Have you ever tried clean eating?
Options
Replies
-
ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »I'm not incensed, I was looking for a quick example of a product with more ingredients than it needed.
As previously stated, the extra ingredients are there to stabilise the product and extend its shelf life.
Here's a good one. This is basically a cake (only required ingredients are butter, sugar and flour) with some whipped cream inside, i.e. a Twinkie:
Enriched Bleached Wheat Flour [Flour, Reduced Iron, B Vitamins (Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate (B1), Riboflavin (B2), Folic Acid)], Corn Syrup, Sugar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Water, Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable and/or Animal Shortening (Soybean, Cottonseed and/or Canola Oil, Beef Fat), Whole Eggs, Dextrose. Contains 2% or Less of: Modified Corn Starch, Glucose, Leavenings (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Baking Soda, Monocalcium Phosphate), Sweet Dairy Whey, Soy Protein Isolate, Calcium and Sodium Caseinate, Salt, Mono and Diglycerides, Polysorbate 60, Soy Lecithin, Soy Flour, Cornstarch, Cellulose Gum, Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Sorbic Acid (to Retain Freshness), Yellow 5, Red 40.0 -
ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL ME THAT TWINKIES AREN'T HEALTHY?!?!?!?1
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »The only thing I eat that is processed is bacon, tomato purée and tinned tomatoes. I buy raw ingredients to make everything from scratch. Oh, and kippers, love those bad boys.
See, this is exactly what I don't get. You consider tinned tomatoes to be "processed" when all that's been done to them is skinning, cooking and sealing in a tin, but you don't consider your own home cooking to be "processing", even though you have done much more processing to make your meal than the factory ever did to the tomatoes.
It's like people are acting on this idea of what is or isn't "processed" based on some completely arbitrary definition, which is OK, I guess, except that people act as if it's totally obvious that their home made pizza is acceptable when an identical frozen one isn't, and expect it to be obvious to everyone else as well.
If tinned tomatoes are processed, what about flour? What about olive oil or butter or maple syrup? What about honey, even? The bees put A LOT of processing into that!
It frustrates me, not because it doesn't make sense, but because people keep acting as if it does.
People have a lot of different definitions for clean, but on the processed thing it's usually about how much the processing changes a food ingredient from it's natural form. For example, picking a pear from a tree is technically a 'process' but that doesn't make the pear a 'processed food'. Surely that is not a hard concept to grasp.1 -
ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?1 -
Is there a distinction between added chemicals and chemicals that happen to be the building blocks of everything, including every food and including you and me?ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »Bollocks! I forgot about cheese... I eat a lot of that too. That's a process, and cream. I eat a lot of processed food.
This is the thing right here. There is nothing inherently wrong with processed foods. If you have a qualm about an ingredient that you aren't familiar with, then look it up and find out what it is and what it does. If you still would rather not ingest it, then at least you have a solid reason for it instead of a silly blanket rule about not eating things based on how hard it is to pronounce. Blanket rules are for people who cannot reason for themselves.
I didn't say there was.
I don't have qualms about ingredients.
Way to state the obvious.
I see what you mean, because where some would struggle with Sodium chloride another May have no issues reading, pronouncing or eating sodium hexametaphosphate.
A blanket rule is a simple method for people wishing to not ingest added chemicals.
Most whole foods will have less additives to make it edible.
I'm not sure why folk appear to think I need advice, I was only sharing what I thought. My opinion - not fact or a request for help.
Do you wish to avoid all these chemicals in a banana? Unprocessed, single ingredient, nothing added, nothing taken away......
What is the source of this information? It doesn't look correct to me.0 -
I agree; that is a good example. The main purpose of Yellow 5 and Red 40 isn't to stabilize the consistency and preserve the shelf life.ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »I'm not incensed, I was looking for a quick example of a product with more ingredients than it needed.
As previously stated, the extra ingredients are there to stabilise the product and extend its shelf life.
Here's a good one. This is basically a cake (only required ingredients are butter, sugar and flour) with some whipped cream inside, i.e. a Twinkie:
Enriched Bleached Wheat Flour [Flour, Reduced Iron, B Vitamins (Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate (B1), Riboflavin (B2), Folic Acid)], Corn Syrup, Sugar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Water, Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable and/or Animal Shortening (Soybean, Cottonseed and/or Canola Oil, Beef Fat), Whole Eggs, Dextrose. Contains 2% or Less of: Modified Corn Starch, Glucose, Leavenings (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Baking Soda, Monocalcium Phosphate), Sweet Dairy Whey, Soy Protein Isolate, Calcium and Sodium Caseinate, Salt, Mono and Diglycerides, Polysorbate 60, Soy Lecithin, Soy Flour, Cornstarch, Cellulose Gum, Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Sorbic Acid (to Retain Freshness), Yellow 5, Red 40.
0 -
So, are you trying to make the point that Twinkies don't fall into anyone's category of clean eating?
Glad I read this long thread....3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree; that is a good example. The main purpose of Yellow 5 and Red 40 isn't to stabilize the consistency and preserve the shelf life.ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »I'm not incensed, I was looking for a quick example of a product with more ingredients than it needed.
As previously stated, the extra ingredients are there to stabilise the product and extend its shelf life.
Here's a good one. This is basically a cake (only required ingredients are butter, sugar and flour) with some whipped cream inside, i.e. a Twinkie:
Enriched Bleached Wheat Flour [Flour, Reduced Iron, B Vitamins (Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate (B1), Riboflavin (B2), Folic Acid)], Corn Syrup, Sugar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Water, Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable and/or Animal Shortening (Soybean, Cottonseed and/or Canola Oil, Beef Fat), Whole Eggs, Dextrose. Contains 2% or Less of: Modified Corn Starch, Glucose, Leavenings (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Baking Soda, Monocalcium Phosphate), Sweet Dairy Whey, Soy Protein Isolate, Calcium and Sodium Caseinate, Salt, Mono and Diglycerides, Polysorbate 60, Soy Lecithin, Soy Flour, Cornstarch, Cellulose Gum, Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Sorbic Acid (to Retain Freshness), Yellow 5, Red 40.
Yes but mot preschoolers can say their colors and numbers so must be safe to eat, right?5 -
I personally think a homemade cake is tastier than a Twinkie (which I decided was disgusting back at age 10 or so), but it's also "processed," so not clean, right?
Also, too many calories from homemade cake isn't going to be any less of an issue than the same from a Twinkie. (I would have a lot more trouble not overeating homemade cake, although neither is really a temptation for me -- most cake is too sweet for my preferences.)
Although eating cake isn't "clean," if one eats cake occasionally in moderation is one's diet less healthy than someone who does not (but who gets extra calories in some less processed way)?2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better for me since I hopefully wouldn't have to see, "if you can't read it, don't eat it" anymore.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It wouldn't be unfamiliar if they just looked the ingredient up.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better for me since I hopefully wouldn't have to see, "if you can't read it, don't eat it" anymore.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It wouldn't be unfamiliar if they just looked the ingredient up.
No it wouldn't. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing not to look it up and eating something else if that is a person's preference.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better for me since I hopefully wouldn't have to see, "if you can't read it, don't eat it" anymore.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It wouldn't be unfamiliar if they just looked the ingredient up.
No it wouldn't. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing not to look it up and eating something else if that is a person's preference.
People can eat what they want to eat. Lord knows I do. But if you maintain that something is bad because you can't pronounce it or know what it actually is...I just feel that's not a valid enough reason to demonize a food because that lack of education is on the person and not the food.
<
who thinks she'll live to a ripe old age because of all the preservatives she eats 4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better in that they may learn something new, that just because you can't pronounce something doesn't make it inherently bad for you. Eat it or not, but don't use ignorance or unfamiliarity as a reason when that is easily corrected.4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better in that they may learn something new, that just because you can't pronounce something doesn't make it inherently bad for you. Eat it or not, but don't use ignorance or unfamiliarity as a reason when that is easily corrected.
Why not? What is wrong with willfully remaining ignorant of food additives and avoiding them if that is my choice? We all remain ignorant of something. Nobody has the time to learn everything.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better in that they may learn something new, that just because you can't pronounce something doesn't make it inherently bad for you. Eat it or not, but don't use ignorance or unfamiliarity as a reason when that is easily corrected.
I think some people on here prefer to avoid education4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better for me since I hopefully wouldn't have to see, "if you can't read it, don't eat it" anymore.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It wouldn't be unfamiliar if they just looked the ingredient up.
No it wouldn't. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing not to look it up and eating something else if that is a person's preference.
People can eat what they want to eat. Lord knows I do. But if you maintain that something is bad because you can't pronounce it or know what it actually is...I just feel that's not a valid enough reason to demonize a food because that lack of education is on the person and not the food.
<
who thinks she'll live to a ripe old age because of all the preservatives she eats
I do agree that stating something is bad without knowing is wrong. But stating I don't want to eat because I don't know if it's bad seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's not as if we have never been told that food additives are safe that later turned out not to be so safe.1 -
This is the first time I think I've ever seen anyone feel the need to argue for willful ignorance.7
-
-
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »
If people can't pronounce hexametaphosphate, even slowly, they clearly should invest in Hooked on Phonics. I hear there's an app for that.
People can make blanket statements all they want but it doesn't change the fact that just because they can't pronounce something that it's bad for them.
It was just an example.
Maybe it's not bad for them, maybe it is. How would they know if they don't know what it is? This is all I'm trying to convey.
LOL I know. I was also kinda of thinking about lazy readers who will see a long word and just not bother.
Also, the internet can be pretty helpful in looking up information. So if someone is trying to stay away from added "bad" chemicals and they see something on a list that they have no idea what it is, isn't it better to educate themselves instead of assuming it's bad because they can't sound a word out?
Better is what way? Would their life be enhanced in some manner by eating the food with the unfamiliar chemical rather than eating something else?
Better in that they may learn something new, that just because you can't pronounce something doesn't make it inherently bad for you. Eat it or not, but don't use ignorance or unfamiliarity as a reason when that is easily corrected.
Why not? What is wrong with willfully remaining ignorant of food additives and avoiding them if that is my choice? We all remain ignorant of something. Nobody has the time to learn everything.
If you choose to remain willfully ignorant and make decisions about what you eat based on that, then that's fine, I have no issue with it.
However, it has been stated many times in this thread and others, that a helpful rule about whether or not to eat something should be based on whether the ingredients can be pronounced. As a piece of advice to others, that suggestion that ignorance should be the benchmark seems kind of silly. The complexity of the pronunciation of the ingredient has nothing to do with whether or not the ingredient is "bad".6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions