Have you ever tried clean eating?
Options
Replies
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »If I can't pronounce it on the label, then I don't eat it. Mainly stay to outside perimeter of the store now. I have however been known to breakdown and have a spaghetti and homemade meatballs
>_> Pasta...weakness is strong with this one it is.
I always find that such a weird thing to say. So... the greater the level of education, the more variety you can eat? People who have studied chemistry can eat far more things than someone who studied, say, arts? Does it mean you can't eat foreign food?
Yes, I wondered about foreign food. I have a bit of trouble getting the pronunciation of the Indian and Thai food I like just right. It would make me very sad if I couldn't eat that food until I learned to pronounce everything correctly.
Not to mention that means all blind people would starve to death. They can't read anything (assuming that like my food, yours also doesn't come with braille).
And I guess we can all eat trans fat since it's so easy to pronounce.
Probably never see "trans fat" listed as an ingredient though.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »If I can't pronounce it on the label, then I don't eat it. Mainly stay to outside perimeter of the store now. I have however been known to breakdown and have a spaghetti and homemade meatballs
>_> Pasta...weakness is strong with this one it is.
I always find that such a weird thing to say. So... the greater the level of education, the more variety you can eat? People who have studied chemistry can eat far more things than someone who studied, say, arts? Does it mean you can't eat foreign food?
Yes, I wondered about foreign food. I have a bit of trouble getting the pronunciation of the Indian and Thai food I like just right. It would make me very sad if I couldn't eat that food until I learned to pronounce everything correctly.
Not to mention that means all blind people would starve to death. They can't read anything (assuming that like my food, yours also doesn't come with braille).
And I guess we can all eat trans fat since it's so easy to pronounce.
Probably never see "trans fat" listed as an ingredient though.
Splitting hairs...1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »If I can't pronounce it on the label, then I don't eat it. Mainly stay to outside perimeter of the store now. I have however been known to breakdown and have a spaghetti and homemade meatballs
>_> Pasta...weakness is strong with this one it is.
I always find that such a weird thing to say. So... the greater the level of education, the more variety you can eat? People who have studied chemistry can eat far more things than someone who studied, say, arts? Does it mean you can't eat foreign food?
Yes, I wondered about foreign food. I have a bit of trouble getting the pronunciation of the Indian and Thai food I like just right. It would make me very sad if I couldn't eat that food until I learned to pronounce everything correctly.
Not to mention that means all blind people would starve to death. They can't read anything (assuming that like my food, yours also doesn't come with braille).
And I guess we can all eat trans fat since it's so easy to pronounce.
Probably never see "trans fat" listed as an ingredient though.
Splitting hairs...
Aren't we all?1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's pretty clear that this is an extremely poor example of what the poster meant. Nobody picks up a banana at the store and sees the individual components listed as ingredients that were added to it.cwolfman13 wrote: »LindaGraziano1 wrote: »Totally clean. No processed stuff. Like they say, when you read the ingredients. "If you can't read it, don't eat it".
Exactly. Chemical makeup and ingredients aren't the same thing.
Disagree. I can call it sodium chloride or I can call it table salt. The only difference is, one is a prettier, more memorable name. But it's the same substance. So really, you're just not eating things based on marketing and creative names for exactly the same thing. That would be like saying humans are human but homo sapiens are not human.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »If I can't pronounce it on the label, then I don't eat it. Mainly stay to outside perimeter of the store now. I have however been known to breakdown and have a spaghetti and homemade meatballs
>_> Pasta...weakness is strong with this one it is.
I always find that such a weird thing to say. So... the greater the level of education, the more variety you can eat? People who have studied chemistry can eat far more things than someone who studied, say, arts? Does it mean you can't eat foreign food?
Yes, I wondered about foreign food. I have a bit of trouble getting the pronunciation of the Indian and Thai food I like just right. It would make me very sad if I couldn't eat that food until I learned to pronounce everything correctly.
Not to mention that means all blind people would starve to death. They can't read anything (assuming that like my food, yours also doesn't come with braille).
And I guess we can all eat trans fat since it's so easy to pronounce.
Probably never see "trans fat" listed as an ingredient though.
Splitting hairs...
Aren't we all?
If you think that encouraging people to become informed consumers is splitting hairs, then yes, I'll confess to splitting hairs.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's pretty clear that this is an extremely poor example of what the poster meant. Nobody picks up a banana at the store and sees the individual components listed as ingredients that were added to it.cwolfman13 wrote: »LindaGraziano1 wrote: »Totally clean. No processed stuff. Like they say, when you read the ingredients. "If you can't read it, don't eat it".
Exactly. Chemical makeup and ingredients aren't the same thing.
Disagree. I can call it sodium chloride or I can call it table salt. The only difference is, one is a prettier, more memorable name. But it's the same substance. So really, you're just not eating things based on marketing.
The ingredients label on the back of the package in tiny print is marketing? Okay then.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »If I can't pronounce it on the label, then I don't eat it. Mainly stay to outside perimeter of the store now. I have however been known to breakdown and have a spaghetti and homemade meatballs
>_> Pasta...weakness is strong with this one it is.
I always find that such a weird thing to say. So... the greater the level of education, the more variety you can eat? People who have studied chemistry can eat far more things than someone who studied, say, arts? Does it mean you can't eat foreign food?
Yes, I wondered about foreign food. I have a bit of trouble getting the pronunciation of the Indian and Thai food I like just right. It would make me very sad if I couldn't eat that food until I learned to pronounce everything correctly.
Not to mention that means all blind people would starve to death. They can't read anything (assuming that like my food, yours also doesn't come with braille).
And I guess we can all eat trans fat since it's so easy to pronounce.
Probably never see "trans fat" listed as an ingredient though.
Splitting hairs...
Aren't we all?
If you think that encouraging people to become informed consumers is splitting hairs, then yes, I'll confess to splitting hairs.
How is saying trans fats are okay because it's easy to pronounce encouraging people to become informed customers?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I eat lots of fresh, one ingredient things. Cook from scratch as much as is practical . Whole grains as much as possible. But "clean" no. I enjoy an occasional diet soda, icecream when it fits into my calorie/saturated fat goals, chocolate, etc. Life should be lived, not endured. And, while I agree with the concept, I detest the term "clean eating ".
I'm always curious about statements like the bolded. They seem to be in opposition to each other, as I can't think of a single thing that I cook that only has one ingredient. Even roasted veggies, I add olive oil, salt, pepper and other seasonings. Most things that I cook have lots of ingredients, and though I don't consider myself a clean eater, I can't imagine a life without soups, stews, sauces, etc... Or how eliminating them based on the fact that they have multiple components makes me healthier...
What one ingredient things do you eat, other than maybe fruit?
Maybe I should have said "one ingredient ingredients ". Sounded too complicated
I always find this odd too, as when people ask for "clean eating" cookbooks (which if you mean just cooking from whole foods is basically every cookbook I have). When I cook from scratch, of course I typically use single ingredient, ingredients. I really don't think doing the semi-homemade (forget that woman's name, Sandra Lee?) is what most people think of re cooking. I think of roast veg with olive oil and salt (and maybe other seasonings), cook meat, cook starch side. If doing something more elaborate, it's still single ingredient ingredients for the most part (unless something like pasta which really is just flour and water and I could make at home but what difference does it make?). I'm always puzzled how it's assumed other people cook if not like this. Of course, I also don't think using something processed like pasta or flour or olive oil somehow makes my food less worth eating, so maybe we aren't on the same page.
Oh I have a bookshelf full of cookbooks purchased from schools, churches or charity organizations that are filled with recipes that include ingredients that are not single ingredient ingredients.
Casseroles that use frozen hashbrowns or corn flakes. Numerous recipes that call for Cheez Whiz or Velveeta, canned cream of <something> soup, or sausage. Desserts that use packaged cookies, cake mixes, pudding or Jell-O.
I know such cookbooks exist--I love weird cookbooks and have a few Iowa church cookbook from the '20s or some such, as well as a cookbook based on food in books by James Joyce, LOL and a ton of other weird things--but they aren't the main common cookbooks, IME. The idea that you have to seek out "clean eating" cookbooks is odd.
I don't know what is meant by "main common cookbooks" but my point was that a lot of people cook with ingredients that aren't single ingredient ingredients and wouldn't normally be considered clean. Cookbooks such as those from churches and schools are compiled from recipes parents, members and students regularly make.
Bittman, Julia Child, stuff like that.
Those product-based recipes are typically from the back of the product, not a standard cookbook.
Maybe I'm naive, but most people I know primarily cook using whole ingredients, not Ritz crackers. They will also use convenience foods on occasion (or even regularly for lunch), sure, but I find it odd that some seem to think that normal cooking, cooking from whole foods, is something special and different that needs a self-congratulatory name. I just think of it as cooking.
Speaking of that Ritz cracker thing ... there's a pie that is, apparently, made from Ritz crackers.
Evidently it is apple flavoured and I've heard you buy a pie shell, a package of the cheapest Ritz crackers (or look-alikes) that you can find, and the cheapest sugar laden apple beverage that you can find. You soak the Ritz crackers in the apple beverage, then plop the whole mess into the pie shell, and maybe add some more sugar and cinnamon and bake it.
It's supposed to taste just like apple pie ... without all the hassle of cutting up fresh apples.
Even though I've heard about this pie from several people, and I'm told it is a poor person's alternative to buying fresh produce, I can't get the word "WHY???" out of my head.
I need this recipe.
For reasons.
ETA Thanks lemurcat!2 -
Some people have a lot of free time on their hands...1
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »If I can't pronounce it on the label, then I don't eat it. Mainly stay to outside perimeter of the store now. I have however been known to breakdown and have a spaghetti and homemade meatballs
>_> Pasta...weakness is strong with this one it is.
I always find that such a weird thing to say. So... the greater the level of education, the more variety you can eat? People who have studied chemistry can eat far more things than someone who studied, say, arts? Does it mean you can't eat foreign food?
Yes, I wondered about foreign food. I have a bit of trouble getting the pronunciation of the Indian and Thai food I like just right. It would make me very sad if I couldn't eat that food until I learned to pronounce everything correctly.
Not to mention that means all blind people would starve to death. They can't read anything (assuming that like my food, yours also doesn't come with braille).
And I guess we can all eat trans fat since it's so easy to pronounce.
Probably never see "trans fat" listed as an ingredient though.
Splitting hairs...
Aren't we all?
If you think that encouraging people to become informed consumers is splitting hairs, then yes, I'll confess to splitting hairs.
How is saying trans fats are okay because it's easy to pronounce encouraging people to become informed customers?
That kind of logic is what happens when you live by the idea that if you can pronounce it, you can eat it. It's what I'm arguing against. But I think you are simply being disingenuous.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I eat lots of fresh, one ingredient things. Cook from scratch as much as is practical . Whole grains as much as possible. But "clean" no. I enjoy an occasional diet soda, icecream when it fits into my calorie/saturated fat goals, chocolate, etc. Life should be lived, not endured. And, while I agree with the concept, I detest the term "clean eating ".
I'm always curious about statements like the bolded. They seem to be in opposition to each other, as I can't think of a single thing that I cook that only has one ingredient. Even roasted veggies, I add olive oil, salt, pepper and other seasonings. Most things that I cook have lots of ingredients, and though I don't consider myself a clean eater, I can't imagine a life without soups, stews, sauces, etc... Or how eliminating them based on the fact that they have multiple components makes me healthier...
What one ingredient things do you eat, other than maybe fruit?
Maybe I should have said "one ingredient ingredients ". Sounded too complicated
I always find this odd too, as when people ask for "clean eating" cookbooks (which if you mean just cooking from whole foods is basically every cookbook I have). When I cook from scratch, of course I typically use single ingredient, ingredients. I really don't think doing the semi-homemade (forget that woman's name, Sandra Lee?) is what most people think of re cooking. I think of roast veg with olive oil and salt (and maybe other seasonings), cook meat, cook starch side. If doing something more elaborate, it's still single ingredient ingredients for the most part (unless something like pasta which really is just flour and water and I could make at home but what difference does it make?). I'm always puzzled how it's assumed other people cook if not like this. Of course, I also don't think using something processed like pasta or flour or olive oil somehow makes my food less worth eating, so maybe we aren't on the same page.
Oh I have a bookshelf full of cookbooks purchased from schools, churches or charity organizations that are filled with recipes that include ingredients that are not single ingredient ingredients.
Casseroles that use frozen hashbrowns or corn flakes. Numerous recipes that call for Cheez Whiz or Velveeta, canned cream of <something> soup, or sausage. Desserts that use packaged cookies, cake mixes, pudding or Jell-O.
I know such cookbooks exist--I love weird cookbooks and have a few Iowa church cookbook from the '20s or some such, as well as a cookbook based on food in books by James Joyce, LOL and a ton of other weird things--but they aren't the main common cookbooks, IME. The idea that you have to seek out "clean eating" cookbooks is odd.
I don't know what is meant by "main common cookbooks" but my point was that a lot of people cook with ingredients that aren't single ingredient ingredients and wouldn't normally be considered clean. Cookbooks such as those from churches and schools are compiled from recipes parents, members and students regularly make.
Bittman, Julia Child, stuff like that.
Those product-based recipes are typically from the back of the product, not a standard cookbook.
Maybe I'm naive, but most people I know primarily cook using whole ingredients, not Ritz crackers. They will also use convenience foods on occasion (or even regularly for lunch), sure, but I find it odd that some seem to think that normal cooking, cooking from whole foods, is something special and different that needs a self-congratulatory name. I just think of it as cooking.
Speaking of that Ritz cracker thing ... there's a pie that is, apparently, made from Ritz crackers.
Evidently it is apple flavoured and I've heard you buy a pie shell, a package of the cheapest Ritz crackers (or look-alikes) that you can find, and the cheapest sugar laden apple beverage that you can find. You soak the Ritz crackers in the apple beverage, then plop the whole mess into the pie shell, and maybe add some more sugar and cinnamon and bake it.
It's supposed to taste just like apple pie ... without all the hassle of cutting up fresh apples.
Even though I've heard about this pie from several people, and I'm told it is a poor person's alternative to buying fresh produce, I can't get the word "WHY???" out of my head.
I need this recipe.
For reasons.
ETA Thanks lemurcat!
http://www.kraftcanada.com/recipes/ritz-mock-apple-pie-834030 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »If I can't pronounce it on the label, then I don't eat it. Mainly stay to outside perimeter of the store now. I have however been known to breakdown and have a spaghetti and homemade meatballs
>_> Pasta...weakness is strong with this one it is.
I always find that such a weird thing to say. So... the greater the level of education, the more variety you can eat? People who have studied chemistry can eat far more things than someone who studied, say, arts? Does it mean you can't eat foreign food?
Yes, I wondered about foreign food. I have a bit of trouble getting the pronunciation of the Indian and Thai food I like just right. It would make me very sad if I couldn't eat that food until I learned to pronounce everything correctly.
Not to mention that means all blind people would starve to death. They can't read anything (assuming that like my food, yours also doesn't come with braille).
And I guess we can all eat trans fat since it's so easy to pronounce.
Probably never see "trans fat" listed as an ingredient though.
Splitting hairs...
Aren't we all?
If you think that encouraging people to become informed consumers is splitting hairs, then yes, I'll confess to splitting hairs.
How is saying trans fats are okay because it's easy to pronounce encouraging people to become informed customers?
That kind of logic is what happens when you live by the idea that if you can pronounce it, you can eat it. It's what I'm arguing against. But I think you are simply being disingenuous.
Just being literal.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I eat lots of fresh, one ingredient things. Cook from scratch as much as is practical . Whole grains as much as possible. But "clean" no. I enjoy an occasional diet soda, icecream when it fits into my calorie/saturated fat goals, chocolate, etc. Life should be lived, not endured. And, while I agree with the concept, I detest the term "clean eating ".
I'm always curious about statements like the bolded. They seem to be in opposition to each other, as I can't think of a single thing that I cook that only has one ingredient. Even roasted veggies, I add olive oil, salt, pepper and other seasonings. Most things that I cook have lots of ingredients, and though I don't consider myself a clean eater, I can't imagine a life without soups, stews, sauces, etc... Or how eliminating them based on the fact that they have multiple components makes me healthier...
What one ingredient things do you eat, other than maybe fruit?
Maybe I should have said "one ingredient ingredients ". Sounded too complicated
I always find this odd too, as when people ask for "clean eating" cookbooks (which if you mean just cooking from whole foods is basically every cookbook I have). When I cook from scratch, of course I typically use single ingredient, ingredients. I really don't think doing the semi-homemade (forget that woman's name, Sandra Lee?) is what most people think of re cooking. I think of roast veg with olive oil and salt (and maybe other seasonings), cook meat, cook starch side. If doing something more elaborate, it's still single ingredient ingredients for the most part (unless something like pasta which really is just flour and water and I could make at home but what difference does it make?). I'm always puzzled how it's assumed other people cook if not like this. Of course, I also don't think using something processed like pasta or flour or olive oil somehow makes my food less worth eating, so maybe we aren't on the same page.
Oh I have a bookshelf full of cookbooks purchased from schools, churches or charity organizations that are filled with recipes that include ingredients that are not single ingredient ingredients.
Casseroles that use frozen hashbrowns or corn flakes. Numerous recipes that call for Cheez Whiz or Velveeta, canned cream of <something> soup, or sausage. Desserts that use packaged cookies, cake mixes, pudding or Jell-O.
I know such cookbooks exist--I love weird cookbooks and have a few Iowa church cookbook from the '20s or some such, as well as a cookbook based on food in books by James Joyce, LOL and a ton of other weird things--but they aren't the main common cookbooks, IME. The idea that you have to seek out "clean eating" cookbooks is odd.
I don't know what is meant by "main common cookbooks" but my point was that a lot of people cook with ingredients that aren't single ingredient ingredients and wouldn't normally be considered clean. Cookbooks such as those from churches and schools are compiled from recipes parents, members and students regularly make.
Bittman, Julia Child, stuff like that.
Those product-based recipes are typically from the back of the product, not a standard cookbook.
Maybe I'm naive, but most people I know primarily cook using whole ingredients, not Ritz crackers. They will also use convenience foods on occasion (or even regularly for lunch), sure, but I find it odd that some seem to think that normal cooking, cooking from whole foods, is something special and different that needs a self-congratulatory name. I just think of it as cooking.
Speaking of that Ritz cracker thing ... there's a pie that is, apparently, made from Ritz crackers.
Evidently it is apple flavoured and I've heard you buy a pie shell, a package of the cheapest Ritz crackers (or look-alikes) that you can find, and the cheapest sugar laden apple beverage that you can find. You soak the Ritz crackers in the apple beverage, then plop the whole mess into the pie shell, and maybe add some more sugar and cinnamon and bake it.
It's supposed to taste just like apple pie ... without all the hassle of cutting up fresh apples.
Even though I've heard about this pie from several people, and I'm told it is a poor person's alternative to buying fresh produce, I can't get the word "WHY???" out of my head.
I need this recipe.
For reasons.
ETA Thanks lemurcat!
http://www.kraftcanada.com/recipes/ritz-mock-apple-pie-83403
I think I would rather have real apple pie for the calories...eek.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I eat lots of fresh, one ingredient things. Cook from scratch as much as is practical . Whole grains as much as possible. But "clean" no. I enjoy an occasional diet soda, icecream when it fits into my calorie/saturated fat goals, chocolate, etc. Life should be lived, not endured. And, while I agree with the concept, I detest the term "clean eating ".
I'm always curious about statements like the bolded. They seem to be in opposition to each other, as I can't think of a single thing that I cook that only has one ingredient. Even roasted veggies, I add olive oil, salt, pepper and other seasonings. Most things that I cook have lots of ingredients, and though I don't consider myself a clean eater, I can't imagine a life without soups, stews, sauces, etc... Or how eliminating them based on the fact that they have multiple components makes me healthier...
What one ingredient things do you eat, other than maybe fruit?
Maybe I should have said "one ingredient ingredients ". Sounded too complicated
I always find this odd too, as when people ask for "clean eating" cookbooks (which if you mean just cooking from whole foods is basically every cookbook I have). When I cook from scratch, of course I typically use single ingredient, ingredients. I really don't think doing the semi-homemade (forget that woman's name, Sandra Lee?) is what most people think of re cooking. I think of roast veg with olive oil and salt (and maybe other seasonings), cook meat, cook starch side. If doing something more elaborate, it's still single ingredient ingredients for the most part (unless something like pasta which really is just flour and water and I could make at home but what difference does it make?). I'm always puzzled how it's assumed other people cook if not like this. Of course, I also don't think using something processed like pasta or flour or olive oil somehow makes my food less worth eating, so maybe we aren't on the same page.
Oh I have a bookshelf full of cookbooks purchased from schools, churches or charity organizations that are filled with recipes that include ingredients that are not single ingredient ingredients.
Casseroles that use frozen hashbrowns or corn flakes. Numerous recipes that call for Cheez Whiz or Velveeta, canned cream of <something> soup, or sausage. Desserts that use packaged cookies, cake mixes, pudding or Jell-O.
I know such cookbooks exist--I love weird cookbooks and have a few Iowa church cookbook from the '20s or some such, as well as a cookbook based on food in books by James Joyce, LOL and a ton of other weird things--but they aren't the main common cookbooks, IME. The idea that you have to seek out "clean eating" cookbooks is odd.
I don't know what is meant by "main common cookbooks" but my point was that a lot of people cook with ingredients that aren't single ingredient ingredients and wouldn't normally be considered clean. Cookbooks such as those from churches and schools are compiled from recipes parents, members and students regularly make.
Bittman, Julia Child, stuff like that.
Those product-based recipes are typically from the back of the product, not a standard cookbook.
Maybe I'm naive, but most people I know primarily cook using whole ingredients, not Ritz crackers. They will also use convenience foods on occasion (or even regularly for lunch), sure, but I find it odd that some seem to think that normal cooking, cooking from whole foods, is something special and different that needs a self-congratulatory name. I just think of it as cooking.
Speaking of that Ritz cracker thing ... there's a pie that is, apparently, made from Ritz crackers.
Evidently it is apple flavoured and I've heard you buy a pie shell, a package of the cheapest Ritz crackers (or look-alikes) that you can find, and the cheapest sugar laden apple beverage that you can find. You soak the Ritz crackers in the apple beverage, then plop the whole mess into the pie shell, and maybe add some more sugar and cinnamon and bake it.
It's supposed to taste just like apple pie ... without all the hassle of cutting up fresh apples.
Even though I've heard about this pie from several people, and I'm told it is a poor person's alternative to buying fresh produce, I can't get the word "WHY???" out of my head.
I need this recipe.
For reasons.
ETA Thanks lemurcat!
http://www.kraftcanada.com/recipes/ritz-mock-apple-pie-83403
I think I would rather have real apple pie for the calories...eek.
I guess back in the day fresh apples were pretty expensive out of season but I can't imagine it's cheaper to make with Ritz crackers these days. But since canned apples work just fine for pie I really can't imagine why anyone ever made it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I eat lots of fresh, one ingredient things. Cook from scratch as much as is practical . Whole grains as much as possible. But "clean" no. I enjoy an occasional diet soda, icecream when it fits into my calorie/saturated fat goals, chocolate, etc. Life should be lived, not endured. And, while I agree with the concept, I detest the term "clean eating ".
I'm always curious about statements like the bolded. They seem to be in opposition to each other, as I can't think of a single thing that I cook that only has one ingredient. Even roasted veggies, I add olive oil, salt, pepper and other seasonings. Most things that I cook have lots of ingredients, and though I don't consider myself a clean eater, I can't imagine a life without soups, stews, sauces, etc... Or how eliminating them based on the fact that they have multiple components makes me healthier...
What one ingredient things do you eat, other than maybe fruit?
Maybe I should have said "one ingredient ingredients ". Sounded too complicated
I always find this odd too, as when people ask for "clean eating" cookbooks (which if you mean just cooking from whole foods is basically every cookbook I have). When I cook from scratch, of course I typically use single ingredient, ingredients. I really don't think doing the semi-homemade (forget that woman's name, Sandra Lee?) is what most people think of re cooking. I think of roast veg with olive oil and salt (and maybe other seasonings), cook meat, cook starch side. If doing something more elaborate, it's still single ingredient ingredients for the most part (unless something like pasta which really is just flour and water and I could make at home but what difference does it make?). I'm always puzzled how it's assumed other people cook if not like this. Of course, I also don't think using something processed like pasta or flour or olive oil somehow makes my food less worth eating, so maybe we aren't on the same page.
Oh I have a bookshelf full of cookbooks purchased from schools, churches or charity organizations that are filled with recipes that include ingredients that are not single ingredient ingredients.
Casseroles that use frozen hashbrowns or corn flakes. Numerous recipes that call for Cheez Whiz or Velveeta, canned cream of <something> soup, or sausage. Desserts that use packaged cookies, cake mixes, pudding or Jell-O.
I know such cookbooks exist--I love weird cookbooks and have a few Iowa church cookbook from the '20s or some such, as well as a cookbook based on food in books by James Joyce, LOL and a ton of other weird things--but they aren't the main common cookbooks, IME. The idea that you have to seek out "clean eating" cookbooks is odd.
I don't know what is meant by "main common cookbooks" but my point was that a lot of people cook with ingredients that aren't single ingredient ingredients and wouldn't normally be considered clean. Cookbooks such as those from churches and schools are compiled from recipes parents, members and students regularly make.
Bittman, Julia Child, stuff like that.
Those product-based recipes are typically from the back of the product, not a standard cookbook.
Maybe I'm naive, but most people I know primarily cook using whole ingredients, not Ritz crackers. They will also use convenience foods on occasion (or even regularly for lunch), sure, but I find it odd that some seem to think that normal cooking, cooking from whole foods, is something special and different that needs a self-congratulatory name. I just think of it as cooking.
Speaking of that Ritz cracker thing ... there's a pie that is, apparently, made from Ritz crackers.
Evidently it is apple flavoured and I've heard you buy a pie shell, a package of the cheapest Ritz crackers (or look-alikes) that you can find, and the cheapest sugar laden apple beverage that you can find. You soak the Ritz crackers in the apple beverage, then plop the whole mess into the pie shell, and maybe add some more sugar and cinnamon and bake it.
It's supposed to taste just like apple pie ... without all the hassle of cutting up fresh apples.
Even though I've heard about this pie from several people, and I'm told it is a poor person's alternative to buying fresh produce, I can't get the word "WHY???" out of my head.
I need this recipe.
For reasons.
ETA Thanks lemurcat!
http://www.kraftcanada.com/recipes/ritz-mock-apple-pie-83403
I think I would rather have real apple pie for the calories...eek.
I guess back in the day fresh apples were pretty expensive out of season but I can't imagine it's cheaper to make with Ritz crackers these days. But since canned apples work just fine for pie I really can't imagine why anyone ever made it.
I often buy bulk apples in season (go and pick them sometimes) peel, cut and freeze in freezer bags for later..my husband is not a fan of "hard" apples in his pie...he prefers an "applesauce" type filling...he would probably love this but eh...0 -
No explanation for mock apple pie made from Ritz crackers has ever made sense.1
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But why is it a bad example? What is it about being an "ingredient" that makes something bad, as opposed to exactly the same substance that is not an "ingredient"?
Genuinely confused.
It has nothing to with bad or good. One person was talking about ingredients listed on a package and the example was the chemical makeup of such an ingredient. Apples and oranges, my friend. Or perhaps I should say apples and the chemical makeup of apples.
This doesn't make any sense. If something is not safe to eat, it's not safe to eat (taking account of dosage, of course). Whether it's artificially added to something, or grows in it naturally, makes no difference at all.
The cyanide that grows in apricot stones is exactly the same as the cyanide added to someone's champagne in an Agatha Christie novel.
The curcumin added to the yellow food colouring in my baking cupboard is exactly the same as the curcumin naturally occurring in turmeric.
The ascorbic acid added to my apple juice is exactly the same as the vitamin C in the oranges in my fruit bowl.
You cannot find out if something is good or bad based on whether it has "chemicals" or "additives" (or "ingredients"). Everything is made of chemicals. Everything in the universe. If you are worried about a specific ingredient, research it. Starting with rules made up based on nothing in particular is not a good approach to healthy eating.
7 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But why is it a bad example? What is it about being an "ingredient" that makes something bad, as opposed to exactly the same substance that is not an "ingredient"?
Genuinely confused.
It has nothing to with bad or good. One person was talking about ingredients listed on a package and the example was the chemical makeup of such an ingredient. Apples and oranges, my friend. Or perhaps I should say apples and the chemical makeup of apples.
This doesn't make any sense. If something is not safe to eat, it's not safe to eat (taking account of dosage, of course). Whether it's artificially added to something, or grows in it naturally, makes no difference at all.
The cyanide that grows in apricot stones is exactly the same as the cyanide added to someone's champagne in an Agatha Christie novel.
The curcumin added to the yellow food colouring in my baking cupboard is exactly the same as the curcumin naturally occurring in turmeric.
The ascorbic acid added to my apple juice is exactly the same as the vitamin C in the oranges in my fruit bowl.
You cannot find out if something is good or bad based on whether it has "chemicals" or "additives" (or "ingredients"). Everything is made of chemicals. Everything in the universe. If you are worried about a specific ingredient, research it. Starting with rules made up based on nothing in particular is not a good approach to healthy eating.
Research it, avoid it, whichever you prefer. I just do me and don't try to tell others what they should do.
3 -
Actually, there can be a difference between natural and synthetic versions of things such as ascorbic acid. http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/beware-of-ascorbic-acid-synthetic/CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But why is it a bad example? What is it about being an "ingredient" that makes something bad, as opposed to exactly the same substance that is not an "ingredient"?
Genuinely confused.
It has nothing to with bad or good. One person was talking about ingredients listed on a package and the example was the chemical makeup of such an ingredient. Apples and oranges, my friend. Or perhaps I should say apples and the chemical makeup of apples.
This doesn't make any sense. If something is not safe to eat, it's not safe to eat (taking account of dosage, of course). Whether it's artificially added to something, or grows in it naturally, makes no difference at all.
The cyanide that grows in apricot stones is exactly the same as the cyanide added to someone's champagne in an Agatha Christie novel.
The curcumin added to the yellow food colouring in my baking cupboard is exactly the same as the curcumin naturally occurring in turmeric.
The ascorbic acid added to my apple juice is exactly the same as the vitamin C in the oranges in my fruit bowl.
You cannot find out if something is good or bad based on whether it has "chemicals" or "additives" (or "ingredients"). Everything is made of chemicals. Everything in the universe. If you are worried about a specific ingredient, research it. Starting with rules made up based on nothing in particular is not a good approach to healthy eating.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions