What is 'clean' eating??
Replies
-
katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?2 -
Here's some good overviews of the history of the word and what it supposedly means:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/01/08/what-it-means-eat-clean
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/05/08/clean_eating_is_a_bad_label_with_no_real_meaning_for_your_diet_plan.html
1 -
And if there are any questions regarding the community guidelines, please go: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines4 -
Here's some good overviews of the history of the word and what it supposedly means:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/01/08/what-it-means-eat-clean
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/05/08/clean_eating_is_a_bad_label_with_no_real_meaning_for_your_diet_plan.html
Um, no. That first link says the term was coined in 1993, but I've heard it all my life. Since I was a child in the 1960's.
I didn't see where the second link said anything at all about it origins. Just that it had been around for "years".0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
If they think they've actually made a choice that is nutritionally better by choosing a soup made of fewer different kinds of vegetables, but perhaps some additives that would be more questionable (depending on what bothers people, let's say it has more sodium) vs. choosing one with less sodium but just more different vegetables, that would be at least misinformed and foolish of them. I think this kind of thing illustrates how focusing on some notion of "clean" rather than actual nutrition or, at least, actual ingredients that one prefers not to eat tends not to be helpful.
The problems with the perimeter rule has been similarly shown to result in missing lots of high-quality foods (and in my grocery, the actual vegetables, although you hit the bakery and deli meats).
I see this a lot in posters asking whether canned beans are "clean" vs. some other way of making an informed decision over whether they are something they want to include in their diet, or the occasional posts where a poster asks whether one can have a "clean" diet without vegetables. Focusing on not eating foods deemed unclean (let's say bread, or dried pasta, or canned beans, or even ultra processed things) doesn't actually do much to teach you what you should be including in your diet if you are really starting from a position of being so uninformed that these silly rules seem helpful and necessary. Maybe someone who eats a huge amount of fast food will cut that out and start cooking at home and benefit, maybe someone will eat less sweets and think to add vegetables instead, but I wouldn't count on it, and I think actually focusing on nutrition rather than being cleaner than thou (as indeed most of the posts about "eating clean" tend to read to me) would be useful.
And again, it would be less divisive and lead to less misunderstanding if people said "hey, I'm interested in eating a more nutrition conscious diet, is anyone with me" vs. "who here eats clean!" The latter just gets those who enjoy self-defining as "clean" for whatever reason, and then the rest of us get told that we are haters who don't care about nutrition and eat only Twinkies.3 -
It means a lot of cleaning foods, kitchen utensils, plates, floors etc, imo.
I somemes eat dirty.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
If they think they've actually made a choice that is nutritionally better by choosing a soup made of fewer different kinds of vegetables, but perhaps some additives that would be more questionable (depending on what bothers people, let's say it has more sodium) vs. choosing one with less sodium but just more different vegetables, that would be at least misinformed and foolish of them. I think this kind of thing illustrates how focusing on some notion of "clean" rather than actual nutrition or, at least, actual ingredients that one prefers not to eat tends not to be helpful.
The problems with the perimeter rule has been similarly shown to result in missing lots of high-quality foods (and in my grocery, the actual vegetables, although you hit the bakery and deli meats).
I see this a lot in posters asking whether canned beans are "clean" vs. some other way of making an informed decision over whether they are something they want to include in their diet, or the occasional posts where a poster asks whether one can have a "clean" diet without vegetables. Focusing on not eating foods deemed unclean (let's say bread, or dried pasta, or canned beans, or even ultra processed things) doesn't actually do much to teach you what you should be including in your diet if you are really starting from a position of being so uninformed that these silly rules seem helpful and necessary. Maybe someone who eats a huge amount of fast food will cut that out and start cooking at home and benefit, maybe someone will eat less sweets and think to add vegetables instead, but I wouldn't count on it, and I think actually focusing on nutrition rather than being cleaner than thou (as indeed most of the posts about "eating clean" tend to read to me) would be useful.
And again, it would be less divisive and lead to less misunderstanding if people said "hey, I'm interested in eating a more nutrition conscious diet, is anyone with me" vs. "who here eats clean!" The latter just gets those who enjoy self-defining as "clean" for whatever reason, and then the rest of us get told that we are haters who don't care about nutrition and eat only Twinkies.
Rules are just rules. Some people apply them too strictly, some ignore them, some use them as general guidelines while overriding them when common sense suggests they should. People are people and will always be people.
I realize your dislike of the term "clean eating", I just don't happen to agree. The term doesn't bother me in the least.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish3 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Chilli7777 wrote: »Eating things as close to their natural state as possible. Packaged food with more than 5 ingredients would be avoided. Sorry you were bombarded by idiots.
Genuinely inquisitve as to where the number 5 comes from? So if I have a pre-prepared fruit salad with 6 fruits, is it not longer clean?
I think it's based on the "5 second rule".1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.
Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.3 -
katthouse499 wrote: »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
Does this mean you avoid eating domesticated plants that have been significantly altered, via human selection, to be more nutritious or palatable to humans?1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.
Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.
Apples are pretty much man made. Doesn't matter if they grow, they were shaped by us...they wouldn't exist without us. There is nothing in nature that resembles or tastes like something like a Gala apple. The natural version is nothing like what we have in a store.
A metal object is made by pouring liquid metal into a mold, the liquid and solidification follow natural laws but yet no one would argue that it isn't man made nor would you ever see its like in nature without human intervention. An agricultural product is formed by a molding process over centuries...the proccesses follow natural laws but yet the product is something you would never see in nature without human intervention. Yet people call that natural. That always confused me.
Why would a plant in nature produce hundreds of giant sugar orbs with tiny seeds only to die shortly thereafter or no longer be able to produce. We engineered that into them, they are products. That doesn't mean they are bad but I don't understand the purpose of denying that fact.
Fish I agree though, the fish we consume are gathered from a natural enviorment (unless you are talking like farmed salmon).
Thinking more there are probably some berries that are very close to an actual natural plant.
But things like corn, bannanas, apples, zucchini, broccoli....they are heavily modified.11 -
katthouse499 wrote: »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
So things that come in cans are okay? And bags? Just not boxes? Are foods in cans and bags and that have additives okay? Or is it that food in cans and bags is okay as long as there are no additives?
Or maybe you just forgot about stuff in cans and bags and used "boxes" as a catch all term for processed food?
(Please note I'm not picking on you but just jumping off your post to continue pointing out some of the *many* problems with defining the term.)2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.
Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.
Apples are pretty much man made. Doesn't matter if they grow, they were shaped by us...they wouldn't exist without us. There is nothing in nature that resembles or tastes like something like a Gala apple. The natural version is nothing like what we have in a store.
A metal object is made by pouring liquid metal into a mold, the liquid and solidification follow natural laws but yet no one would argue that it isn't man made nor would you ever see its like in nature without human intervention. An agricultural product is formed by a molding process over centuries...the proccesses follow natural laws but yet the product is something you would never see in nature without human intervention. Yet people call that natural. That always confused me.
Why would a plant in nature produce hundreds of giant sugar orbs with tiny seeds only to die shortly thereafter or no longer be able to produce. We engineered that into them, they are products. That doesn't mean they are bad but I don't understand the purpose of denying that fact.
Fish I agree though, the fish we consume are gathered from a natural enviorment (unless you are talking like farmed salmon).
When a man pours the ingredients of an apple into a mold and makes an apple, I'll believe it's man-made. Until then it will always be man-manipulated to me.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.
Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.
Apples are pretty much man made. Doesn't matter if they grow, they were shaped by us...they wouldn't exist without us. There is nothing in nature that resembles or tastes like something like a Gala apple. The natural version is nothing like what we have in a store.
A metal object is made by pouring liquid metal into a mold, the liquid and solidification follow natural laws but yet no one would argue that it isn't man made nor would you ever see its like in nature without human intervention. An agricultural product is formed by a molding process over centuries...the proccesses follow natural laws but yet the product is something you would never see in nature without human intervention. Yet people call that natural. That always confused me.
Why would a plant in nature produce hundreds of giant sugar orbs with tiny seeds only to die shortly thereafter or no longer be able to produce. We engineered that into them, they are products. That doesn't mean they are bad but I don't understand the purpose of denying that fact.
Fish I agree though, the fish we consume are gathered from a natural enviorment (unless you are talking like farmed salmon).
When a man pours the ingredients of an apple into a mold and makes an apple, I'll believe it's man-made. Until then it will always be man-manipulated to me.
Okay what is the difference between man made and man manipulated? Is it a distinction between organic and non-organic materials? Because the properties of the metal, the liquid state, the liquid dynamics, the solidification and crystalization....all of that are natural, we just manipulate it to form what we want. As a molecular biologist I guess I don't really view life as being all that different. We manipulate it to form what we want. To me, both are man made or...if we want to change word choice...both are man-manipulated.
Both rely on our intential use of natural processes to create a product that we want.
What is funny to me is that simply juicing something and extracting the sugar from it and turning that into a product is considered processing and man-made (think high fructose corn syrup) and all that even though not much has actually changed while actually altering the genetics of a plant through selection over centuries to completely change its makeup (like with the corn itself) is considered natural. Frankly its a strange way to define something. Thousands of years of human intervention to create something in the form of corn is not man-made but taking 2 hours to extract some sugar from it (sugar content that was engineered into the plant by us in the first place) and now its man made.
Just to determine if the distinction for you is about life or about growth what do you think about crystal growth. If someone mixed things to grow a crystal and produce it for say jewelry...is that man made, natural or man-manipulated?7 -
in for the pedantry.5
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.
Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.
Apples are pretty much man made. Doesn't matter if they grow, they were shaped by us...they wouldn't exist without us. There is nothing in nature that resembles or tastes like something like a Gala apple. The natural version is nothing like what we have in a store.
A metal object is made by pouring liquid metal into a mold, the liquid and solidification follow natural laws but yet no one would argue that it isn't man made nor would you ever see its like in nature without human intervention. An agricultural product is formed by a molding process over centuries...the proccesses follow natural laws but yet the product is something you would never see in nature without human intervention. Yet people call that natural. That always confused me.
Why would a plant in nature produce hundreds of giant sugar orbs with tiny seeds only to die shortly thereafter or no longer be able to produce. We engineered that into them, they are products. That doesn't mean they are bad but I don't understand the purpose of denying that fact.
Fish I agree though, the fish we consume are gathered from a natural enviorment (unless you are talking like farmed salmon).
When a man pours the ingredients of an apple into a mold and makes an apple, I'll believe it's man-made. Until then it will always be man-manipulated to me.
Okay what is the difference between man made and man manipulated? Is it a distinction between organic and non-organic materials? Because the properties of the metal, the liquid state, the liquid dynamics, the solidification and crystalization....all of that are natural, we just manipulate it to form what we want. As a molecular biologist I guess I don't really view life as being all that different. We manipulate it to form what we want. To me, both are man made or...if we want to change word choice...both are man-manipulated.
Both rely on our intential use of natural processes to create a product that we want.
The difference is that I don't believe man can make an apple, period.
Your examples seem more like the difference in making a baked apple and making an apple. Man can make a baked apple.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
Much of the fish found in grocery stores is farmed - bred and raised by humans in a fish farm. Wild-caught fish were caught, processed, flash frozen and packaged by humans. By some definitions that would make it "processed" and thus "unclean".
Which further shows how ridiculous the phrase is. If I were to go catch a salmon myself, clean it with my own hands and throw it on ice to eat later, many would consider that "clean". But if somebody else caught, cleaned, froze it and put it in the store, it would be "processed" and "unclean".3 -
Anvil_Head wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
Much of the fish found in grocery stores is farmed - bred and raised by humans in a fish farm. Wild-caught fish were caught, processed, flash frozen and packaged by humans. By some definitions that would make it "processed" and thus "unclean".
Which further shows how ridiculous the phrase is. If I were to go catch a salmon myself, clean it with my own hands and throw it on ice to eat later, many would consider that "clean". But if somebody else caught, cleaned, froze it and put it in the store, it would be "processed" and "unclean".
His question didn't ask which was/wasn't clean or processed.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.
Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.
Apples are pretty much man made. Doesn't matter if they grow, they were shaped by us...they wouldn't exist without us. There is nothing in nature that resembles or tastes like something like a Gala apple. The natural version is nothing like what we have in a store.
A metal object is made by pouring liquid metal into a mold, the liquid and solidification follow natural laws but yet no one would argue that it isn't man made nor would you ever see its like in nature without human intervention. An agricultural product is formed by a molding process over centuries...the proccesses follow natural laws but yet the product is something you would never see in nature without human intervention. Yet people call that natural. That always confused me.
Why would a plant in nature produce hundreds of giant sugar orbs with tiny seeds only to die shortly thereafter or no longer be able to produce. We engineered that into them, they are products. That doesn't mean they are bad but I don't understand the purpose of denying that fact.
Fish I agree though, the fish we consume are gathered from a natural enviorment (unless you are talking like farmed salmon).
When a man pours the ingredients of an apple into a mold and makes an apple, I'll believe it's man-made. Until then it will always be man-manipulated to me.
Okay what is the difference between man made and man manipulated? Is it a distinction between organic and non-organic materials? Because the properties of the metal, the liquid state, the liquid dynamics, the solidification and crystalization....all of that are natural, we just manipulate it to form what we want. As a molecular biologist I guess I don't really view life as being all that different. We manipulate it to form what we want. To me, both are man made or...if we want to change word choice...both are man-manipulated.
Both rely on our intential use of natural processes to create a product that we want.
The difference is that I don't believe man can make an apple, period.
Your examples seem more like the difference in making a baked apple and making an apple. Man can make a baked apple.
Apples, as we know them, are the result of human intervention. Most domesticated fruits are significantly altered from their "natural" counterparts.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.
Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.
Apples are pretty much man made. Doesn't matter if they grow, they were shaped by us...they wouldn't exist without us. There is nothing in nature that resembles or tastes like something like a Gala apple. The natural version is nothing like what we have in a store.
A metal object is made by pouring liquid metal into a mold, the liquid and solidification follow natural laws but yet no one would argue that it isn't man made nor would you ever see its like in nature without human intervention. An agricultural product is formed by a molding process over centuries...the proccesses follow natural laws but yet the product is something you would never see in nature without human intervention. Yet people call that natural. That always confused me.
Why would a plant in nature produce hundreds of giant sugar orbs with tiny seeds only to die shortly thereafter or no longer be able to produce. We engineered that into them, they are products. That doesn't mean they are bad but I don't understand the purpose of denying that fact.
Fish I agree though, the fish we consume are gathered from a natural enviorment (unless you are talking like farmed salmon).
When a man pours the ingredients of an apple into a mold and makes an apple, I'll believe it's man-made. Until then it will always be man-manipulated to me.
Okay what is the difference between man made and man manipulated? Is it a distinction between organic and non-organic materials? Because the properties of the metal, the liquid state, the liquid dynamics, the solidification and crystalization....all of that are natural, we just manipulate it to form what we want. As a molecular biologist I guess I don't really view life as being all that different. We manipulate it to form what we want. To me, both are man made or...if we want to change word choice...both are man-manipulated.
Both rely on our intential use of natural processes to create a product that we want.
The difference is that I don't believe man can make an apple, period.
Your examples seem more like the difference in making a baked apple and making an apple. Man can make a baked apple.
Apples, as we know them, are the result of human intervention. Most domesticated fruits are significantly altered from their "natural" counterparts.
Yes, I know.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.
Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.
Apples are pretty much man made. Doesn't matter if they grow, they were shaped by us...they wouldn't exist without us. There is nothing in nature that resembles or tastes like something like a Gala apple. The natural version is nothing like what we have in a store.
A metal object is made by pouring liquid metal into a mold, the liquid and solidification follow natural laws but yet no one would argue that it isn't man made nor would you ever see its like in nature without human intervention. An agricultural product is formed by a molding process over centuries...the proccesses follow natural laws but yet the product is something you would never see in nature without human intervention. Yet people call that natural. That always confused me.
Why would a plant in nature produce hundreds of giant sugar orbs with tiny seeds only to die shortly thereafter or no longer be able to produce. We engineered that into them, they are products. That doesn't mean they are bad but I don't understand the purpose of denying that fact.
Fish I agree though, the fish we consume are gathered from a natural enviorment (unless you are talking like farmed salmon).
When a man pours the ingredients of an apple into a mold and makes an apple, I'll believe it's man-made. Until then it will always be man-manipulated to me.
Okay what is the difference between man made and man manipulated? Is it a distinction between organic and non-organic materials? Because the properties of the metal, the liquid state, the liquid dynamics, the solidification and crystalization....all of that are natural, we just manipulate it to form what we want. As a molecular biologist I guess I don't really view life as being all that different. We manipulate it to form what we want. To me, both are man made or...if we want to change word choice...both are man-manipulated.
Both rely on our intential use of natural processes to create a product that we want.
The difference is that I don't believe man can make an apple, period.
Your examples seem more like the difference in making a baked apple and making an apple. Man can make a baked apple.
So you think before humans got into agriculture there were wild Gala apple trees and wild corn and wild zucchini plants?1 -
cmriverside wrote: »in for the pedantry.
lol fair enough.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.
Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.
Apples are pretty much man made. Doesn't matter if they grow, they were shaped by us...they wouldn't exist without us. There is nothing in nature that resembles or tastes like something like a Gala apple. The natural version is nothing like what we have in a store.
A metal object is made by pouring liquid metal into a mold, the liquid and solidification follow natural laws but yet no one would argue that it isn't man made nor would you ever see its like in nature without human intervention. An agricultural product is formed by a molding process over centuries...the proccesses follow natural laws but yet the product is something you would never see in nature without human intervention. Yet people call that natural. That always confused me.
Why would a plant in nature produce hundreds of giant sugar orbs with tiny seeds only to die shortly thereafter or no longer be able to produce. We engineered that into them, they are products. That doesn't mean they are bad but I don't understand the purpose of denying that fact.
Fish I agree though, the fish we consume are gathered from a natural enviorment (unless you are talking like farmed salmon).
When a man pours the ingredients of an apple into a mold and makes an apple, I'll believe it's man-made. Until then it will always be man-manipulated to me.
Okay what is the difference between man made and man manipulated? Is it a distinction between organic and non-organic materials? Because the properties of the metal, the liquid state, the liquid dynamics, the solidification and crystalization....all of that are natural, we just manipulate it to form what we want. As a molecular biologist I guess I don't really view life as being all that different. We manipulate it to form what we want. To me, both are man made or...if we want to change word choice...both are man-manipulated.
Both rely on our intential use of natural processes to create a product that we want.
The difference is that I don't believe man can make an apple, period.
Your examples seem more like the difference in making a baked apple and making an apple. Man can make a baked apple.
Apples, as we know them, are the result of human intervention. Most domesticated fruits are significantly altered from their "natural" counterparts.
Yes, I know.
Then you can understand why the distinction between "natural" and "manmade" strikes some of us as meaningless when it comes to food?0 -
Anvil_Head wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
Much of the fish found in grocery stores is farmed - bred and raised by humans in a fish farm. Wild-caught fish were caught, processed, flash frozen and packaged by humans. By some definitions that would make it "processed" and thus "unclean".
Which further shows how ridiculous the phrase is. If I were to go catch a salmon myself, clean it with my own hands and throw it on ice to eat later, many would consider that "clean". But if somebody else caught, cleaned, froze it and put it in the store, it would be "processed" and "unclean".
Eh I don't think simply farming something makes it man-made immediately. I think it takes a certain amount of alternation before I would consider it man made. Farmed salmon tends to be fattier for sure but the fish itself is pretty darn close to the natural counterpart. That is in contrast to other farmed animals or farmed produce which have been in agriculture long enough to be completely altered to the point there is no resembelance to a natural plant.
Corn is a good example of that. The genetic origin of corn was from a grass that grows in the area of Mexico. If you saw said grass it wouldn't remind you of corn at all. We made corn, corn did not exist in nature...it is man-made.
Apples there are crab apples that are natural, they don't taste the same aren't nearly as large (more like sour cherries) aren't produced in nearly the numbers...they have faint resemblance to what we have created.
Berries I think are the closest to natural, what we have in terms of berries there are very close counterparts that grow naturally. Mountain huckleberries look pretty close to blueberries.
Natural "corn" is teosinite.
Its basically grass. You know how when your grass goes to seed it forms that little stalk with multiple seeds on it? Yeah we took that and grew it over and over and over and over selecting for larger seeds and more sugar content until we got corn. Corn is not something that would exist at all without us. It is man made. Grass is natural, corn is not.3 -
Is what I am saying semantic or pedantic? Yeah, in some ways it is. But at the point people are valuing "natural" over "processed" to eat "clean" it starts to matter when they are pointing at things as being "natural" that have a longer history of processing by man than anything else.
We engineered plants to have high sugar content and produce giant big sugar orbs because we like the hell out of sugar not because of our health. The fact that they are produced by a plant doesn't make that somehow natural nor does it automatically make it good for you. I just get really annoyed by the attitude that a plant made it therefore its natural therefore its healthy. I'm not saying fruit in your grocery store is bad for you nor am I saying things that are truly natural are guaranteed good for you, but lets at least be honest about the origin of our food. Shopping the edge of your local Whole Foods Market is not somehow akin to foraging in a forest.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »katthouse499 wrote: »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
What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?
Fish
....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.
Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.
Apples are pretty much man made. Doesn't matter if they grow, they were shaped by us...they wouldn't exist without us. There is nothing in nature that resembles or tastes like something like a Gala apple. The natural version is nothing like what we have in a store.
A metal object is made by pouring liquid metal into a mold, the liquid and solidification follow natural laws but yet no one would argue that it isn't man made nor would you ever see its like in nature without human intervention. An agricultural product is formed by a molding process over centuries...the proccesses follow natural laws but yet the product is something you would never see in nature without human intervention. Yet people call that natural. That always confused me.
Why would a plant in nature produce hundreds of giant sugar orbs with tiny seeds only to die shortly thereafter or no longer be able to produce. We engineered that into them, they are products. That doesn't mean they are bad but I don't understand the purpose of denying that fact.
Fish I agree though, the fish we consume are gathered from a natural enviorment (unless you are talking like farmed salmon).
When a man pours the ingredients of an apple into a mold and makes an apple, I'll believe it's man-made. Until then it will always be man-manipulated to me.
Okay what is the difference between man made and man manipulated? Is it a distinction between organic and non-organic materials? Because the properties of the metal, the liquid state, the liquid dynamics, the solidification and crystalization....all of that are natural, we just manipulate it to form what we want. As a molecular biologist I guess I don't really view life as being all that different. We manipulate it to form what we want. To me, both are man made or...if we want to change word choice...both are man-manipulated.
Both rely on our intential use of natural processes to create a product that we want.
The difference is that I don't believe man can make an apple, period.
Your examples seem more like the difference in making a baked apple and making an apple. Man can make a baked apple.
Apples, as we know them, are the result of human intervention. Most domesticated fruits are significantly altered from their "natural" counterparts.
Yes, I know.
Then you can understand why the distinction between "natural" and "manmade" strikes some of us as meaningless when it comes to food?
Meaningless? No, sorry I don't.2 -
We also engineered away as much of the bitterness and sourness as we could.
While we were at it we messed with milk production and muscle and fat content in cows, sheep,, goats and pigs. And really, REALLY messed with chickens.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Here's some good overviews of the history of the word and what it supposedly means:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/01/08/what-it-means-eat-clean
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/05/08/clean_eating_is_a_bad_label_with_no_real_meaning_for_your_diet_plan.html
Um, no. That first link says the term was coined in 1993, but I've heard it all my life. Since I was a child in the 1960's.
I didn't see where the second link said anything at all about it origins. Just that it had been around for "years".
Well, I was a child in the 70s and it certainly wasn't in use then, and by the 80s I was reading a lot of food and nutrition writing, and it wasn't in wide use then. Maybe you could point to some examples of its 1960s uses?
The second one talks about the multiplicity of ways it is used today, explaining why its pretty much become a catchphrase people use to try to make their particular way of eating morally better than other people's way of eating.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 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