What is 'clean' eating??
Replies
-
a vacuous term used to make people feel superior about their own food choices.17
-
I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.
0 -
I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.
But again, I mentioned a salad I made upthread with 10 ingredients. One person said it wasn't clean (because I didn't actually pick the ingredients -- my diet would be a heck of a lot worse under these requirements, btw). Under other definitions it's not clean because some of the ingredients (olive oil, feta, etc.) are processed. But I also could buy a really similar salad from a local lunch place (and even do sometimes). One of these places (the one I'd consider less healthy, but oh well), makes the salad in front of you, so I know they are using the same ingredients I would (pretty obvious in a salad anyway). Another makes it in a way harder to watch, but you can. Pret has salads they make on site, but they are in a box, which is similar to a number of other places. Why are all these salads "unclean" and mine "clean"? I don't see much of a difference.
This is another reason why these terms are annoying and vague.5 -
I want to know about the 5 ingredient rule too?2
-
-
-
juliebowman4 wrote: »I keep seeing references to 'eating clean'. What does this mean?
I assume it means something different than washing my fruit and veg.
Generally it means eating whole or minimally processed natural foods instead of overly processed foods.
3 -
It's a new way to sell overpriced food magazines in the checkout aisle.11
-
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.1 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.
Which is lacking..
I guess some could say "my diet is better than yours", referencing above poster that it is just something to make people feel superior about their food choices....
I guess I could say something off the wall like, I don't eat dirty food off the floor.. or do I?2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.
If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."
If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?
The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.
Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.
If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."
If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?
The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.
Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).
Some people like simple restrictions. Some people don't. *shrug*0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.
If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."
If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?
The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.
Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).
Some people like simple restrictions. Some people don't. *shrug*
I understood you to be arguing that there was no "simple restriction" and that someone who was applying the rule "Don't buy anything with more than five ingredients" would actually purchase things with more than five ingredients because they were actually applying the rule "Avoid unnecessary additives."
If the rule is really about about "unnecessary" additives, how does your argument about the two different groups (those who like simple restrictions and those who don't) apply?4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.
If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."
If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?
The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.
Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).
So much this. How difficult is it to just say exactly what you mean, rather than falling back on arbitrary rules that can be subjectively interpreted and applied in any number of situations? I am not sure if my other least favorite definition of "clean eating" has been mentioned in this thread but the whole "only eat foods with ingredients you can pronounce" is my all time pet peeve. Why do people pride themselves on their own ignorance in order to make decisions about what to eat?11 -
Really, its a weasel-word term invented by marketers that can be used to sell people just about anything under the premise that they'll magically lose weight. It really is. It means whatever a particular marketer wants it to mean in order to convince you that their particular magazine, book, weight-loss program, is totally hip to the absolute latest food trends.5
-
I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.
This is pretty much my favorite salsa which is prepared and sold locally by the family owned restaurant of the same name...
Ingredients: tomatoes, fresh jalapenos, garlic, tomato puree, salt, and citric acid...
oops...that's six ingredients on the package...guess I better chuck it...too dirty.
I also make my own salsa frequently...pretty much the same ingredients but I also add cilantro usually...is that any cleaner?12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.
This is pretty much my favorite salsa which is prepared and sold locally by the family owned restaurant of the same name...
Ingredients: tomatoes, fresh jalapenos, garlic, tomato puree, salt, and citric acid...
oops...that's six ingredients on the package...guess I better chuck it...too dirty.
I also make my own salsa frequently...pretty much the same ingredients but I also add cilantro usually...is that any cleaner?
Well, cilantro tastes like soap to some people, so maybe?4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.
If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."
If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?
The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.
Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).
Some people like simple restrictions. Some people don't. *shrug*
I understood you to be arguing that there was no "simple restriction" and that someone who was applying the rule "Don't buy anything with more than five ingredients" would actually purchase things with more than five ingredients because they were actually applying the rule "Avoid unnecessary additives."
If the rule is really about about "unnecessary" additives, how does your argument about the two different groups (those who like simple restrictions and those who don't) apply?
Some might look at a can of soup and think "more than 5 ingredients, I'll buy something else", others would think "more than 5 ingredients, but most are just vegetables so I think it's okay"
I don't see either of these things as wrong. There is always something else to eat.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.
This is pretty much my favorite salsa which is prepared and sold locally by the family owned restaurant of the same name...
Ingredients: tomatoes, fresh jalapenos, garlic, tomato puree, salt, and citric acid...
oops...that's six ingredients on the package...guess I better chuck it...too dirty.
I also make my own salsa frequently...pretty much the same ingredients but I also add cilantro usually...is that any cleaner?
I wonder why they list tomatoes and tomato puree separately. Is that a labeling rule?0 -
Critisism is warranted for "Clean eating". It puts the focus on a symptom (switching from higher calorie processed foods that have lower saitity to whole foods that are generally higher in fiber and have higher satiety) rather than the actual cause (lower caloric intake) of weight loss associated with it. The result is a bunch of misinformation and people talking about how "toxic" processed food is and how the "toxins" prevent weight loss and other such nonsense. That coupled by how vague the term "clean eating" is to the point that different people mean completely different things when they say it is what gets the concept critisized.
Critisism of an idea is not akin to abuse and there is no reason to get personally offended or defensive when an idea is critisized. If an idea you like is critisized simply explain why you think it is actually valid. The number of people who think it is invalid doesn't change that or convert it into abuse somehow.
Me or other posters saying that the concept of clean eating is stupid is critizing an idea, not going after a person...it isn't personal. One cannot berate "clean eating" because clean eating is not a person, it is an idea. You saying that the OP or posters on this thread are stupid is NOT critisizing an idea, it is instead rather personal and is just insulting someone...that is berating. If you have a problem with what someone is saying then go after what they are saying, not them.8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.
This is pretty much my favorite salsa which is prepared and sold locally by the family owned restaurant of the same name...
Ingredients: tomatoes, fresh jalapenos, garlic, tomato puree, salt, and citric acid...
oops...that's six ingredients on the package...guess I better chuck it...too dirty.
I also make my own salsa frequently...pretty much the same ingredients but I also add cilantro usually...is that any cleaner?
I wonder why they list tomatoes and tomato puree separately. Is that a labeling rule?
I think because they use fresh tomatoes and then tomato puree (water and concentrated crushed tomatoes) so technically it is two different ingredients. They use the puree to thicken it.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
I like vitupritive but no one ever uses it.1 -
Really, its a weasel-word term invented by marketers that can be used to sell people just about anything under the premise that they'll magically lose weight. It really is. It means whatever a particular marketer wants it to mean in order to convince you that their particular magazine, book, weight-loss program, is totally hip to the absolute latest food trends.
I don't believe this is true. Certainly it is sometimes used that way now, but I don't believe that the term was "invented" (or coined) for this. I think it originally had to do with health, not weight loss.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.
If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."
If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?
The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.
Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).
Some people like simple restrictions. Some people don't. *shrug*
I understood you to be arguing that there was no "simple restriction" and that someone who was applying the rule "Don't buy anything with more than five ingredients" would actually purchase things with more than five ingredients because they were actually applying the rule "Avoid unnecessary additives."
If the rule is really about about "unnecessary" additives, how does your argument about the two different groups (those who like simple restrictions and those who don't) apply?
Some might look at a can of soup and think "more than 5 ingredients, I'll buy something else", others would think "more than 5 ingredients, but most are just vegetables so I think it's okay"
I don't see either of these things as wrong. There is always something else to eat.
"Wrong" is a strong word, but if -- in the first instance -- it results in eliminating foods that taste good to them and would help them meet their nutritional goals for no valid reason, it seems . . . unfortunate.
And if the focus on not eating things with more than five ingredients means that one *doesn't* focus on the things that actually result in weight loss or better nutrition, that would be really unfortunate.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.
If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."
If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?
The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.
Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).
Some people like simple restrictions. Some people don't. *shrug*
I understood you to be arguing that there was no "simple restriction" and that someone who was applying the rule "Don't buy anything with more than five ingredients" would actually purchase things with more than five ingredients because they were actually applying the rule "Avoid unnecessary additives."
If the rule is really about about "unnecessary" additives, how does your argument about the two different groups (those who like simple restrictions and those who don't) apply?
Some might look at a can of soup and think "more than 5 ingredients, I'll buy something else", others would think "more than 5 ingredients, but most are just vegetables so I think it's okay"
I don't see either of these things as wrong. There is always something else to eat.
"Wrong" is a strong word, but if -- in the first instance -- it results in eliminating foods that taste good to them and would help them meet their nutritional goals for no valid reason, it seems . . . unfortunate.
And if the focus on not eating things with more than five ingredients means that one *doesn't* focus on the things that actually result in weight loss or better nutrition, that would be really unfortunate.
I get the point of being delicate in approaching it but I'm a blunt *kitten* so I'm just going to dive in.
Invalid ideas based on misinformation that give a skewed and innacurate view of reality are ultimately harmful. End of.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.
If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."
If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?
The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.
Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).
Some people like simple restrictions. Some people don't. *shrug*
I understood you to be arguing that there was no "simple restriction" and that someone who was applying the rule "Don't buy anything with more than five ingredients" would actually purchase things with more than five ingredients because they were actually applying the rule "Avoid unnecessary additives."
If the rule is really about about "unnecessary" additives, how does your argument about the two different groups (those who like simple restrictions and those who don't) apply?
Some might look at a can of soup and think "more than 5 ingredients, I'll buy something else", others would think "more than 5 ingredients, but most are just vegetables so I think it's okay"
I don't see either of these things as wrong. There is always something else to eat.
"Wrong" is a strong word, but if -- in the first instance -- it results in eliminating foods that taste good to them and would help them meet their nutritional goals for no valid reason, it seems . . . unfortunate.
I suppose so, though honestly I can't see how a can of soup would make that much difference in an overall diet. But, if they apply a rule so strictly that they make themselves miserable then I would definitely agree.
However, if it prompts them to buy the ingredients and make their own soup from scratch and they learn how much better homemade foods can taste, I'd say it's fortunate.0 -
I am food sensitive !! I don't break down some things. To me clean eating is eating anything that isn't man made or comes in a box with any type of additives
0 -
Hope this helps1
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
- 175.9K 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
- 96.3K 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