Have you ever tried clean eating?
Replies
-
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 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.
Useless...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".
It's actually an excellent example of why saying "If you can't read it, don't eat it" is so asinine. If a consumer were to see phenylalanine listed as an ingredient in a packaged food, they would avoid if if they were following that mantra...but they'd eat it willingly, happily, and unknowingly in a banana. How does that make any sense?
It actually makes some sense. It's not as if adding any random chemical that might happen to be in a food naturally to another food that doesn't naturally contain it has no potential for problems.
I'd like to see how that happens if it's added but not if you eat a thing that has that chemical additionally to the other thing.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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".
It's actually an excellent example of why saying "If you can't read it, don't eat it" is so asinine. If a consumer were to see phenylalanine listed as an ingredient in a packaged food, they would avoid if if they were following that mantra...but they'd eat it willingly, happily, and unknowingly in a banana. How does that make any sense?
It actually makes some sense. It's not as if adding any random chemical that might happen to be in a food naturally to another food that doesn't naturally contain it has no potential for problems.
I'd like to see how that happens if it's added but not if you eat a thing that has that chemical additionally to the other thing.
You'd like to see how what happens?0 -
Potential problems happening from adding a chemical to a food vs. eating a food that naturally contains it together with the other food not having that chemical.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Potential problems happening from adding a chemical to a food vs. eating a food that naturally contains it together with the other food not having that chemical.
Is it your contention then that if a chemical is safe it is always safe no matter what other chemicals it is mixed with? Or do you mean that food laws being what they are chemicals would never be added unless they were safe? Or something else?0 -
My contention is that I'd like to see a scenario in which a food with an additive causes "potential problems" because of interactions of the chemicals, which does not cause any "potential problems" if you eat that same food without the additive but also eat another food that naturally contains that additive.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »My contention is that I'd like to see a scenario in which a food with an additive causes "potential problems" because of interactions of the chemicals, which does not cause any "potential problems" if you eat that same food without the additive but also eat another food that naturally contains that additive.
Can we see potential problems? If we see them, wouldn't they cease to be potential?0 -
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.
Don't let her wind you up. She's admitted in other threads that she's just here to have a good time. She's not interested in understanding, educating, or seeing anyone else's viewpoints. You'll note she only responds to people likely to engage back, ignores ridiculous stances from newer members, and often falls back to a "just asking questions"-type reasoning.4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »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.
Don't let her wind you up. She's admitted in other threads that she's just here to have a good time. She's not interested in understanding, educating, or seeing anyone else's viewpoints. You'll note she only responds to people likely to engage back, ignores ridiculous stances from newer members, and often falls back to a "just asking questions"-type reasoning.
Yes, it is quite frustrating to read the back and forth. Let it go newbie. LOL2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »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.
Don't let her wind you up. She's admitted in other threads that she's just here to have a good time. She's not interested in understanding, educating, or seeing anyone else's viewpoints. You'll note she only responds to people likely to engage back, ignores ridiculous stances from newer members, and often falls back to a "just asking questions"-type reasoning.
You've summed it up nicely. It's tiresome to interact with someone who answers questions with more questions; that's schoolyard stuff. It says a lot about a person's reasoning level and ability to form and defend a coherent argument. I've seen her do her circle dance in other threads and I've drawn my own conclusions. Sometimes it's nice to give people enough rope to hang themselves though.
Now, let's talk more about that mock apple pie! I can't believe the texture would be anything but soggy.
2 -
queenliz99 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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.
Don't let her wind you up. She's admitted in other threads that she's just here to have a good time. She's not interested in understanding, educating, or seeing anyone else's viewpoints. You'll note she only responds to people likely to engage back, ignores ridiculous stances from newer members, and often falls back to a "just asking questions"-type reasoning.
Yes, it is quite frustrating to read the back and forth. Let it go newbie. LOL
No worries! I'm content to let her have the last word.
2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »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.
Don't let her wind you up. She's admitted in other threads that she's just here to have a good time. She's not interested in understanding, educating, or seeing anyone else's viewpoints. You'll note she only responds to people likely to engage back, ignores ridiculous stances from newer members, and often falls back to a "just asking questions"-type reasoning.
You've summed it up nicely. It's tiresome to interact with someone who answers questions with more questions; that's schoolyard stuff. It says a lot about a person's reasoning level and ability to form and defend a coherent argument. I've seen her do her circle dance in other threads and I've drawn my own conclusions. Sometimes it's nice to give people enough rope to hang themselves though.
Now, let's talk more about that mock apple pie! I can't believe the texture would be anything but soggy.
I am so intrigued by this pie. I suspect Ritz might see a small bump in sales this week from all of us trying it.5 -
YES! Lol.If I can't pronounce it on the label, then I don't eat it.
Beer, wine, steak, soda, chocolate, ice cream, oreos!!!
Sounds perfect to me. I know we're talking about not eating items with unpronounceable individual ingredients here...I was just being equally as silly as that.
But yeah, education is the huge factor in how pronounceable something is, not a factor of what should and shouldn't be avoided when it comes to eating.
However, arsenic can also be pronounced by almost everyone...
How about shampoos? What if someone cannot pronounce 'sodium laureth sulfate' or 'Sodium lauroamphoacetate', does that mean they cannot use it?
0 -
Damn, you made me look! I wish someone would plug this into the recipe calculator (sorry, too tired today to do it myself). I remember this recipe on the back of the Ritz box many years ago but never tried it.
Filling
2 cups water
3/4 cup granulated sugar
2 tsp. cream of tartar
30 Ritz Crackers
1 ready-to-use refrigerated pie crust (1/2 of 425-g pkg.)
1 Tbsp. lemon juice
1 tsp. ground cinnamon
Topping
25 Ritz Crackers, crushed (about 1 cup)
1/2 cup packed brown sugar
1/2 tsp. ground cinnamon
1/3 cup non-hydrogenated margarine, melted
2 cups Cool Whip Whipped Topping
Heat oven to 400ºF.
Filling: Mix water, granulated sugar and cream of tartar in large saucepan. Bring to boil on medium-high heat. Add crackers; simmer on medium-low heat 5 min., stirring occasionally.
Line 9-inch pie plate with crust as directed on package; fill with cracker mixture. Sprinkle with lemon juice and cinnamon.
Topping: Combine all remaining ingredients except Cool Whip; sprinkle over Filling.
Bake 15 min. Reduce oven temperature to 350°F; bake 20 min. or until golden brown. Cool. Serve topped with Cool Whip.3 -
@diannethegeek @queenliz99
PS: thanks for the good advice
For everyone else, how about a photo of a real apple pie:
3 -
diannethegeek wrote: »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.
Don't let her wind you up. She's admitted in other threads that she's just here to have a good time. She's not interested in understanding, educating, or seeing anyone else's viewpoints. You'll note she only responds to people likely to engage back, ignores ridiculous stances from newer members, and often falls back to a "just asking questions"-type reasoning.
You've summed it up nicely. It's tiresome to interact with someone who answers questions with more questions; that's schoolyard stuff. It says a lot about a person's reasoning level and ability to form and defend a coherent argument. I've seen her do her circle dance in other threads and I've drawn my own conclusions. Sometimes it's nice to give people enough rope to hang themselves though.
Now, let's talk more about that mock apple pie! I can't believe the texture would be anything but soggy.
I'm not gonna lie. I wish I cooked/baked because that doesn't look half bad. Plus I love Ritz crackers. 2 -
@diannethegeek @queenliz99
PS: thanks for the good advice
For everyone else, how about a photo of a real apple pie:
I hope that is organic, non-GMO caramel sauce drizzled over the top. If it is store-bought (from the dark central aisles of Mordor, er the grocery store), there are tons of un-pronounceable ingredients in it, like Xanthan Gum -scrape it off! Zanthem or X-anthem, I've never known! And that looks like a cancer-infused Melamine plate - what are you thinking?!?
6 -
Annamarie3404 wrote: »For the most part, I eat clean. I quit eating processed foods completely at the beginning of this year. I don't eat raw though. But I cook everything I eat. It's all fresh or frozen veggies...steamed, baked, broiled or grilled.
I am also weaning myself off of the microwave. Hope to get that out by the end of this year.
You have a Weight Watchers frozen dinner, Cheetos, jam, low cal bread, Subway sandwich, Weight Watchers frozen ice cream, Laughing Cow cheese in your diary from the past few days.
Not that I think there is anything wrong with that but it is contradictory to your post.5 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »Annamarie3404 wrote: »For the most part, I eat clean. I quit eating processed foods completely at the beginning of this year. I don't eat raw though. But I cook everything I eat. It's all fresh or frozen veggies...steamed, baked, broiled or grilled.
I am also weaning myself off of the microwave. Hope to get that out by the end of this year.
You have a Weight Watchers frozen dinner, Cheetos, jam, low cal bread, Subway sandwich, Weight Watchers frozen ice cream, Laughing Cow cheese in your diary from the past few days.
Not that I think there is anything wrong with that but it is contradictory to your post.
If I had a dollar for every time that happens...0 -
Mandygring wrote: »unprocessed, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meats, and no artificial ingredients, preservatives, sugars, saturated fat, and trans fat.
I eat very much like you, but like you there are a few exceptions (chocolate and ice cream in particular!) I've lost over 80 lbs eating like this in combination with CICO. After eating this way for the last two years, I don't find it restrictive at all, I actually feel many times better than I did before changing things. (And I choose to workout to achieve the CO part of the equation.) Bottom line to answer your question, I've had fabulous results eating mainly lean meats, veg and fruit, but with minimal grains.1
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
- 176K 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
- 96.4K 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