Clean/Dirty...missing the point
Replies
-
Seriously? Get cancer and see the list of foods and food additives you're supposed to avoid. Somehow, I think food corporations just laugh at people like us, fighting over the ignorance of toxins in our food supply. Want to stay ignorant, fine but you're eyes will be opened to our toxins after you get cancer. 80% of cancers are linked to environmental toxins.
I don't care what someone else eats, but I do believe we have a right to go into our grocery and know what's in the processed junk. Gmos, potassium bromate, and other nasties.
Ummm, you might like to back that up with a creditable, peer reviewed, published article. Otherwise I call BS on your claims. For one thing you are completely disregarding the genetic component? As someone who works with cancer patients every day, I can say it is my experience that cancer effects people from all walks of life... including clean eaters.
I have to say I see a lot of people around here saying that...'show me your article'. There are a lot of studies done on both sides, but let's not pretend they are not out there or that people are making **** up of the top of their head.
As far as that goes, reminds me of my doctor couple friends we had dinner with. My husband brought up alkaline water and the health benefits and they quickly said, 'water is water, no health benefits'. One of these doctor's was a radiolist/oncologist. I told my story to another friend and she laughed and said, 'my uncle's oncologist actually told him to drink alkaline water during his chemo treatments.'. You are not going to find agreement in these areas always. But medicine and knowledge of this stuff is still evolving. I'm sure glad I'm open minded as it evolves, and I'd prefer a doctor that is too.
The unfortunate truth is that degrees do not prevent someone from believing in things that are not supported by scientific evidence. There is zero evidence, for example, that eating organics have any medical benefits. Plenty of people continue to eat them, however, based on the belief that some link to health will eventually be found. I think that approach is fine but those who do so should be intellectually honest about that decision. I've seen enough scare tactics over the years to simply stop caring about the myriad hypotheses about how our food system is unsafe and instead will continue to eat based on established science with some jumps in reasoning in the grey areas. If you chose to do differently, please feel free, but stop attempting to cajole and scare people into agreeing with you. It's both intellectually dishonest and boorish.
Well, actually...again, there are studies on both sides 'proving' their side. So that's really not true.
But, we don't know eachother. And I can tell you I don't try to cajole or convince anyone. People can eat what they want....but, that includes me too of course.
No. There is some speculation by reasonable and educated researchers that a link may exist but no proof. My aunt spent her career on the nutrition and cancer link after finishing her Ph.D from Harvard and a respectful stint at the NIH. From what I understand from her and from my own reading, very few cancers have been positively linked to nutrition or food supply and those that do have a link are from things like a lack of fiber. The rest is speculation and we are also seeing many genetic and even viral links to cancers. It's an incredibly complex subject and one in which reasonable minds will have competing hypotheses but the link between these food born "toxins" and cancer hasn't been found to exist, contrary to what certain scare mongering websites portray.
Edited to add: I want to add something here. We know that a diet rich in fruit, vegetables and grains, and therefore rich in vitamins and fiber, has benefits. We are also starting to identify some benefit from certain fruits and vegetables that are rich in antioxidants. No one here is arguing that. We also know that we need sufficient protein and fats and we can get these in a variety of ways, both quite easily with a omnivorous diet, and a bit more difficultly with approaches like vegetarianism and veganism. With that knowledge we can all improve our health and longevity and we can encourage others to do the same. The additional step, however, that there are some hidden dangers yet to be identified and which are clearly not proven, is simply one of speculation. I do not see the benefit in confusing the message and unnecessarily scaring people into restrictive or expensive diets when so much good can be accomplished by simply getting them to eat less, move more, and watch their basic nutritional intake. Again, keep the message honest. If you, as an individual, want to do more then please by all means do, but stop trying to scare and cajole people with a message that is full of half truths if not outright misinformation. If you want to speak of unknowns that's fine, but admit you are speaking of unknowns.
Actually I didn't give any information at all. Please stop saying I did more than say there are studies on both sides and people can look them up themselves. And stop saying I'm trying to scare or cajole people. Or that I am intellectually dishonest and boorish. It's all uncalled for. If you don't want to eat organic, DON'T! But don't tell me not to tell other people things when I'm not even doing that, and if anyone seems to be, it appears to be you.
For me, I WILL stick to an organic diet for whatever flippin reason I want. Thank you.
You said that there are studies on both "sides" "proving" their points. That is incorrect. Wildly incorrect actually. As I said, though, please do eat how you like. I am absolutely not arguing that anyone should not make the decision for themselves but when people come on here publicly claiming what you have claimed I will continue to point out that it is wrong. Best of luck though and stay well. You're welcome.
There are studies on both sides. Proving was put in quotes. Thank you for wishing me well, I feel great. Good luck to you too.0 -
Seriously? Get cancer and see the list of foods and food additives you're supposed to avoid. Somehow, I think food corporations just laugh at people like us, fighting over the ignorance of toxins in our food supply. Want to stay ignorant, fine but you're eyes will be opened to our toxins after you get cancer. 80% of cancers are linked to environmental toxins.
I don't care what someone else eats, but I do believe we have a right to go into our grocery and know what's in the processed junk. Gmos, potassium bromate, and other nasties.
Ummm, you might like to back that up with a creditable, peer reviewed, published article. Otherwise I call BS on your claims. For one thing you are completely disregarding the genetic component? As someone who works with cancer patients every day, I can say it is my experience that cancer effects people from all walks of life... including clean eaters.
I have to say I see a lot of people around here saying that...'show me your article'. There are a lot of studies done on both sides, but let's not pretend they are not out there or that people are making **** up of the top of their head.
As far as that goes, reminds me of my doctor couple friends we had dinner with. My husband brought up alkaline water and the health benefits and they quickly said, 'water is water, no health benefits'. One of these doctor's was a radiolist/oncologist. I told my story to another friend and she laughed and said, 'my uncle's oncologist actually told him to drink alkaline water during his chemo treatments.'. You are not going to find agreement in these areas always. But medicine and knowledge of this stuff is still evolving. I'm sure glad I'm open minded as it evolves, and I'd prefer a doctor that is too.
The unfortunate truth is that degrees do not prevent someone from believing in things that are not supported by scientific evidence. There is zero evidence, for example, that eating organics have any medical benefits. Plenty of people continue to eat them, however, based on the belief that some link to health will eventually be found. I think that approach is fine but those who do so should be intellectually honest about that decision. I've seen enough scare tactics over the years to simply stop caring about the myriad hypotheses about how our food system is unsafe and instead will continue to eat based on established science with some jumps in reasoning in the grey areas. If you chose to do differently, please feel free, but stop attempting to cajole and scare people into agreeing with you. It's both intellectually dishonest and boorish.
Well, actually...again, there are studies on both sides 'proving' their side. So that's really not true.
But, we don't know eachother. And I can tell you I don't try to cajole or convince anyone. People can eat what they want....but, that includes me too of course.
No. There is some speculation by reasonable and educated researchers that a link may exist but no proof. My aunt spent her career on the nutrition and cancer link after finishing her Ph.D from Harvard and a respectful stint at the NIH. From what I understand from her and from my own reading, very few cancers have been positively linked to nutrition or food supply and those that do have a link are from things like a lack of fiber. The rest is speculation and we are also seeing many genetic and even viral links to cancers. It's an incredibly complex subject and one in which reasonable minds will have competing hypotheses but the link between these food born "toxins" and cancer hasn't been found to exist, contrary to what certain scare mongering websites portray.
Edited to add: I want to add something here. We know that a diet rich in fruit, vegetables and grains, and therefore rich in vitamins and fiber, has benefits. We are also starting to identify some benefit from certain fruits and vegetables that are rich in antioxidants. No one here is arguing that. We also know that we need sufficient protein and fats and we can get these in a variety of ways, both quite easily with a omnivorous diet, and a bit more difficultly with approaches like vegetarianism and veganism. With that knowledge we can all improve our health and longevity and we can encourage others to do the same. The additional step, however, that there are some hidden dangers yet to be identified and which are clearly not proven, is simply one of speculation. I do not see the benefit in confusing the message and unnecessarily scaring people into restrictive or expensive diets when so much good can be accomplished by simply getting them to eat less, move more, and watch their basic nutritional intake. Again, keep the message honest. If you, as an individual, want to do more then please by all means do, but stop trying to scare and cajole people with a message that is full of half truths if not outright misinformation. If you want to speak of unknowns that's fine, but admit you are speaking of unknowns.
Actually I didn't give any information at all. Please stop saying I did more than say there are studies on both sides and people can look them up themselves. And stop saying I'm trying to scare or cajole people. Or that I am intellectually dishonest and boorish. It's all uncalled for. If you don't want to eat organic, DON'T! But don't tell me not to tell other people things when I'm not even doing that, and if anyone seems to be, it appears to be you.
For me, I WILL stick to an organic diet for whatever flippin reason I want. Thank you.
You said that there are studies on both "sides" "proving" their points. That is incorrect. Wildly incorrect actually. As I said, though, please do eat how you like. I am absolutely not arguing that anyone should not make the decision for themselves but when people come on here publicly claiming what you have claimed I will continue to point out that it is wrong. Best of luck though and stay well. You're welcome.
There are studies on both sides. Proving was put in quotes. Thank you for wishing me well, I feel great. Good luck to you too.
Thank you. (seriously)
There are definitely studies on this but none of them prove much of anything. There is of course the difficulty with proving a negative which is why I choose not to worry about it. The studies themselves don't really represent "sides" either. Instead, people with different bones to pick look at the studies and interpret them with a distinct bias. For every study that comes out there is someone somewhere jumping up and down and looking at the latest correlations and yelling "look that's proof!" it's not though. That's why it can be very interesting to skip the interpretations and go straight to the studies. I strongly recommend it as an activity in and of itself and pubmed is a great source. It really forces one to think through and challenge our own beliefs.0 -
Seriously? Get cancer and see the list of foods and food additives you're supposed to avoid. Somehow, I think food corporations just laugh at people like us, fighting over the ignorance of toxins in our food supply. Want to stay ignorant, fine but you're eyes will be opened to our toxins after you get cancer. 80% of cancers are linked to environmental toxins.
I don't care what someone else eats, but I do believe we have a right to go into our grocery and know what's in the processed junk. Gmos, potassium bromate, and other nasties.
Ummm, you might like to back that up with a creditable, peer reviewed, published article. Otherwise I call BS on your claims. For one thing you are completely disregarding the genetic component? As someone who works with cancer patients every day, I can say it is my experience that cancer effects people from all walks of life... including clean eaters.
I have to say I see a lot of people around here saying that...'show me your article'. There are a lot of studies done on both sides, but let's not pretend they are not out there or that people are making **** up of the top of their head.
As far as that goes, reminds me of my doctor couple friends we had dinner with. My husband brought up alkaline water and the health benefits and they quickly said, 'water is water, no health benefits'. One of these doctor's was a radiolist/oncologist. I told my story to another friend and she laughed and said, 'my uncle's oncologist actually told him to drink alkaline water during his chemo treatments.'. You are not going to find agreement in these areas always. But medicine and knowledge of this stuff is still evolving. I'm sure glad I'm open minded as it evolves, and I'd prefer a doctor that is too.
The unfortunate truth is that degrees do not prevent someone from believing in things that are not supported by scientific evidence. There is zero evidence, for example, that eating organics have any medical benefits. Plenty of people continue to eat them, however, based on the belief that some link to health will eventually be found. I think that approach is fine but those who do so should be intellectually honest about that decision. I've seen enough scare tactics over the years to simply stop caring about the myriad hypotheses about how our food system is unsafe and instead will continue to eat based on established science with some jumps in reasoning in the grey areas. If you chose to do differently, please feel free, but stop attempting to cajole and scare people into agreeing with you. It's both intellectually dishonest and boorish.
Well, actually...again, there are studies on both sides 'proving' their side. So that's really not true.
But, we don't know eachother. And I can tell you I don't try to cajole or convince anyone. People can eat what they want....but, that includes me too of course.
No. There is some speculation by reasonable and educated researchers that a link may exist but no proof. My aunt spent her career on the nutrition and cancer link after finishing her Ph.D from Harvard and a respectful stint at the NIH. From what I understand from her and from my own reading, very few cancers have been positively linked to nutrition or food supply and those that do have a link are from things like a lack of fiber. The rest is speculation and we are also seeing many genetic and even viral links to cancers. It's an incredibly complex subject and one in which reasonable minds will have competing hypotheses but the link between these food born "toxins" and cancer hasn't been found to exist, contrary to what certain scare mongering websites portray.
Edited to add: I want to add something here. We know that a diet rich in fruit, vegetables and grains, and therefore rich in vitamins and fiber, has benefits. We are also starting to identify some benefit from certain fruits and vegetables that are rich in antioxidants. No one here is arguing that. We also know that we need sufficient protein and fats and we can get these in a variety of ways, both quite easily with a omnivorous diet, and a bit more difficultly with approaches like vegetarianism and veganism. With that knowledge we can all improve our health and longevity and we can encourage others to do the same. The additional step, however, that there are some hidden dangers yet to be identified and which are clearly not proven, is simply one of speculation. I do not see the benefit in confusing the message and unnecessarily scaring people into restrictive or expensive diets when so much good can be accomplished by simply getting them to eat less, move more, and watch their basic nutritional intake. Again, keep the message honest. If you, as an individual, want to do more then please by all means do, but stop trying to scare and cajole people with a message that is full of half truths if not outright misinformation. If you want to speak of unknowns that's fine, but admit you are speaking of unknowns.
Actually I didn't give any information at all. Please stop saying I did more than say there are studies on both sides and people can look them up themselves. And stop saying I'm trying to scare or cajole people. Or that I am intellectually dishonest and boorish. It's all uncalled for. If you don't want to eat organic, DON'T! But don't tell me not to tell other people things when I'm not even doing that, and if anyone seems to be, it appears to be you.
For me, I WILL stick to an organic diet for whatever flippin reason I want. Thank you.
You said that there are studies on both "sides" "proving" their points. That is incorrect. Wildly incorrect actually. As I said, though, please do eat how you like. I am absolutely not arguing that anyone should not make the decision for themselves but when people come on here publicly claiming what you have claimed I will continue to point out that it is wrong. Best of luck though and stay well. You're welcome.
There are studies on both sides. Proving was put in quotes. Thank you for wishing me well, I feel great. Good luck to you too.
Thank you. (seriously)
There are definitely studies on this but none of them prove much of anything. There is of course the difficulty with proving a negative which is why I choose not to worry about it. The studies themselves don't really represent "sides" either. Instead, people with different bones to pick look at the studies and interpret them with a distinct bias. For every study that comes out there is someone somewhere jumping up and down and looking at the latest correlations and yelling "look that's proof!" it's not though. That's why it can be very interesting to skip the interpretations and go straight to the studies. I strongly recommend it as an activity in and of itself and pubmed is a great source. It really forces one to think through and challenge our own beliefs.
I am not sure who is quoting who now....0 -
Eating clean doesn't mean eating all organic (unless your wallet can afford it).
Pretty much eating clean is mainly avoiding processed foods, eating fresh veggies & fruit, etc.
funny though... when it comes to eating fresh fruits & veggies that people think rinsing them off for few seconds will remove the pesticides. When techniqually they've weathered seasons of rain and the chemicals still stick to them!?
-Whey protein powders (processed)
-Bread loafs in stores (processed... Im a chef/baker and I know you only need less than 10 ingrediants to makr bread. So why do they list 30+?)
-Sugar/artificial sweetners (processed)
-Factory farm animal meats (processed... Mecanically butchered, cleaned with chemicals & bleached, added flavoring to restore taste...)
-Fat free/low fat foods (processed)
- Your multivitamin... (guessed it, processed)
Kinda hard to eat clean in todays society... Cant even trust organic foods...
If I am ever single I'm going to marry you........I want a baker, I'd get fat fast though. Big problem. Great crusty REAL bread is my biggest issue. I don't go there often though.0 -
I am totally confused as to why a lot of you are attacking this man. he at no point in time said, eating clean is the way to go, he was just saying clean or dirty eating, that he doesn't like the term. He was saying to each his own.
He described what he eats because that is his preference, he never said this is what you need to do. He said if you want a beer etc then have it, just moderation
Sometimes you should take the time to read and take the anger out of the reading, then what the person is saying will come across better.
I eat Paleo, but I dare not tell anyone my eating is better than theirs, because that is just not true, to each his own. If I one day decide for a pizza then I am going to have it. 100% no junk just doesn't work for everyone and that is fine as well. There are others who can do 100% no junk and that is their choice0 -
another one of these threads? whatever happened to discussing "Food and Nutrition". Rather than venting about how other people talk give your side with evidence and let people do what they want. I eat whatever fits and make healthy choices, but some others eat strictly clean. If they want to let them, it's their body and their point of view. Let it be. I wish these I hate paleo, why clean eating is bs, etc threads would stop and people actually gave constructive criticism which is what this site is for.
Not sure if this is directed to my original post or not. If it is, I'm sorry to have sparked yet another Clean eating debate. Not my intentions. I was merely trying to state that I think sometimes people get caught up on weight loss and strict diets...and only eating a certain way. Certainly find what works best for you. I wasnt slamming clean eating or paleo or whatever. Most of them have great things to offer. Thats one of the reasons they are so popular. My post was supossed to start a convo on food and nutrition. Instead its a pissing match of whos smarter.
nah not directed at you at all. i understand what you meant, I just hate all the bashing lately and saw the downward spiral happen before it began lol. the pissing match about macros is what ruins these kinds of debates / opinions. Some people say that eating whatever fits will work, when others it may not because the food reacts differently with them.
sorry if i seemed like it was directed at you, i was having a bad day when i posted that (quitting cigarettes cold turkey will have that effect) it was mostly directed towards the debators that go back and forth to no avail. clean and dirty may as well be democrat and republican on this forum lol0 -
[/quote]Seriously? Get cancer and see the list of foods and food additives you're supposed to avoid. Somehow, I think food corporations just laugh at people like us, fighting over the ignorance of toxins in our food supply. Want to stay ignorant, fine but you're eyes will be opened to our toxins after you get cancer. 80% of cancers are linked to environmental toxins.
I don't care what someone else eats, but I do believe we have a right to go into our grocery and know what's in the processed junk. Gmos, potassium bromate, and other nasties.[quotant to start by saying that I hate the terms "Clean" and "Dirty" when it comes to food.
Oh, the arguement about what works best for weight loss. I feel a lot of people on here are reeeeeally missing the boat with the whole "clean vs. dirty" discussion. Is eating clean going to help you lose more weight, lose it faster, and have the flatter stomach? IDK.....probably not. Whether you have a sustained diet of corndogs and potato chips or one of organic blackberries and raw kale salads with no dressing, if you are eating less calories than your body exausts, you will lose weight. Calories in, calories out....it's science.
That being said, I eat more whole foods than I do pasta and pizza. Why? First off...I can eat way more of it, and I love food. More importantly, I DO believe that heavily processed and preservative laden foods can have long term negative effects on your body and increase odds of health risks. Aren't there more important things than just weight loss to consider when discussing a diet? Why are you trying to lose weight or be fit? To live longer?....To avoid chronic or terminal disease as you age?....Just to feel better during the day?
Hmmm........
So you understand the science of calories in versus calories out.
Yet, you state your belief that "processed and preservative laden foods" have some type of long term negative effect on the body and increase the odds of other health risks? Where is your science to back that statement up?
in to unwish cancer on others while shaking my head at some peoples ignorance and drinking a pepsi because I'm at someone elses house and have no food and would rather not starve myself and get something in me then worry about what will give me cancer first :drinker:0 -
Seriously? Get cancer and see the list of foods and food additives you're supposed to avoid. Somehow, I think food corporations just laugh at people like us, fighting over the ignorance of toxins in our food supply. Want to stay ignorant, fine but you're eyes will be opened to our toxins after you get cancer. 80% of cancers are linked to environmental toxins.
I don't care what someone else eats, but I do believe we have a right to go into our grocery and know what's in the processed junk. Gmos, potassium bromate, and other nasties.
I'm just going to butt in here, even though I know you were conversing with BeachIron. I thought you might find this interesting. It's from Science Based Medicine, which is a well-respected blog written by doctors and scientists. They blog about current scientific literature and critique studies. This one is about a meta-analysis of the studies being done on whether individual foods increase cancer risk.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/everything-we-eat-causes-cancer
Here's a link to the original study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23193004
Basically the scientists pulled a bunch of research about a variety of foods and tried to determine whether there were clear links to cancer for those foods. What they found is that 80% of studies claimed to find a link, but then when they got past the abstract and into the actual results, the study authors were being somewhat disingenuous.In other words, there are lots of studies out there that claim to find a link, either for increased risk or a protective effect, between this food or that ingredient and cancer, but very few of them actually provide convincing support for their hypothesis. Worse, there appear to be a lot of manuscript-writing shenanigans going on, with the abstract (which usually means, I note, the press release) touting a strong association while the true weakness of the association is buried in the fine print in the results or discussion sections of the paper. Given that most scientists tend not to read each and every word of a paper unless they’re very interested in it or it’s highly relevant to their research, this deceptive practice can leave a false impression that the reported association is stronger than it really is.
In other words, even if a particular food is linked to cancer by a study, one has to be very careful that the study actually found what it claims to have found, since the true weakness of the result is often buried deep in the fine print.
Also I think it's worth noting that almost all of the foods had positive study results. 36 of the 40 foods for which they searched had at least one study claiming a positive result. The foods were incredibly varied: veal, salt, pepper spice, egg, bread, pork, butter, tomato, lemon, duck, onion, celery, carrot, parsley, mace, olive, mushroom, tripe, milk, cheese, coffee, bacon, sugar, lobster, potato, beef, lamb, mustard, nuts, wine, peas, corn, cayenne, orange, tea, and rum
So, like BeachIron says, it's a very complicated science and often the links to specific foods is weak at best. Also I'm not sure it would even be possible to cut out all the foods for which there have been study results. I put the non-processed foods (including many veggies) in bold.0 -
The way I take this is that if I eat "clean" most of the time, I don't need to count calories anymore. Since I stopped counting in May 2013 I have lost 3.5kgs through eating mostly clean foods. I eat a whole plate load of food for my lunch and hit around 300 calories, it's amazing. But I am not so strict I don't let myself have treats now and again. Sometimes I take a cheat day or cheat meal if I fancy it or I will have chocolate bar, I know it isn't going to kill me.
I think people knowing what food is healthy and what food isn't is vital for their maintenance periods or when they hit their goal and stop counting. If you keep eating the crappy foods you ate on a calorie deficit but are no longer logging them, chances are you will over shoot your portions and gain the weight back. You don't have to worry so much with healthier foods.0 -
<b>My overall point is.....eating mostly fruits, vegetables, fish, lean meat, and whole grains is important in a long term diet. The "clean/dirty" discussion should not just be about weight loss. It's about sustainable health.</b>
So you started this whole thread to tell everyone clean vs dirty isn't important, it's just important to eat mostly clean.
Well done. Looks like you boiled the whole thing down for everyone perfectly, by telling them it's important to eat mostly like you do.0 -
Thanks for this one ^. I enjoy this site, checking this out.
EDIT: As expected this is a great article.0 -
This thread was an interesting read. I'm glad to see it didn't immediately devolve into chaos.
I really struggle with these debates. In terms of "clean-eating", I don't. I use supplements, eat bread, milk, cereal, eat canned soups for lunch, canned and frozen veggies, the occassional frozen pizza, sometimes fast food, I eat candy when I want.
I'm also in the best health and shape of my life. My cholesterol, blood pressure, and all other markers are normal. The problem that I have with these debates are the accusations that the improvements to my health are not attributed to my diet, but should I get cancer in the future, that it is somehow related to my diet, even though I have improved my health with my diet.
The reality is that if I ever develop cancer, it won't be because of what I eat and I know that. I have genetic factors in both my mother and father's side of the family. Plus, I've struggled with an addiction to tobacco for most of my life. Developing cancer is a very real possibility for me regardless of what I eat. And truly, no one can say that a "clean" diet of non-processed food will extend my life. Sure, it can be said that there is a chance that it could and isn't that a chance worth taking. But I would say no... because I'm going to die anyway some day. I would rather say that I enjoyed my food and that my diet didn't cause me stress (coincidentally stress is another potential damaging factor to long-term health).
Honestly, cancer is a very real responsibility for anyone who walks around in daylight. Any and all of us are at risk of developing this terrible disease, and the cause of it might be abhorrently clear or it could be from a convuluted list of menial factors that you never even considered OR the cause of it might forever be a mystery.
Don't live for hypotheticals. Live for life, joy, and love.0 -
It's still ok to treat yourself to some cake and beer sometimes.
This is the attitude I have a problem with. That cake and beer have to be "treats." F that. Food is business for me, not entertainment. Whatever is required to get the job done, I'm going to find the most painless way possible to do it. If I can lose weight and achieve my strength goals by eating ice cream every night, then I'm damn well gonna do it.
I'm totally on board with the idea that heavily processed foods that are loaded with preservatives are not as good for my body as whole foods. I feel like absolute garbage in the gym when I load up on things like cake and alcohol and pizza. So I moderate my intake of those things to function better. It's not because they're "bad." Some people perform better in the gym when they eat lots of that stuff. I'm just not one of those people.
I also think it's dangerous to fall into a cycle of viewing food as a reward or punishment, which strongly suggests an eating disorder, in my opinion. But mostly, I just work way too damned hard to think of a cookie as a "treat." I'm not a circus bear.0 -
Food is business for me, not entertainment.
That sounds awful. Maybe it has something to do with growing up in New Orleans (where there are two times of day: meal time and in between), but I love food. God I love food. Eating is entertainment to me. Life's too short to waste on food you don't love.0 -
My overall point is.....eating mostly fruits, vegetables, fish, lean meat, and whole grains is important in a long term diet. The "clean/dirty" discussion should not just be about weight loss. It's about sustainable health.
Why do all of these threads always boil down to someone telling everyone else what they need to be eating? It's getting ridiculous.
Where in the section you quoted does it tell anyone else what to eat?
But the paragraph above is true. Eating mostly this way is associated with long term health. A guarantee? No. But it increases the odds in one's favor.0 -
My overall point is.....eating mostly fruits, vegetables, fish, lean meat, and whole grains is important in a long term diet. The "clean/dirty" discussion should not just be about weight loss. It's about sustainable health.
Why do all of these threads always boil down to someone telling everyone else what they need to be eating? It's getting ridiculous.
Where in the section you quoted does it tell anyone else what to eat?
Did you read it..?
He said eating a certain way is important in a long term diet.0 -
My overall point is.....eating mostly fruits, vegetables, fish, lean meat, and whole grains is important in a long term diet. The "clean/dirty" discussion should not just be about weight loss. It's about sustainable health.
Why do all of these threads always boil down to someone telling everyone else what they need to be eating? It's getting ridiculous.
Where in the section you quoted does it tell anyone else what to eat?
Did you read it..?
He said eating a certain way is important in a long term diet.
Yes, I read it. He was just stating his opinion.0 -
My overall point is.....eating mostly fruits, vegetables, fish, lean meat, and whole grains is important in a long term diet. The "clean/dirty" discussion should not just be about weight loss. It's about sustainable health.
Why do all of these threads always boil down to someone telling everyone else what they need to be eating? It's getting ridiculous.
Where in the section you quoted does it tell anyone else what to eat?
Did you read it..?
He said eating a certain way is important in a long term diet.
Yes, I read it. He was just stating his opinion.
Yes, and his opinion is that people need to eat a certain way, because it's important for a long term diet.
That's how he's telling people how to eat. I don't understand your post here at all.0 -
My overall point is.....eating mostly fruits, vegetables, fish, lean meat, and whole grains is important in a long term diet. The "clean/dirty" discussion should not just be about weight loss. It's about sustainable health.
Why do all of these threads always boil down to someone telling everyone else what they need to be eating? It's getting ridiculous.
Where in the section you quoted does it tell anyone else what to eat?
Did you read it..?
He said eating a certain way is important in a long term diet.
Yes, I read it. He was just stating his opinion.
Yes, and his opinion is that people need to eat a certain way, because it's important for a long term diet.
That's how he's telling people how to eat. I don't understand your post here at all.
And I don't understand yours. Expressing what you think would be beneficial for everyone, is not the same as telling people what to do. It's no different than when someone says "everything in moderation". It's just an opinion.0 -
[/quote]Seriously? Get cancer and see the list of foods and food additives you're supposed to avoid. Somehow, I think food corporations just laugh at people like us, fighting over the ignorance of toxins in our food supply. Want to stay ignorant, fine but you're eyes will be opened to our toxins after you get cancer. 80% of cancers are linked to environmental toxins.
I don't care what someone else eats, but I do believe we have a right to go into our grocery and know what's in the processed junk. Gmos, potassium bromate, and other nasties.[quotant to start by saying that I hate the terms "Clean" and "Dirty" when it comes to food.
Oh, the arguement about what works best for weight loss. I feel a lot of people on here are reeeeeally missing the boat with the whole "clean vs. dirty" discussion. Is eating clean going to help you lose more weight, lose it faster, and have the flatter stomach? IDK.....probably not. Whether you have a sustained diet of corndogs and potato chips or one of organic blackberries and raw kale salads with no dressing, if you are eating less calories than your body exausts, you will lose weight. Calories in, calories out....it's science.
That being said, I eat more whole foods than I do pasta and pizza. Why? First off...I can eat way more of it, and I love food. More importantly, I DO believe that heavily processed and preservative laden foods can have long term negative effects on your body and increase odds of health risks. Aren't there more important things than just weight loss to consider when discussing a diet? Why are you trying to lose weight or be fit? To live longer?....To avoid chronic or terminal disease as you age?....Just to feel better during the day?
Hmmm........
So you understand the science of calories in versus calories out.
Yet, you state your belief that "processed and preservative laden foods" have some type of long term negative effect on the body and increase the odds of other health risks? Where is your science to back that statement up?
Quoted for reference in other/future "why is everyone negative about clean eating/clean eaters" threads for when it is "claimed" that clean eaters say or do nothing to incite arguments or hard feelings...and they don't use fear mongering tactics.
Carry on...0 -
It's still ok to treat yourself to some cake and beer sometimes.
This is the attitude I have a problem with. That cake and beer have to be "treats." F that. Food is business for me, not entertainment. Whatever is required to get the job done, I'm going to find the most painless way possible to do it. If I can lose weight and achieve my strength goals by eating ice cream every night, then I'm damn well gonna do it.
I'm totally on board with the idea that heavily processed foods that are loaded with preservatives are not as good for my body as whole foods. I feel like absolute garbage in the gym when I load up on things like cake and alcohol and pizza. So I moderate my intake of those things to function better. It's not because they're "bad." Some people perform better in the gym when they eat lots of that stuff. I'm just not one of those people.
I also think it's dangerous to fall into a cycle of viewing food as a reward or punishment, which strongly suggests an eating disorder, in my opinion. But mostly, I just work way too damned hard to think of a cookie as a "treat." I'm not a circus bear.
Like a boss0 -
I also think it's dangerous to fall into a cycle of viewing food as a reward or punishment, which strongly suggests an eating disorder, in my opinion. But mostly, I just work way too damned hard to think of a cookie as a "treat." I'm not a circus bear.
This is silly. Having treats does not suggest an eating disorder or any type of circus animal.0 -
Seriously? Get cancer and see the list of foods and food additives you're supposed to avoid. Somehow, I think food corporations just laugh at people like us, fighting over the ignorance of toxins in our food supply. Want to stay ignorant, fine but you're eyes will be opened to our toxins after you get cancer. 80% of cancers are linked to environmental toxins.
I don't care what someone else eats, but I do believe we have a right to go into our grocery and know what's in the processed junk. Gmos, potassium bromate, and other nasties.
So all the food companies want to go out of business by killing off their customers? Sounds like a Stephen King novel rather than a business plan.0 -
I also think it's dangerous to fall into a cycle of viewing food as a reward or punishment, which strongly suggests an eating disorder, in my opinion. But mostly, I just work way too damned hard to think of a cookie as a "treat." I'm not a circus bear.
This is silly. Having treats does not suggest an eating disorder or any type of circus animal.
One of my pet peeves is people complaining about the word "treat." I think if you don't treat yourself once in a while. then you must have an awfully boring life.0 -
0 -
I also think it's dangerous to fall into a cycle of viewing food as a reward or punishment, which strongly suggests an eating disorder, in my opinion. But mostly, I just work way too damned hard to think of a cookie as a "treat." I'm not a circus bear.
This is silly. Having treats does not suggest an eating disorder or any type of circus animal.
One of my pet peeves is people complaining about the word "treat." I think if you don't treat yourself once in a while. then you must have an awfully boring life.
I "treat" myself every day. That was kind of my point.0 -
I also think it's dangerous to fall into a cycle of viewing food as a reward or punishment, which strongly suggests an eating disorder, in my opinion. But mostly, I just work way too damned hard to think of a cookie as a "treat." I'm not a circus bear.
This is silly. Having treats does not suggest an eating disorder or any type of circus animal.
One of my pet peeves is people complaining about the word "treat." I think if you don't treat yourself once in a while. then you must have an awfully boring life.
I "treat" myself every day. That was kind of my point.
Yeah, I agree with you. I call them indulgences. Some days I indulge more than others... but I don't consider it a treat because it implies that its a reward. I see where you are coming from. But its really just all semantics.0 -
I also think it's dangerous to fall into a cycle of viewing food as a reward or punishment, which strongly suggests an eating disorder, in my opinion. But mostly, I just work way too damned hard to think of a cookie as a "treat." I'm not a circus bear.
This is silly. Having treats does not suggest an eating disorder or any type of circus animal.
One of my pet peeves is people complaining about the word "treat." I think if you don't treat yourself once in a while. then you must have an awfully boring life.
I "treat" myself every day. That was kind of my point.
Then why the circus bear comparison? I eat a treat every day as well, but that doesn't make me an animal.0 -
I also think it's dangerous to fall into a cycle of viewing food as a reward or punishment, which strongly suggests an eating disorder, in my opinion. But mostly, I just work way too damned hard to think of a cookie as a "treat." I'm not a circus bear.
This is silly. Having treats does not suggest an eating disorder or any type of circus animal.
One of my pet peeves is people complaining about the word "treat." I think if you don't treat yourself once in a while. then you must have an awfully boring life.
I "treat" myself every day. That was kind of my point.
Yeah, I agree with you. I call them indulgences. Some days I indulge more than others... but I don't consider it a treat because it implies that its a reward. I see where you are coming from. But its really just all semantics.
I prefer the word treat because it makes me think of Dairy Queen. Do circus bears even like ice cream?0 -
This excerpt from this article reminded me of this thread for some reason. Once upon a time there was a controversy on whether cigarettes were harmful to one's health or caused cancer. There were many that refused to partake in smoking even before there was any 'proof' they were harmful. I guess they relied on good old common sense. But there is an old saying, 'common sense is not so common'.
Smoking Causes Cancer: When Did They Know?
For most of the past 100 years, cigarette manufacturers have told smokers that their products were not proven to be injurious to health (8-10). In fact, cigarette companies frequently implied to consumers that their brands were safer than their competitor's brands because the smoke was less irritating, smoother, and milder (11). Ironically, making cigarette smoke lighter, milder, and less irritating caused smokers to inhale the smoke more deeply into their lungs, thereby negating any health benefit that might have been gained by altering the product (12-14). The question of when tobacco companies knew or should have known about the serious health consequences of smoking goes to the very question of whether or not there was a real cigarette controversy.
Evidence linking smoking and cancer appeared in the 1920s (15). Between 1920 and 1940, a chemist named Angel Honorio Roffo published several articles showing that cancers could be experimentally induced by exposure to tars from burned tobacco (16). Roffo et al. further showed that cancer could be induced by using nicotine-free tobacco, which means that tar, with or without nicotine, was carcinogenic. Research implicating smoking as a cause of cancer began to mount during the 1950s, with several landmark publications in leading medical journals (17-23). The first official U.S. government statement on smoking and health was issued by the Surgeon General Leroy Burney in a televised press conference in 1957, wherein he reported that the scientific evidence supported cigarette smoking as a causative factor in the etiology of lung cancer (24, 25). By 1960, Joseph Garland, Editor of the New England Journal, wrote, “No responsible observer can deny this association, and the evidence is now sufficiently strong to suggest a causative role” (26).
In their public statements, tobacco companies held that cigarettes had not been proven to be injurious to health. For example, a November 1953 press release issued by the American Tobacco Company stated, “…no one has yet proved that lung cancer in any human being is directly traceable to tobacco or its products in any form” (27). In a New York Times story based on this press release, the headline states that Mr. Hahn (President of the American Tobacco Company) characterizes the evidence of a link between cigarette smoking and an increase in the incidence of lung cancer as “Loose Talk” (28). In 1954, Philip Morris Vice President George Weissman announced that if the company had any thought or knowledge that in any way we were selling a product harmful to consumers, that they would stop business immediately (29). Senior scientists and executives at tobacco companies, however, knew about the potential cancer risk of smoking as early as the 1940s, and most accepted the fact that smoking caused cancer by the late 1950s (30-34).
A 1939 memorandum from the American Tobacco Company Research Director Hiram Hanmer noted, “We have been following Roffo's work for some time, and I feel that it is rather unfortunate that a statement such as his [implicating smoking in cancer] is widely disseminated” (30). A few years later, H.B. Parmele, a scientist working for the Lorillard Tobacco Company, wrote a report to the company's manufacturing committee observing that, “Certain scientists and medical authorities have claimed for many years that the use of tobacco contributes to cancer development in susceptible people. Just enough evidence has been presented to justify the possibility of such a presumption…benzpyrene is presumed to be a combustion product of burning tobacco and, by animal experiments, it has been shown to possess definite carcinogenic properties” (31). In 1953, a chemist at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Claude Teague, produced a literature survey on smoking and cancer referencing 78 articles, which offered the following conclusion: “…studies of clinical data tend to confirm the relationship between heavy and prolonged tobacco smoking and incidence of cancer of the lung” (32). Three scientists from the British American Tobacco Company reported in 1958 on the results of a visit to the United States, investigating the extent to which tobacco industry and non-industry scientists accepted the premise that cigarette smoke was a cause of lung cancer (33). Their report concludes that “With one exception [HSN Green from Yale University] the individuals with whom we met believed that smoking causes lung cancer, if by ‘causation’ we mean any chain of events which leads finally to lung cancer and which involves smoking as an indispensable link” (33).
In 1961, the Arthur D. Little Company provided a confidential report to Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company, which stated that there are “biologically active materials present in cigarette tobacco. These are: a) cancer causing; b) cancer promoting; and c) poisonous” (34). A 1961 presentation to the R&D committee at Philip Morris acknowledged that there was evidence that smoking may be a causative factor in lung cancer and included a partial list of carcinogens identified in cigarette smoke (35). A 1962 report by the R.J. Reynolds scientist Dr. Alan Rodgman characterized the amount of evidence accumulated to indict cigarette smoking as a health risk as “overwhelming,” whereas the evidence challenging such an indictment was “scant” (36).
In summary, internal industry documents reveal that the tobacco companies knew and for the most part accepted the evidence that cigarette smoking was a cause of cancer by the late 1950s.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions