friend.0 -
I've been following this thread with interest because where I live (Italy), I've never heard the term "clean eating". They focus on "quality eating" and a great number of Italian foods have DOP or IGP status where they are considered original and quality controled from these origins. There are programs constantly on TV interviewing farmers, and producers and explaining and showing why they have these high quality standards. The average Italian is well informed on food and it's origins. When we go to dinner with our friends or family there is always a food discussion. Sorry, but I consider "clean eating" and it's so-called rules a little ridiculous. Entertaining though.
0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »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.
Oh yes it should (forgive me, I'm not quite over Panto season....)
Should posters be mocked? No. Should posters have pariah status? No. Should posters be mercilessly challenged? No
Should bad ideas be mocked? Yes. Should bad ideas have pariah status? Yes. Should bad ideas be mercilessly challenged? Yes
Sometimes striking a balance between the two can be difficult on the main board because of the emotional, human element involved. So, I am fairly soft. In a debate section? No chance.
The "clean eating" idea may have started off with the best of intentions (in my experience it arose in body building circles) but now the idea has been hijacked, distorted and diluted beyond recognition by an industry. An industry which is awash with misinformation and exploitative practices. The diet industry.
Now sometimes the ideas being pushed are benign. I would question why these ideas need to be broached under the tainted title "clean eating" in the first place. We have much better ways and terms we could use to move people towards consuming a more varied diet without the negative associations and confused state that now come with "clean eating". So at the lowest level it is pointless but harmless.
Sometimes it is not and it is equates to some weird kind of dietary authoritarianism. What it does it to dictate to people that they are compelled to act in a certain way when it comes to eating and to arbitrarily exclude things which may in fact help to bring success to people ("treats" in moderation for example).
They are instructions based not on informed and evidence based positions but fear, lack of critical thinking and superstition. It takes power away from the person receiving the advice and places it firmly in the hands of the person giving it (show me the mooooooooney). It encourages people not to question or seek further answers to their situation for themselves for no good reason.
Bad ideas must always be challenged.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »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.
Oh yes it should (forgive me, I'm not quite over Panto season....)
Should posters be mocked? No. Should posters have pariah status? No. Should posters be mercilessly challenged? No
Should bad ideas be mocked? Yes. Should bad ideas have pariah status? Yes. Should bad ideas be mercilessly challenged? Yes
Sometimes striking a balance between the two can be difficult on the main board because of the emotional, human element involved. So, I am fairly soft. In a debate section? No chance.
The "clean eating" idea may have started off with the best of intentions (in my experience it arose in body building circles) but now the idea has been hijacked, distorted and diluted beyond recognition by an industry. An industry which is awash with misinformation and exploitative practices. The diet industry.
Now sometimes the ideas being pushed are benign. I would question why these ideas need to be broached under the tainted title "clean eating" in the first place. We have much better ways and terms we could use to move people towards consuming a more varied diet without the negative associations and confused state that now come with "clean eating". So at the lowest level it is pointless but harmless.
Sometimes it is not and it is equates to some weird kind of dietary authoritarianism. What it does it to dictate to people that they are compelled to act in a certain way when it comes to eating and to arbitrarily exclude things which may in fact help to bring success to people ("treats" in moderation for example).
They are instructions based not on informed and evidence based positions but fear, lack of critical thinking and superstition. It takes power away from the person receiving the advice and places it firmly in the hands of the person giving it (show me the mooooooooney). It encourages people not to question or seek further answers to their situation for themselves for no good reason.
Bad ideas must always be challenged.
I totally agree with that.
But how they are challenged will determine whether anyone is listening or not, and sometimes it seems that people are less interested in changing minds or educating but in "being right". The same "dietary authoritarianism" (great term!) that irritates me in born-again clean eaters, also irritates me in those who somehow have a vested interest in convincing people that they really MUST HAVE doughnuts/icecream/double whoppers (insert food as you please). I just don't believe that aggressive shaming either way changes minds.0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »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.
Oh yes it should (forgive me, I'm not quite over Panto season....)
Should posters be mocked? No. Should posters have pariah status? No. Should posters be mercilessly challenged? No
Should bad ideas be mocked? Yes. Should bad ideas have pariah status? Yes. Should bad ideas be mercilessly challenged? Yes
Sometimes striking a balance between the two can be difficult on the main board because of the emotional, human element involved. So, I am fairly soft. In a debate section? No chance.
The "clean eating" idea may have started off with the best of intentions (in my experience it arose in body building circles) but now the idea has been hijacked, distorted and diluted beyond recognition by an industry. An industry which is awash with misinformation and exploitative practices. The diet industry.
Now sometimes the ideas being pushed are benign. I would question why these ideas need to be broached under the tainted title "clean eating" in the first place. We have much better ways and terms we could use to move people towards consuming a more varied diet without the negative associations and confused state that now come with "clean eating". So at the lowest level it is pointless but harmless.
Sometimes it is not and it is equates to some weird kind of dietary authoritarianism. What it does it to dictate to people that they are compelled to act in a certain way when it comes to eating and to arbitrarily exclude things which may in fact help to bring success to people ("treats" in moderation for example).
They are instructions based not on informed and evidence based positions but fear, lack of critical thinking and superstition. It takes power away from the person receiving the advice and places it firmly in the hands of the person giving it (show me the mooooooooney). It encourages people not to question or seek further answers to their situation for themselves for no good reason.
Bad ideas must always be challenged.
I totally agree with that.
But how they are challenged will determine whether anyone is listening or not, and sometimes it seems that people are less interested in changing minds or educating but in "being right". The same "dietary authoritarianism" (great term!) that irritates me in born-again clean eaters, also irritates me in those who somehow have a vested interest in convincing people that they really MUST HAVE doughnuts/icecream/double whoppers (insert food as you please). I just don't believe that aggressive shaming either way changes minds.
Agreed.
However, on a general point, I think we should not discount the real results that can be achieved by being very direct with people, and yes, sometimes even forceful especially when they are strongly invested emotionally in an irrational position.
It is something I find quite difficult to do as I am generally conciliatory in nature and "punching down" is never a good look. It is an effective method of communication and delivery if used judiciously however.0 -
True, and even if the OP may not feel they benefit from the direct information, there is hope that any lurkers may think twice about where they are on the flexible/radical 'dieting' spectrum. 0
-
I'd never heard of 'clean eating' until I joined MFP, but then again I don't move in health/fitness circles so I wouldn't know how prevalent it is within that context. When I read it here, I generally think of more traditional ways of cooking, like my mum used to do - cooking from scratch as it were. We never had what are called 'convenience meals' growing up, partly because mum was from a generation where the woman cooked everything, partly because the cost was prohibitive for a family of 6, but mostly because she really enjoyed cooking. My brothers and I all still cook traditionally when we can, but we're not adverse to convenience meals or ingredients. I sometimes struggle with preparing vegetables etc, so I'll always buy ones I just have to cook - like fresh pre-peeled potatoes and diced carrots.
On MFP, it seems that when I read of clean eating it's usually either an OP asking for help with their clean eating or someone offering clean eating as a solution to an OP's problem. In either case, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them what they mean by that in order to get clarity. That's usually when it goes a bit wrong, because some people really aren't used to having their statements questioned and don't handle it too well. That's on them. <tangent> I remember saying in one of my early posts on here that I don't think of individual foods as good or bad, and someone asked why. I didn't respond, as nothing I said would change their mind and nothing they said would change mine. I was able to make my statement without riding the drama llama, and so were they </tangent>0 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »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.
Oh yes it should (forgive me, I'm not quite over Panto season....)
Should posters be mocked? No. Should posters have pariah status? No. Should posters be mercilessly challenged? No
Should bad ideas be mocked? Yes. Should bad ideas have pariah status? Yes. Should bad ideas be mercilessly challenged? Yes
Sometimes striking a balance between the two can be difficult on the main board because of the emotional, human element involved. So, I am fairly soft. In a debate section? No chance.
The "clean eating" idea may have started off with the best of intentions (in my experience it arose in body building circles) but now the idea has been hijacked, distorted and diluted beyond recognition by an industry. An industry which is awash with misinformation and exploitative practices. The diet industry.
Now sometimes the ideas being pushed are benign. I would question why these ideas need to be broached under the tainted title "clean eating" in the first place. We have much better ways and terms we could use to move people towards consuming a more varied diet without the negative associations and confused state that now come with "clean eating". So at the lowest level it is pointless but harmless.
Sometimes it is not and it is equates to some weird kind of dietary authoritarianism. What it does it to dictate to people that they are compelled to act in a certain way when it comes to eating and to arbitrarily exclude things which may in fact help to bring success to people ("treats" in moderation for example).
They are instructions based not on informed and evidence based positions but fear, lack of critical thinking and superstition. It takes power away from the person receiving the advice and places it firmly in the hands of the person giving it (show me the mooooooooney). It encourages people not to question or seek further answers to their situation for themselves for no good reason.
Bad ideas must always be challenged.
Great post.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »It's just another buzzword that for some reason inflames people here on the forums. Why I don't know, because "eating clean" if we accept it as a buzzword would mean eating things we would eat regardless, maybe in different forms. I see it as no more incorrect than a lot of other advice on here that attaches the yes or no labels to absolutes needed in diet composition.
Being that the reality is that more processed foods in a less natural state (unclean I assume) would really be no less or more healthy, I see no point in suggesting either. But the diet industry loves the buzzwords, so many people will think it's going to change things.
It seems you answered your own question.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »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.
I am one of those perpetuating the eating clean = eating natural discussion. It's the way I've known clean eating to be defined since I was a child in the 60's/70's. It has nothing to do with grocery labels or legal definitions. It has to do with how close the food is to it's natural state.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?
There are changes that take place in food when frozen, so it would not be as clean as fresh. But that doesn't make it "unclean" IMO, just slightly less clean.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.
Because you seem to be looking at it in black and white. Clean or unclean. Fine or not fine. And I don't look at it that way. I'm not sure if you are unable or unwilling to understand the definition I put forth, but I'm not sure I can explain it any better. The further a food gets from it's natural state, the less clean it is.0 -
Somehow everyone stops listening and no one feels they can learn anything from the other.
The desire to separate people is one thing that frustrates me. People say "looking for clean eating recipes" or "is anyone a clean eater? what do you eat?" I find this odd. I am not a clean eater -- I will eat ice cream or buy lunch at Pret or even eat a protein bar on occasion. But none of that affects what I eat for most meals, and that I don't avoid sugar or flour or protein powder doesn't mean most of my meals wouldn't work for a "clean" eater so why not share food ideas more broadly? If what they want are ideas on how to get enough protein, I've figured out what works for me on this. If they want ideas on vegetables, I eat more than most "clean eaters" I've seen. Moreover, I always find the questions about how to cut sugar or "sugar free recipes" (not for desserts specifically) puzzling, because I've never included sugar in my meal preparations and prior to MFP would have thought that was rare (beyond some sauces).
Clean eating recipes seems bizarre, as I still don't see how the normal recipes in any decent cookbook wouldn't be mostly "clean."
The desire to create special exclusive areas for "clean eaters" and avoid communication with the rest of us comes from the self-defined clean eaters (and again is particularly annoying since I don't think they really eat that differently, except in their weird assumption that everyone else is eating only McD's and pie).0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I've been following this thread with interest because where I live (Italy), I've never heard the term "clean eating". They focus on "quality eating" and a great number of Italian foods have DOP or IGP status where they are considered original and quality controled from these origins. There are programs constantly on TV interviewing farmers, and producers and explaining and showing why they have these high quality standards. The average Italian is well informed on food and it's origins. When we go to dinner with our friends or family there is always a food discussion. Sorry, but I consider "clean eating" and it's so-called rules a little ridiculous. Entertaining though.
From everything I've read (and from my visits) Italy has a much better food culture than the US, where food is usually simply supposed to be cheap and fast or, lately, medicine or poison.
Re clean eating. The latest is the logical outcome of the use in marketing -- now Panera and other places are selling "clean" food.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?
It's about the ingredients, not the end product. For example you'd never find stew in nature, but you could make stew with all natural ingredients. I really have zero knowledge of how tea leaves we buy at the store are processed so IDK if some is clean or not. But steeping the leaves wouldn't make it not clean IMO.0 -
Clean eating is washing your food before you eat it. (yes, twinkies too)0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Because you seem to be looking at it in black and white. Clean or unclean. Fine or not fine. And I don't look at it that way. I'm not sure if you are unable or unwilling to understand the definition I put forth, but I'm not sure I can explain it any better. The further a food gets from it's natural state, the less clean it is.
clean
klēn
adjective
1.
free from dirt, marks, or stains.
"the room was spotlessly clean"
synonyms: washed, scrubbed, cleansed, cleaned
2.
morally uncontaminated; pure; innocent.
"clean living"
synonyms: virtuous, good, upright, upstanding
That's because outside of your made up construct of "clean foods" the definition of clean denotes purity and lack of contamination. There couldn't be degrees of cleanness because in order to be "less clean" there would have to be an impurity or contaminant which would mean that there is no longer purity, thus there is no longer cleanness.
What would actually occur is you would have varying degrees of contamination or "uncleanness" until reaching a point of complete decontamination where cleanness is achieved.
If you want to reverse reality in your mind so that you can hold to the idea of "clean foods" as those that are 100% in their natural state while still being able to embrace contaminated foods (those altered from their "natural" state) as still being "clean, just not as clean," that's fine. Just understand that it's not reality. It's your imagination.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
It's about the ingredients, not the end product. For example you'd never find stew in nature, but you could make stew with all natural ingredients. I really have zero knowledge of how tea leaves we buy at the store are processed so IDK if some is clean or not. But steeping the leaves wouldn't make it not clean IMO.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.
Make up your mind.
Grinding beef makes it less clean but grinding tea leaves doesn't?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.
Nice comparison. May I add agave to the list? That's processed sugar but somehow it's more wholesome that either high fructose corn syrup or honey.
Also, somehow Truvia is considered clean by some, whereas Splenda and aspartame are the devil. Truvia is just as processed and adulterated with additives as the other two and tastes so much worse.0 -
I love these threads because inevitably it draws out the trolls who are more interested in discussing the definition of specific words than they are the actual topic, all of which is meant to obfuscate the obvious.
What is clean eating? I brought a visual aid:
That's a pound of fresh vegetables with a serving of fruit per bowl that I have every day for lunch. I spend right around $30 on the ingredients and it takes me about 30-40 minutes to prep. I also incorporate dairy, eggs, fish, chicken (a couple of times a week) and about twice a month beef. I prefer my meats leaner and I'm a bit not so enthused regarding the carcinogenic effects observed/reported for beef. The fish and chicken I'll have steamed with another heaping pile of steamed vegetables. I also eat steel cut oats. I get 4 - 6 servings of fruit per day.
This is about as clean as I can take my lifestyle. Are the chicken and fish processed? Yes. I could raise chickens for the eggs and then eat them when they stop producing but I can't hang out with an animal and take care of it for a year or so and then just whack it, not wired that way. The fish... if I wasn't renting I'd probably get into aquaponics but honestly I just don't have time. What I'm doing now is the best compromise I can find for the time and money constraints I live with.
For me healthy and clean eating are synonymous and my rule of thumb when considering what I'm going to eat is how many nutrients are present, per calorie.
People are going to disagree. I don't really care, I'm not on here to argue with people who have the time to argue about these things. I've got more pressing concerns. Some people are here are just waiting and lurking with copy/paste fired up to link their sources which they will assure you over rule any sources or reference material you have. Don't take the bait and get lured into these arguments.
I spent 6 years with hyperparathyroidism. The list of what it does to a person is long and distinctly unpleasant. 5 years it was undiagnosed. The last year was spent wasting time with a shady endocrinologist, insurance companies, and finally finding the right surgeon. For that last year my life returned to some close proximity of normalcy because I switched my diet to a clean nutrient dense emphasis where vegetables/fruits/legumes were the main course and not the afterthought.
If all calories are truly created equal as I've seen on these forums and you truly believe that, then spend the next 6 months getting your calories from twinkies and bacon. If you survive we'll compare a blood panel.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