the "mindset" behind clean eating/paleo

PikaKnight

Demonizing certain foods is why I failed so badly my first few months trying this. I suspect I'm not alone in that experience.

Good post, and while I hope that certain folks will "get" it, I doubt it'll happen. Most of the people who say "clean or nothing" are "all or nothing" types who can't see anything in the middle. The world for them is often black and white with no shades of grey between.

You are most DEFINITELY not alone in that experience. Hi5!

SteelySunshine

Hear Hear. Everyone, have a bag of doritos to help fight orthorexia.

Pffft, Flamin' Cheetos or nothing.

Oh love love love Flamin' Cheetos.

CoderGal

Hear Hear. Everyone, have a bag of doritos to help fight orthorexia.

Pffft, Flamin' Cheetos or nothing.

Oh love love love Flamin' Cheetos.

Had them for the first time a few days ago....not a big fan.

_noob_

Oh, Doritos are total crap, no question. But if you are consuming otherwise healthy food besides them in a day/ period of time and had a decent macronutrient breakdown when you consumed them, they are very unlikely to be a detriment to your overall diet.

THAT is the take home message that should be inferred from IIFYM. (Not "I can eat ice cream and poptarts and don't have to eat clean to lose weight"). But you should never "fear" food (except those with anaphalactic allergies).

whierd

Why do the non-paleo/primal eaters care about what others eat so much? Why all the redundant threads on the subject? Why not just care (or don't) about what you eat? I've only been visiting this forum for about 4 days now and I'm sick of all the paleo diet bashing already. Maybe I missed some nasty threads where someone said something really terrible about those that don't view food the same way, but why all the lingering hostility?

There will always be people with differing views on how to eat like vegan, vegetarian, pro-fasting, anti-fasting. Live and let live people.

CookNLift

Oh, Doritos are total crap, no question. But if you are consuming otherwise healthy food besides them in a day/ period of time and had a decent macronutrient breakdown when you consumed them, they are very unlikely to be a detriment to your overall diet.

THAT is the take home message that should be inferred from IIFYM. (Not "I can eat ice cream and poptarts and don't have to eat clean to lose weight"). But you should never "fear" food (except those with anaphalactic allergies).

I'm paleo. And I endorse this message.

lol no but seriously. this this this.^^^

_noob_

We're so spoiled by the safety of our food it is ludicrous sometimes. Safe to consume calories are the #1 most important aspect of any food. And I would put "safe" being those that do not cause acute disease. Outbreaks of foodborne illness in the developed world is so rare that any event makes major headlines.

Sure there are slip ups, but considering how easily microbes contaminate food, our government/food suppliers do an amazing job.

Our bodies are also amazing at taking whatever it is you give them and using this and making you as ready for anything as possible. Things like building muscle on crummy protein intakes and the like. Adequate, safe calories are most of the battle in nutrition. We've just come so far that adequate safe calories are available for dang near everybody, especially anybody reading this.

And most of the battle in nutrition is getting adequate macronutrients, as with adequate macronutrients nearly always there will be adequate micronutrients to survive (and remain "healthy" for a LONG time with modern medicine).

The point of this philosophical nonsense is that we can get so ahead of ourselves trying to be an ideal of perfect that may or not even be good enough. You're more than doing "good enough" to eat foods you need to be happy in moderation and striving to consume as many nutritious foods as you can.

Barbellerella

UsedToBeHusky

@ noob - :smooched:

NancyKhuu

Cannot agree more with the OP. I don't understand the whole Paleo thing. Why excluding legumes and so many other things that are proven to be so beneficial for your body? However, my philosophy is, people can do whatever they want to themselves, as long as they don't affect me personally. What pisses me off more than anything is when "clean eaters" tell me I'm going to die soon from the food I eat... Oh yeah?! Like they don't die

_noob_

Bumperooski

BeachIron

Bumperooski

Bumper-nator!

CoderGal

Bumperooski

Bumper-nator!

Koyaanisqatsi

sluggz

First of all, I'm not a clean eater, but I definitely lean that direction. That being said, I'm eating a Papa Murphy's pizza as I type this. What can I say? It was heavy Squat and Bench day.

Here's the general issue as it appears to me, although I freely admit I'm new on the message boards. It appears to me that every time I see a post regarding how awesome clean eating is, many of the IIFYMers feel the need to rush in and "save" everyone from the possible misrepresentation of good vs. bad food. In my limited MFP experience, I can't for the life of me figure out why some people here feel that they are saving people from some sort of danger when they do this.
In other words, when did "do your best to avoid processed, man-made, commercialized food-like products" become a bad message that people need to be "saved" from. Especially on a post that is clearly pro-clean eating? Why not start a new post inviting a respectful debate rather than stick your nose in someone else's post? Or maybe stick to creating posts about how awesome IIFYM is? Then you could let people who want to read that information make up their own minds about which way they would like to go. Basically, both messages are getting lost amongst the bickering leaving people more confused or in my case, bored. with the whole thing.

My personal opinion... IIFYM is an easy out. Really it should be IIFYM* with the asterisk being "and also micro-nutrients". reason being that it's easy to just eat whatever you want to and justify it later. Believe me, If I'm at a work function or out with friends, I'm going to make the best choice available, but I'm not going to pass up on some hot wings either. I would argue that it's not sustainable though any more than anything else is. Again, because it has yet to be refuted, I'll point to the diet of Twinkies and supplements experiment. That Dr. was able to eat absolute junk and he lost weight and improved his cholesterol. It fell into the realm of IIFYM but I think we all agree, it certainly isn't sustainable, healthy, or wise to keep it up. Although I'm sure there'll be all sorts of reasons why that shouldn't really apply, so I'll add this: somewhere in this thread and even good old BioLayne, Dr. Norton himself advocates eating good whole foods more than anything else, and really, that's the essence of "clean" eating. Albeit a very simple definition. But in both cases, there is clearly a distinction between grass-fed beef and free-range organic chicken and Cheetos, Doritos Locos, or a Big Mac.

Clean eating in my opinion, absolutely is TOO rigid, the reason is this: The mindset you bring up, is necessary in order to resolve one's self to not eat the food-like products that are readily available all over the place. And secondly because sticking to it, especially in the beginning, is really F-ing hard! For very simple clarification as it pertains to my opinion, If it didn't grow that way, or wasn't raised, its not food, but rather a food-like product. Another factor in that is you want as few ingredients as possible in something if it is not simply something like an egg. If you get bread, it should be unbleached whole grain flour, eggs, milk, butter, yeast, salt. Not the unpronounceable laundry list of ingredients in the egg Mcmuffin I posted before. If you want further clarification, read Michael Pollan. Start with The Omnivore's Dilemma, great book. Anyways... That, in and of itself, is the problem with clean eating. It is very difficult to adhere to and actually requires you to have an inflexible mindset to follow it.

Fact of the matter is it's not IIFYM vs. Clean eating. Especially when IIFYM HAS to require some form of clean eating to be successful. They are both just tools in the box to get a job done. Neither one is THE tool.

Barbellgirl

Very well said Sluggz. Hopefully we'll see less of these kinds of threads, and the bickering that ensues when someone uses he word "clean."

CoderGal

First of all, I'm not a clean eater, but I definitely lean that direction. That being said, I'm eating a Papa Murphy's pizza as I type this. What can I say? It was heavy Squat and Bench day.

Here's the general issue as it appears to me, although I freely admit I'm new on the message boards. It appears to me that every time I see a post regarding how awesome clean eating is, many of the IIFYMers feel the need to rush in and "save" everyone from the possible misrepresentation of good vs. bad food. In my limited MFP experience, I can't for the life of me figure out why some people here feel that they are saving people from some sort of danger when they do this.
In other words, when did "do your best to avoid processed, man-made, commercialized food-like products" become a bad message that people need to be "saved" from. Especially on a post that is clearly pro-clean eating? Why not start a new post inviting a respectful debate rather than stick your nose in someone else's post? Or maybe stick to creating posts about how awesome IIFYM is? Then you could let people who want to read that information make up their own minds about which way they would like to go. Basically, both messages are getting lost amongst the bickering leaving people more confused or in my case, bored. with the whole thing.

My personal opinion... IIFYM is an easy out. Really it should be IIFYM* with the asterisk being "and also micro-nutrients". reason being that it's easy to just eat whatever you want to and justify it later. Believe me, If I'm at a work function or out with friends, I'm going to make the best choice available, but I'm not going to pass up on some hot wings either. I would argue that it's not sustainable though any more than anything else is. Again, because it has yet to be refuted, I'll point to the diet of Twinkies and supplements experiment. That Dr. was able to eat absolute junk and he lost weight and improved his cholesterol. It fell into the realm of IIFYM but I think we all agree, it certainly isn't sustainable, healthy, or wise to keep it up. Although I'm sure there'll be all sorts of reasons why that shouldn't really apply, so I'll add this: somewhere in this thread and even good old BioLayne, Dr. Norton himself advocates eating good whole foods more than anything else, and really, that's the essence of "clean" eating. Albeit a very simple definition. But in both cases, there is clearly a distinction between grass-fed beef and free-range organic chicken and Cheetos, Doritos Locos, or a Big Mac.

Clean eating in my opinion, absolutely is TOO rigid, the reason is this: The mindset you bring up, is necessary in order to resolve one's self to not eat the food-like products that are readily available all over the place. And secondly because sticking to it, especially in the beginning, is really F-ing hard! For very simple clarification as it pertains to my opinion, If it didn't grow that way, or wasn't raised, its not food, but rather a food-like product. Another factor in that is you want as few ingredients as possible in something if it is not simply something like an egg. If you get bread, it should be unbleached whole grain flour, eggs, milk, butter, yeast, salt. Not the unpronounceable laundry list of ingredients in the egg Mcmuffin I posted before. If you want further clarification, read Michael Pollan. Start with The Omnivore's Dilemma, great book. Anyways... That, in and of itself, is the problem with clean eating. It is very difficult to adhere to and actually requires you to have an inflexible mindset to follow it.

Fact of the matter is it's not IIFYM vs. Clean eating. Especially when IIFYM HAS to require some form of clean eating to be successful. They are both just tools in the box to get a job done. Neither one is THE tool.

OK I listened as far as the twinkie diet is IIFYM and um..NO! With a capital big huge N O! Even with the suppliments no. Last time I checked he had pretty much nill protein in that diet. No. And how can you say the twinkie diet is IIFYM and helps you lose weight and improve health aspects and "IIFYM HAS to require some form of clean eating to be successful". Are you sure you know what IIFYM is? It's not suppose to be a out to eat twinkies. But hey if you ate healthy all day had all your macros/micros and worked extra hard, and have a bunch of calories from exercise to fill, feel free to have one without thinking you're going to die and emotionally making yourself feel sick.

And it's not just the IIFYM people who reply in those threads. And I'm glad they do. I don't have a problem with clean eating. Some can be smart about it and not be crazy. I have a problem when people say that calories do not matter, how 'clean' your foods matter. And that if you eat clean your stomach will go away...no....that's not how it works...I know people who eat chips and ice cream allot with 6 packs (and no, they're not all the iifym people), and I know clean eaters who are obese and getting larger. I hate it when there are people who say it doesn't matter if you get all your nutrients, it's how unprocessed your foods are. So you get these people reading the clean threads and start filling up on veggies but get sick from lack of nutrients. I've had clean eaters basically tell me to cut out all the iron in my diet because of the way I got it. Not a good plan, no matter how washed my apple is. So I admit, I visit the clean eating threads to make sure there's not any looming dangerous words floating around that could potentially hurt someone innocent who doesn't have the knowledge to know why it could be dangerous for your mind and health and that people very easily take it to extremes.

FlaxMilk

I would just like to say that because it is the MINDSET that we disagree with most, that often our disagreements get personal and are viewed as "nasty" in a hurry and are often heated. And for that I apologize for "us", but I'd just like to say that it doesn't mean that we don't care or don't want to be supportive. We're just chosing a different means of trying to be supportive.

You post so many goof threads I'm afraid my Sunday morning brain is missing the joke here. :laugh: But this is a really nice and refreshing thread given all the clean/dirty drama this weekend (which a Freudian would have a field day with, maybe a new thesis idea, how forums censoring sexuality contributes to the displacement of internal conflict into food ...)

Edit because other thread got unlocked so I'll respond there. We all see what we expect to see.

If I believe that vegetarians are by and large good, I will tend to notice the ones that support that. If I believe clean eaters are pushy, I will notice those. If I believe that IIFYM are nasty and rude, I will notice them.

Of course we notice those who are the loudest and the shrillest (PM'ing that someone will get cancer is pretty extreme.) We tend to just overlook the ones who are normal. I would be willing to bet that the majority of those who eat clean are not trying to PM people with cancer wishes. I know for a fact (because I have a bunch on my friends list) that not all vegans are even vocal on the forums about it. I know that not every IIFYM person posts jokes about bleaching food when someone asks how to eat clean.

TL; DR. Don't worry, be happy. We're all ok. Just don't wish cancer on someone and don't call everyone who wants to eat clean as elitist or foolish. My personal idealistic goal is to eat as many whole foods as possible and avoid foods that I know I just don't feel great after eating, so I guess to eat 100% clean. This isn't going to happen, because I'm pretty imperfect. I wouldn't want people from either side to pick on either half of that sentence. It's a fair ideal to have, as long as I don't lose my mind over it, which I won't, because I already accept that it's unattainable.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

The twinkie diet was NOT IIFYM. There is no way to make a diet consisting solely of twinkies fit your macros, it just doesn't happen.

I think this is one of the big annoyances that IIFYM people have. Any time the topic comes up, someone interprets IIFYM as "eat whatever you want, cheetos and burgers and poptarts all day, and nothing else." There's no way to make a diet like that fit. You'll max out on carbs and fat long before you meet protein and fiber, not to mention micronutrients.

Here's a typical day for me: Breakfast is toast and fresh fruit. Lunch is greek yogurt, cottage cheese, and raw veggies. Dinner is a huge salad with Rosemary Lemon chicken and roasted red potatoes. Then I'll have ice cream for dessert. That's hardly a diet of all junk food, although much of it is not "clean." It's a far cry from pizza and poptarts and burgers oh my.

BeachIron

The twinkie diet was NOT IIFYM. There is no way to make a diet consisting solely of twinkies fit your macros, it just doesn't happen.

I think this is one of the big annoyances that IIFYM people have. Any time the topic comes up, someone interprets IIFYM as "eat whatever you want, cheetos and burgers and poptarts all day, and nothing else." There's no way to make a diet like that fit. You'll max out on carbs and fat long before you meet protein and fiber, not to mention micronutrients.

Here's a typical day for me: Breakfast is toast and fresh fruit. Lunch is greek yogurt, cottage cheese, and raw veggies. Dinner is a huge salad with Rosemary Lemon chicken and roasted red potatoes. Then I'll have ice cream for dessert. That's hardly a diet of all junk food, although much of it is not "clean." It's a far cry from pizza and poptarts and burgers oh my.

^ This. It is amazing to me how hard it is for some people to understand exactly what is meant by "IIFYM" or "flexible dieting." It focuses down hard on what we know really matters to weight loss and body recomposition success and throws out the rest. Any effort to simplify the very complex subject of nutrition is going to have some disagreement around the edges (should we track just macros, or macros and fiber? Or macros, fiber and certain micros?) but we have to find a way to make meaningful choices in putting our daily diets together while at the same time not driving ourselves batty. Asking myself whether something is "clean" doesn't help me make meaningful decisions. Asking myself whether a chunk of 2% cheese has the fat and protein content that contribute to my diet that day, does.

busywaterbending

paleo teaches people how to eat and that processed and gmo "foods" are not really food, nothing wrong with opening up peoples' mindset. I'm sure that's what this is all about, right? open mindset?

http://keegansh.com/2011/12/26/4-reasons-why-the-paleo-diet-will-work-for-you/

and there are plenty of endocrinologists who have documented how real food heals everyone, not jut sick people, of many disease symptoms and adrenal fatigue or overtraining burnout. But, unless you have an open mindset and search for this stuff yourself you will just continue to bash anyone who thinks in any other way than you do.

"For Olympian Amanda Beard, regaining fitness means adopting a retro eating plan that cave dwellers, and other athletes, might recognize."http://www.appforhealth.com/2011/06/paleo-athletes-diet/ ESPN article

BrainyBurro

when did "do your best to avoid processed, man-made, commercialized food-like products" become a bad message that people need to be "saved" from.

false premise is false.

scientifically speaking, what is wrong with "processed, man-made, commercialized food-like products"?

food is nothing but fuel and a nutrient delivery system. there's nothing wrong with so-called processed food. so long as it's not mistakenly contaminated with benzene (e.g. Perrier) or some other harmful chemical as a result of the processing, the fact it is processed is irrelevant.

you should choose your food based on taste and nutritional content (food allergies and real medical conditions excepted, of course). whether or not it comes in a box, a bag, a can, or the center aisles of a grocery store is 100% irrelevant.

people who do not understand this simple fact are misunderstanding the basic facts of science and biology.

BrainyBurro

paleo teaches people how to eat and that processed and gmo "foods" are not really food, nothing wrong with opening up peoples' mindset. I'm sure that's what this is all about, right? open mindset?

http://keegansh.com/2011/12/26/4-reasons-why-the-paleo-diet-will-work-for-you/

and there are plenty of endocrinologists who have documented how real food heals everyone, not jut sick people, of many disease symptoms and adrenal fatigue or overtraining burnout. But, unless you have an open mindset and search for this stuff yourself you will just continue to bash anyone who thinks in any other way than you do.

"For Olympian Amanda Beard, regaining fitness means adopting a retro eating plan that cave dwellers, and other athletes, might recognize."http://www.appforhealth.com/2011/06/paleo-athletes-diet/ ESPN article

ahhh... the "magic bean" defense of clean/paleo/primal.

consider me wholly unpersuaded.

sluggz

I just want to make sure I understand correctly. It doesn't matter what you eat, so long as you hit your macros, (and micros, and fiber...) but it does matter what you eat because you'll never hit your macros if you just eat junk?
So basically you are arguing that you don't like the mindset, and what they call their club?
I would also like to point out that not a single "clean" eater has PM'd me, attempted to argue my points, or anything else for that matter.
Brainyburro - look up hexane see what is used to make in relation to food. Also, see High Fructose Corn Syrup, Aspartame, etc... There isn't a single nutritionist in the world I wager who would argue against eating whole foods vs. processed foods. If you honestly believe a Lean Cuisine, Mcdonalds meal, or Pop Tarts and a protein shake are just as "healthy" as a steak, broccoli, and sweet potato... give me a break... you yourself say to choose your food based on nutritional content.... so... it is relevant? or it's not?

CoderGal

I just want to make sure I understand correctly. It doesn't matter what you eat, so long as you hit your macros, (and micros, and fiber...) but it does matter what you eat because you'll never hit your macros if you just eat junk?
So basically you are arguing that you don't like the mindset, and what they call their club?
I would also like to point out that not a single "clean" eater has PM'd me, attempted to argue my points, or anything else for that matter.
Brainyburro - look up hexane see what is used to make in relation to food. Also, see High Fructose Corn Syrup, Aspartame, etc... There isn't a single nutritionist in the world I wager who would argue against eating whole foods vs. processed foods. If you honestly believe a Lean Cuisine, Mcdonalds meal, or Pop Tarts and a protein shake are just as "healthy" as a steak, broccoli, and sweet potato... give me a break... you yourself say to choose your food based on nutritional content.... so... it is relevant? or it's not?

No, you are not understanding correctly.

BrainyBurro - "you should choose your food based on taste and nutritional content "

What you take from it - comparing mcdonalds to broccoli? That's a bit of an extreme.

I think what he was trying to get at there is If it boils down to a steak that is spiced with processed things and a apple....and I haven't had any protein, well, I'll be craving that steak. And if I've had a crap ton of carrots and then I get to choose from more carrots or a chocolate bar I'm going to have a chocolate bar. And if I keep high calorie high carb junk in my cupboards for when I go on long hikes because I travel between 3 houses and school and want carbs that I can grab that well keep over time so I can leave on a long hike on a whim. I also try to keep fruit around but it's hard to pack up your fridge a couple times a day going house to house. It's also not as filling if I'm going for the extra fuel. And I keep whey in my bookbag for when my schedule changes and I have to pull a all nighter and I haven't gotten enough protein because I'm stuck on campus and the food is expensive. But normally I'd prefer Chicken breasts when available. I'm not going to put my mind at stress over eating clean. I've seen people literally make themselves sick over it. And if my oreo makes me feel good, then so be it.

And while there are studies showing that copious amounts of the sugary things are bad, I'm sure if someone did one on copious amounts of apples they'd have the same effects. Copious amounts of many things can hinder the absorption of other things etc. Try to keep a balance. And I wouldn't even consider myself a 'in moderation' person. I think it's a better idea to get everything you need first. I'm not going to keep a fridge on my back and trade out protein or starve myself because I cannot find any fresh non chemically treated organic whozywhatsits available. And there's a pecking order. If I have to choose between balanced nutrition or whatever is in front of me when I need the fuel, I'm going to eat, period. Even if it's a oreo, particularly since I like them.

QueenBishOTUniverse

Ok, can't take it any more. I'm going to keep this as simple and strait forward as I can. I don't give a CRAP about clean eating OR IIFYM. I'm going to do my thing.

BUT, I have been here lurking for over a week now. I have seen "clean eaters" make what I would consider to be pretty harmless statements and "IIFYMers" show up en mass to start belittling, preaching and bashing. I get that there have been some hateful clean eaters in the past, but I have yet to personally witness anything along those lines, it has ALL been from the IIFYM group.

I think mostly it's just very off putting, and I've seen several new members try to say that it's offputting and they just get dumped on too.

I get the concept of trying to "protect" new members from "clean eater" bible thumpers, but a lot of the IIFYMer's are coming off just as obnoxious, and it's pretty self defeating.

sluggz

CoderGal, thanks, that clears it up. What you are saying is that it matters what you eat because some food is nutritionally better than others, but it's Ok to eat "junk" too.
I still fail to see why anyone needs to "save" people from doing their best to minimize or if they feel the need, eliminate as much of the "junk" as possible.

CoderGal

Ok, can't take it any more. I'm going to keep this as simple and strait forward as I can. I don't give a CRAP about clean eating OR IIFYM. I'm going to do my thing.

BUT, I have been here lurking for over a week now. I have seen "clean eaters" make what I would consider to be pretty harmless statements and "IIFYMers" show up en mass to start belittling, preaching and bashing. I get that there have been some hateful clean eaters in the past, but I have yet to personally witness anything along those lines, it has ALL been from the IIFYM group.

I think mostly it's just very off putting, and I've seen several new members try to say that it's offputting and they just get dumped on too.

I get the concept of trying to "protect" new members from "clean eater" bible thumpers, but a lot of the IIFYMer's are coming off just as obnoxious, and it's pretty self defeating.

Fair enough. I haven't seen this but we may have different ideas of what belittling and bashing is. Some think pointing things out that are wrong particularly if that person happens to present material in a sarcastic way means attacking. I'm fine with people being sarcastic. Sarcasm is a love of mine. And it seems to get through to me and others sometimes. Or conversation with a different opinion is attacking. Or pointing out a flaw is attacking. Can you point me out to some of the belittling and attacks?

I think attacking is more of belittling a person because their views are different from someone elses despite their reasons being sound, but different. I find when I see a lot of these people argue, there are many being ignorant and ignore certain truths. Like religion vs athiests, I have no problem talking about the topic, and both sides have their reasons they think are sound, or it could simply be because they feel they're in a more peaceful happier place with/without it which is pretty valid by my standards. You can get people who argue because they think differently, and both can point out valid reasons for each side and both have an idea of why they're doing what they''re doing. And then you get the crazies who leave holes everywhere on both sides. I'm all open for discussion. You can sometimes learn a little something from it. But I think the crazies should be pointed out to those who could still be on the fence and fall onto the wrong side because of someone elses ignorance or scare tactics.

sluggz

what crazies or scare tactics, and who are you to decide who those people are? I'll say it again, start your own board rather than jump on theirs to start a fight. What you are doing is purposefully starting a fight. Thats just being jerk, not some sort of self-serving saviour complex. In other words, if you don't like what they have to say, quit reading it!

CoderGal

CoderGal, thanks, that clears it up. What you are saying is that it matters what you eat because some food is nutritionally better than others, but it's Ok to eat "junk" too.
I still fail to see why anyone needs to "save" people from doing their best to minimize or if they feel the need, eliminate as much of the "junk" as possible.

Save people as in save people from the clean eaters side or the IIFYM side?

I've seen a few of the following things that concern me:
Without any background in nutrition people recommending others cut out foods...and not replacing them somewhere else. Like the many people who said I should just stop eating deep fried fish and start eating clean. That would be a problem for my health. My biggest iron intake is from deep fried fish. They weren't concerned about that part, if I was filling those calories in with all apples they think it would be fine. And I see them doing it to other people who have a very poor knowledge of nutrition. It's the same idea when I see vegans recommending someone cut out their meat and replace it with beans in a diet already full of fiber...which can cause problems.
I've seen people say instead of eating chocolate and chips eat carrots...to people who do not get much magnesium in their diets who would be cutting it out with chocolate, to people who need extra salt (thyroid problems) etc. I've seen it said to someone who have blood clot problems who was considering replacing junk with nibbling on carrots and celery. that would be a HUGE problem since her diet already had a fair amount of salt (celery is a natural salt) and because of the extra vitamin k they should be already avoiding (blood clot problems). And I know a girl with that problem who had no idea she should be avoiding excessive amounts of carrots. Her doctor just told her to take drugs, didn't give any information about diet because well, to be honest, that's a huge complex problem to solve. You can't exactly tell someone how to eat healthy for themselves in one sitting. And Doctors don't tend to have those types of background knowledge and aren't the healthiest fittest people in the world (not putting down their credentials at all, but this just isn't exactly their field).

There's nothing wrong with clean eating, or being a vegan, or being a IIFYMer...I think if people aren't being mindful, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the faults and holes. People shouldn't just "quit reading what they don't like" and live ignorantly in their own bubbles. Some of these discussions really open some peoples eyes. It could really save someones health if they don't think of it themselves.

As for the other types of eating, I have to admit I keep poking my nose in their cleanses threads waiting to learn something I feel like I'm left in the dark about. So far, nothing

Achrya

what crazies or scare tactics, and who are you to decide who those people are? I'll say it again, start your own board rather than jump on theirs to start a fight. What you are doing is purposefully starting a fight. Thats just being jerk, not some sort of self-serving saviour complex. In other words, if you don't like what they have to say, quit reading it!

Public forum is public?