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
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Well obviously it's a made up phrase. Not a definition that I made up, but still made up by someone. I've always associated it's original with hippies and flower children and communes, but honestly I don't know where/who it came from.
The OP asked what we thought clean eating meant and I answered. In reality, this is what I imagine it means. ::flowerforyou::0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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?
Good point. LOL I have been thinking about ground meat and I suppose if nothing is added it is no different than chopping or slicing and therefore no cleaner than steak. So okay, I've been assimilated. Ground beef could be as clean as other meats if nothing is added during the grinding process. I never really thought about tea leaves being ground. As I said it's subjective, it's not as if I have a catalog of food cleanness to reference.0 -
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.
Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
Also, all calories are created equal, as they are a unit of measurement. That does not mean that all foods are equal from a nutritional standpoint which is what everyone always says.
Your frustration at people waiting to drop peer reviewed studies is analogous to my frustration with people waiting to drop a straw man argument without bothering to read what people are actually saying.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
People advocate that there is no such thing as unhealthy food. That CICO trumps all. Now they can either prove it or not. I'm betting not will be the option of choice.
Sidenote: does MFP offer a calories burned for googling?
0 -
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.
A lot of my food looks like yours; the vast majority in fact. But, I'll also be ok with a bowl of ice cream. Why? Because I don't actually live the crazy strawman lifestyle. Most of my foods are whole, fresh ingredients. But I don't deny myself some treats.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
People advocate that there is no such thing as unhealthy food. That CICO trumps all. Now they can either prove it or not. I'm betting not will be the option of choice.
Sidenote: does MFP offer a calories burned for googling?
What are discretionary calories?0 -
A lot of my food looks like yours; the vast majority in fact. But, I'll also be ok with a bowl of ice cream. Why? Because I don't actually live the crazy strawman lifestyle. Most of my foods are whole, fresh ingredients. But I don't deny myself some treats.
I'm not criticizing what people do or don't eat. It's the notion of this intentional obtuseness with regards to the concept of healthy or clean food.
If I craved ice cream I would have some but that's never been a draw for me. When I want something that will really light up my taste buds I've found that hummus hits the spot and keeps me from feeling like I'm missing out on something. Every once in a while I'll have some air popped popcorn. I put real butter on it and it hits my allowances kinda hard for a snack but it keeps me sane.
To me it isn't a crazy strawman lifestyle. The only thing I'm missing out on is feeling like crap and weighing more. And I don't really miss that very much.
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.
This is what I'm not understanding.
Clean gets put forth as an ideal. While I don't agree, I understand that with respect to avoiding certain kinds of additives (or even additives in general) vs. just eating the whole ("natural") foods.
I don't understand why beef becomes less ideal or even less natural if I grind it up before cooking it vs. slice it into larger pieces vs. cook the whole (pre-cut into a particular cut) piece before cutting it up (to eat it). Also, in all of these cases the cooking seems to change the beef more than chopping or grinding it, and again I don't see why raw beef would be more ideal than cooked.
Also if someone proclaims "I'm a clean eater" how does that fit with the gradiation idea? I think it's quite clear that as the term is normally used on MFP foods are either "clean" or they are not.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.
So is this dirty eating because it resembles the male anatomy or because I have 2 Mallomars in my oat meal. There are so many variables to being healthy than just your intake of food. Your last line is a little morbid. Thanks for the idea of wrapping a Twinkie in bacon. I think that's a first. Congrats on getting healthier and keep up the excellent progress!
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
People advocate that there is no such thing as unhealthy food. That CICO trumps all. Now they can either prove it or not. I'm betting not will be the option of choice.
Sidenote: does MFP offer a calories burned for googling?
I don't think most people advocate that some foods are not unhealthy. Clearly, however you can lose weight eating candy bars and soft drinks if you keep your body in a calorie deficit. That however, doesn't make it healthy. It's been proven many many times and doesn't take much to find the studies all over the place. The problem is there isn't a really box you can put healthy in. Losing weigh is one journey, getting fit is another journey. I'm sure there are as many stories as there are people on here as to what is important and helps them get where they want to go. Some I'm sure are much more healthy than others.0 -
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.
But the point is that that's not how the term is usually used. I care a lot about nutrition and healthy eating, yet get told I'm not a clean eater (and I agree, based on the normal definition), but that doesn't mean I don't care about healthy eating or nutrition, so no, it is not so simple as you claim.
If people meant eating nutrient dense foods or healthful eating, they would say that. They don't. Clean eating is something else.
Also, no one has ever said all foods are the same. If you want to pretend to misunderstand "a calorie is a calorie" to create a stupid strawman, that's on you.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
This is what I'm not understanding.
Clean gets put forth as an ideal. While I don't agree, I understand that with respect to avoiding certain kinds of additives (or even additives in general) vs. just eating the whole ("natural") foods.
I don't understand why beef becomes less ideal or even less natural if I grind it up before cooking it vs. slice it into larger pieces vs. cook the whole (pre-cut into a particular cut) piece before cutting it up (to eat it). Also, in all of these cases the cooking seems to change the beef more than chopping or grinding it, and again I don't see why raw beef would be more ideal than cooked.
Also if someone proclaims "I'm a clean eater" how does that fit with the gradiation idea? I think it's quite clear that as the term is normally used on MFP foods are either "clean" or they are not.
I think seeing it as an ideal is partly inference on your part. Without a doubt there is some of that, but no more so than any other WOE IMO. IIFYM or flexible dieting is put forth as an ideal just as often. So is eating 5-6 meals a day, and not eating after X p.m., or LCHF. Most people on MFP put their WOE out as an ideal.
I can't answer your question in the last paragraph because I don't agree with it. It doesn't seem clear to me that is the normal usage at all, though I do admit that is probably from the very different perspectives we have of the term. It doesn't bother me at all. I rather like the term 'clean eating'.0 -
A lot of my food looks like yours; the vast majority in fact. But, I'll also be ok with a bowl of ice cream. Why? Because I don't actually live the crazy strawman lifestyle. Most of my foods are whole, fresh ingredients. But I don't deny myself some treats.
I'm not criticizing what people do or don't eat. It's the notion of this intentional obtuseness with regards to the concept of healthy or clean food.
If I craved ice cream I would have some but that's never been a draw for me. When I want something that will really light up my taste buds I've found that hummus hits the spot and keeps me from feeling like I'm missing out on something. Every once in a while I'll have some air popped popcorn. I put real butter on it and it hits my allowances kinda hard for a snack but it keeps me sane.
To me it isn't a crazy strawman lifestyle. The only thing I'm missing out on is feeling like crap and weighing more. And I don't really miss that very much.
No, the crazy strawman lifestyle is your argument of bacon and twinkies. No one eats like that, and no one here promotes eating like that.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
People advocate that there is no such thing as unhealthy food. That CICO trumps all. Now they can either prove it or not. I'm betting not will be the option of choice.
People say that individual no foods are unhealthy (I don't personally go quite that far, but on the whole I think whether most foods are healthful or not depends on the context).
However -- and directly relevant to your comments -- people also say that there are such things as unhealthy diets, and rather than focusing on individual foods we should look at overall diets. While eating some bacon on occasion doesn't make a diet unhealthy, IMO eating only bacon and Twinkies obviously would be a poor and unhealthful diet.0 -
CasperNaegle wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
People advocate that there is no such thing as unhealthy food. That CICO trumps all. Now they can either prove it or not. I'm betting not will be the option of choice.
Sidenote: does MFP offer a calories burned for googling?
I don't think most people advocate that some foods are not unhealthy. Clearly, however you can lose weight eating candy bars and soft drinks if you keep your body in a calorie deficit. That however, doesn't make it healthy. It's been proven many many times and doesn't take much to find the studies all over the place. The problem is there isn't a really box you can put healthy in. Losing weigh is one journey, getting fit is another journey. I'm sure there are as many stories as there are people on here as to what is important and helps them get where they want to go. Some I'm sure are much more healthy than others.
I agree with all of this except the first sentence. I think many people on MFP advocate that very thing.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.
I'm puzzled. There has not been a single person I would have recognised to be 'trolling' here and I read all the posts, rather than just dipping in at the end. And secondly this is the nutrition debate forum and the thread specifically explains that it is looking at how different people define the same term, on occasions even using contradictory criteria. I'm glad it's all so obvious for you.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think seeing it as an ideal is partly inference on your part. Without a doubt there is some of that, but no more so than any other WOE IMO. IIFYM or flexible dieting is put forth as an ideal just as often. So is eating 5-6 meals a day, and not eating after X p.m., or LCHF. Most people on MFP put their WOE out as an ideal.
I disagree.
First of all, I don't put my way of eating (the term WOE irritates me more than clean, I think) ;-) out there as an ideal at all. I think eating a healthful, nutrient-rich diet is an ideal, but that there are millions of ways to get there and my way (which I don't always live up to) is no better than any other, except for me.
Second, the notion of "clean" as ideal is inherent both in the word and in the idea that not clean foods should not be eaten. Since everyone eats some "clean" foods and many of us here who aren't called and don't use the label "clean eaters" still eat mostly "clean" foods, what does "clean eating" mean if not trying to eat ONLY clean foods. And if you do that, why? Because you think they are better in some way and the others aren't good for you. And this is supported by endless people on MFP claiming that "processed" (or "not clean") foods are bad for us. If you eat not clean foods (and you acknowledge that you do and they can in many cases support a healthful diet, like your extra fiber pasta), how does it make sense to call yourself a clean eater? Because you eat lots of "clean" foods? I guess I think it's odd to want a special label for eating vegetables and just generally eating the kind of diet I think should be normal and standard (lots of nutrient-dense whole foods, some other things).0 -
I'm interesting in the "food in it's most natural state" argument, which makes more sense to me than some of the other arbitrary factors.
Last year I made jam from our cherries (we have a tree). I fancied a go and also quite liked the idea of controlling what goes into the jar. But obviously because the fruit are crushed, boiled and pectin added (otherwise it won't set), they are a million miles from their natural state. So I guess that would not have been 'clean' jam, despite the fact that the cherries were unadulterated with pesticides from my own tree and it was all made in my kitchen?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.
So you're kind of admitting your post is designed to put out information without any interest in hearing any disagreement, but the other people that might disagree are the ignorant trolls? I'm not asking the question because I expect a response from you as you've already indicated that probability of that, but I am putting it out there for anyone that might read the post and feel it going ignored means it had some sage authority.
Personally, I'm not simply providing links and references to back my assertions to silence others. No, I actually very much want to be challenged on my assertions. I feel that process is the most epistemologically sound. The less willing someone is to consider the possibility that they are wrong, the more likely I consider they will be - to paraphrase I think the smart run out of eraser before they run out of lead.0 -
Forgive me...... what's WOE??
0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think seeing it as an ideal is partly inference on your part. Without a doubt there is some of that, but no more so than any other WOE IMO. IIFYM or flexible dieting is put forth as an ideal just as often. So is eating 5-6 meals a day, and not eating after X p.m., or LCHF. Most people on MFP put their WOE out as an ideal.
I disagree.
First of all, I don't put my way of eating (the term WOE irritates me more than clean, I think) ;-) out there as an ideal at all. I think eating a healthful, nutrient-rich diet is an ideal, but that there are millions of ways to get there and my way (which I don't always live up to) is no better than any other, except for me.
Second, the notion of "clean" as ideal is inherent both in the word and in the idea that not clean foods should not be eaten. Since everyone eats some "clean" foods and many of us here who aren't called and don't use the label "clean eaters" still eat mostly "clean" foods, what does "clean eating" mean if not trying to eat ONLY clean foods. And if you do that, why? Because you think they are better in some way and the others aren't good for you. And this is supported by endless people on MFP claiming that "processed" (or "not clean") foods are bad for us. If you eat not clean foods (and you acknowledge that you do and they can in many cases support a healthful diet, like your extra fiber pasta), how does it make sense to call yourself a clean eater? Because you eat lots of "clean" foods? I guess I think it's odd to want a special label for eating vegetables and just generally eating the kind of diet I think should be normal and standard (lots of nutrient-dense whole foods, some other things).
If you don't understand what 'clean eating' mean how do you know you eat clean foods?
But seriously it's clear we're never going to agree. You put connotations on the phrase that I don't.
Also, I don't call myself a clean eater. If asked, I'd say I eat fairly clean, but it's not a label I'd volunteer. I have a longstanding understanding of the term and it's what I assume when the term is used unless someone specifies differently. It is a loosy goosy definition but I don't need all terms to fit neatly in the box. I'm okay with messy.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
People advocate that there is no such thing as unhealthy food. That CICO trumps all. Now they can either prove it or not. I'm betting not will be the option of choice.
Sidenote: does MFP offer a calories burned for googling?
People advocate that pretty much any food can fit within the context of an overall healthy DIET. I made this statement yesterday almost to the letter in another thread and another person jumping to a strawman argument quoted me and asked how I can recommend someone eat nothing but pizza, pop and cookies and still be healthy.A lot of my food looks like yours; the vast majority in fact. But, I'll also be ok with a bowl of ice cream. Why? Because I don't actually live the crazy strawman lifestyle. Most of my foods are whole, fresh ingredients. But I don't deny myself some treats.
I'm not criticizing what people do or don't eat. It's the notion of this intentional obtuseness with regards to the concept of healthy or clean food.
To me it isn't a crazy strawman lifestyle. The only thing I'm missing out on is feeling like crap and weighing more. And I don't really miss that very much.
Your comments around intentional obtusity go both ways.
This is a discussion about what the definition of clean eating is and if it is a helpful term for people to use in order to build a diet around. It is my contention, and many here I think as well, that no, that is not a helpful term, because it is subjective to the individual and applies morality and judgement around a particular way of eating. You say that you aren't criticizing what people eat, but in your first statement, you challenged those people eating nothing but twinkies and bacon to show up in 6 months to compare a blood panel, if they are still alive.
How is that not a criticism of what people eat, other than the fact that I don't know anyone who eats that way so I guess you are criticizing that poor strawman?
I'm glad you have improved your health issues and that you are feeling better. I too have lost weight and feel great. However I still eat ice cream and bacon (not much of a twinkie person to be honest). I also eat hummus and popcorn. And vegetables. And greek yogurt. And lean protein. Whole grains. Dairy. Etc....
Oh and your pictures that you originally posted, that would be very unhealthy for me. I'm allergic to strawberries.
0 -
I'll post my last cholesterol profile right now, no need to wait 6 months.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.Component Standard Range Your Value Cholesterol <200 mg/dL 144 Triglycerides <150 mg/dL 60 HDL >40 mg/dL 63 LDL, Calculated <130 mg/dL 69 Chol/HDL Ratio <4.5 2.3
I can also state that in the last 8 months or so, the various times I've had my glucose read, the highest it ever reached was 98 - and that's not a fasting reading, even though 98 would be acceptable for fasting levels.0 -
I'll post my last cholesterol profile right now, no need to wait 6 months.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.Component Standard Range Your Value Cholesterol <200 mg/dL 144 Triglycerides <150 mg/dL 60 HDL >40 mg/dL 63 LDL, Calculated <130 mg/dL 69 Chol/HDL Ratio <4.5 2.3
I can also state that in the last 8 months or so, the various times I've had my glucose read, the highest it ever reached was 98 - and that's not a fasting reading, even though 98 would be acceptable for fasting levels.
Nice reading but have you been eating only twinkies and bacon for 6 months?0 -
0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Can you please point out where, in this thread or any other, that people advocate eating nothing but twinkies and bacon?
People advocate that there is 1)no such thing as unhealthy food. That 2)CICO trumps all. Now they can either 3)prove it or not. I'm betting not will be the option of choice.
Sidenote: does MFP offer a calories burned for googling?
1) With proper context and dosage, there's not. Just unhealthy diets. I'm sure you would say that broccoli is healthy and oreos are not. However, a diet of nothing but broccoli is not healthy at all and a balanced diet which includes a few Oreos throughout the week is not unhealthy. Certainly, some foods have more benefits than others but that doesn't make one healthy and the other unhealthy.
2) This is only used in reference to weight loss. Energy balance is the defining factor for whether or not weight loss will occur. If you burn more energy than you consume you will burn fat to make up the difference. If you consume more energy than you burn you will store the extra as fat for later use.
This is strictly in terms of weight loss. No one advocates that CICO is the determining factor for a healthy diet. For a healthy diet, proper intake of all the macro and micronutrients must occur. If strict adherence to what you define as "clean eating" helps you achieve that, good for you but it's not necessary. It is perfectly fine and feasible to attain a healthy balanced diet which includes a moderate amount of foods not deemed "clean."
3) The first law of thermodynamics already did.0 -
I always thought clean eating was washing your hands before you eat. That's how it was when I grew up!0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'll post my last cholesterol profile right now, no need to wait 6 months.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.Component Standard Range Your Value Cholesterol <200 mg/dL 144 Triglycerides <150 mg/dL 60 HDL >40 mg/dL 63 LDL, Calculated <130 mg/dL 69 Chol/HDL Ratio <4.5 2.3
I can also state that in the last 8 months or so, the various times I've had my glucose read, the highest it ever reached was 98 - and that's not a fasting reading, even though 98 would be acceptable for fasting levels.
Nice reading but have you been eating only twinkies and bacon for 6 months?
I actually don't care for twinkies, but UG77 isn't offering to similarly restricting himself to only broccoli and kale for 6 months.0 -
Also, not just twinkies, and 10 weeks but
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Haub kind of already did UG77's challenge in a more reasonable way, even though less reasonable that I've ever seen any one of the board's cicophants like myself recommend for a diet. And his health improved.For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.
But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.0
Apologies... forrinner... 
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