What is 'clean' eating??
Replies
-
The other thing I don't get is the treatment of so called "genetically modified" foods. Apparently those aren't natural anymore, those are manmade. Yet they still grow. They aren't "poured into a mold". Why are they considered no longer natural by people who consider agriculture to be natural? I'm not going to guess as to your opinion on those @Need2Exerc1se so I'll just ask if you consider "genetically modified" plants to be natural or man-made and if so what about them crossed that line for you?
I assume the answer is because the process isn't "natural" like agriculture itself is natural or like the techniques used in genetic engineering aren't from natural processes neither of which are true.
4 -
Boy, reading some of these comments... no matter what someone tries to answer, someone else is there to stomp them down. As I understand "clean" eating it's avoiding overly processed foods - the kinds of foods you find toward the center of the store (chips, sweetened cereals, box meals, etc.) and focusing on selecting fresher items and basic ingredients that are more likely found around the parameter of the store (fresh vegetables, fruits, meat, dairy).
"But there's baked goods around the parameter of the store to so you must be saying that the 3-layer German chocolate cake is a clean food, right? Huh? Yeah you must be!"
No that's not what I'm saying.
In this day and age it's vitually impossible to be a completely "clean" eater but if it's of interest to you there's nothing wrong with going in that direction. It means having some crispy carrots with your lunch instead of potato chips, for example. There's always someone to point out a flaw or an exception but that's my best attempt to explain "clean eating" on a high level. Hope that helps a little.4 -
Wash fruits and vegetables, don't eat things past their expiration date, and avoid things that are growing blue-green fuzz?1
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Okay, so in the context of many domesticated plants being significantly changed via human intervention, what do you see as the difference between "natural" and "manmade" when it comes to food?1 -
StealthHealth wrote: »What is clean eating? "A-can-of-worms", that is what clean eating is.
Wash the dirt off those worms first!2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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...
Make no mistake, I agree with you 100%. I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous the "clean eating" argument is. Shunning certain foods for arbitrary reasons, yet including others (and touting them as "clean") when they're as much or more engineered/processed than the dreaded "unclean" foods.
FWIW, I don't look at any food as "clean" or "unclean". I consider how it fits into my overall diet, taking context and dosage into consideration. A diet consisting entirely of homegrown, organically farmed kale would be no more healthy or balanced than a diet consisting entirely of highly processed fast food. As usual, the answer lies somewhere between the two (equally ridiculous) extremes.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »The other thing I don't get is the treatment of so called "genetically modified" foods. Apparently those aren't natural anymore, those are manmade. Yet they still grow. They aren't "poured into a mold". Why are they considered no longer natural? I'm not going to guess as to your opinion on those @Need2Exerc1se so I'll just ask if you consider "genetically modified" plants to be natural or man-made and if so what about them crossed that line for you?
I assume the answer is because the process isn't "natural" like agriculture itself is natural or like the techniques used in genetic engineering aren't from natural processes neither of which are true.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
I'd say that's a little beyond "natural".0 -
Wash fruits and vegetables, don't eat things past their expiration date, and avoid things that are growing blue-green fuzz?
I have eaten strawberries/blackberries without washing them whilst out strawberry picking
I even saw people eating corn on the cob raw straight from plucking..
here best before dates are ok for some foods but use by dates i wouldnt go past
i guess i am doomed
Are we sure those blue bits in cheese is fine? where does that come from3 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »Wash fruits and vegetables, don't eat things past their expiration date, and avoid things that are growing blue-green fuzz?
I have eaten strawberries/blackberries without washing them whilst out strawberry picking
I even saw people eating corn on the cob raw straight from plucking..
here best before dates are ok for some foods but use by dates i wouldnt go past
i guess i am doomed
Are we sure those blue bits in cheese is fine? where does that come from
You're doomed! Bleu cheese has mold!
No actually I eat it also.0 -
There is an aspect of the "clean eating" idea that I do agree with. I think that our food has become a bit overengineered. That reductionist thinking where you take the sugar (but only the sugar) from this plant and combine it with the protein from this plant and then add the salt from this and thats a food product I think ends up eliminating a lot of nutrients that are important for good health and fiber that is important for digestive health and satiation.
I think adding lots of sugar for taste, removing fiber, processing and refining, has the rather severe drawback of having higher calorie/satiation foods with fewer nutrients.
I believe that eating "whole foods" is a way of avoiding this and getting more micronutrients and fiber in your diet.
That said what I absolutely do not subscribe to is the demonization of processing nor the idea of "natural" versus "man-made" that seems to go along with it or the arbitrary rules that don't actually line up with what is really important but are rather just shortcuts that sort of miss the point.
If I can eat an apple rather than applesauce I will do so, but that doesn't mean that I shun applesauce or curse its existance. I don't favor the apple because its "natural" or because it "has less than 5 ingredients" I favor it because the skin has some nutrients I would otherwise miss and I get a little extra fiber out of it (although not much) and the act of chewing is a bit more satisfying.3 -
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.
Well, I could point to some people I heard say it but you wouldn't be able to see it. Obviously I wasn't reading it on the internet in the 1960's or reading nutrition literature as a child, but here are a couple things Google found for me:
http://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/clean-eating-fad-or-future/
I didn’t realize that clean eating is nothing new. The clean eating movement began in the 1960’s when a lot of things were changing, including people’s approaches to food and health.
http://spryliving.com/articles/eating-clean-defined/
Clean eating history. The beginnings of the clean eating movement were born within the natural healthy food movement of the 1960s. At that time, many cultural revolutions were taking place, and food was no exception. Healthy, natural food became synonymous with the morals and values of this time.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Okay, so in the context of many domesticated plants being significantly changed via human intervention, what do you see as the difference between "natural" and "manmade" when it comes to food?
Exactly what I said before. Manipulated vs. made.0 -
As I understand "clean" eating it's avoiding overly processed foods - the kinds of foods you find toward the center of the store (chips, sweetened cereals, box meals, etc.) and focusing on selecting fresher items and basic ingredients that are more likely found around the parameter of the store (fresh vegetables, fruits, meat, dairy).
I don't see the purpose of using the term "clean" for this. I just say I like to cook from whole foods.
But I'm actually answering to pick up on the use of the term "fresher." It seems like you are saying that frozen veg are less "clean," and from a nutritional standpoint that makes no sense at all.
Basically, you seem to be calling perishables "clean" and non-perishables (which are one subset of what's usually in the middle of the store -- although like I said in mine the product section is in a special section in the middle) unclean. But non-perishables -- things like dried pasta, dried beans, grains, canned beans -- have a long history, in large part because before the current (rather unnatural, IMO) situation where we could cart foods all over and have them far from where they grow and out of season, we were dependent on many of these kinds of foods. I do a lot of my shopping from local farms, and even from there I'll get various non perishables (included canned and pickled produce that I'm too lazy so far to prepare myself).
I think some of the obsession with the only "clean" foods being perishables is because we aren't really focusing on nutrition or traditional restrictions on what foods are available. It's as much an unnatural thing as the reverse.
(But then we are humans, like others have pointed out we meddle with nature, it's natural for us!)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Okay, so in the context of many domesticated plants being significantly changed via human intervention, what do you see as the difference between "natural" and "manmade" when it comes to food?
Exactly what I said before. Manipulated vs. made.
But what do you see as the significance of that difference? Why should one avoid "made" food while including "manipulated" food in the diet?1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »The other thing I don't get is the treatment of so called "genetically modified" foods. Apparently those aren't natural anymore, those are manmade. Yet they still grow. They aren't "poured into a mold". Why are they considered no longer natural? I'm not going to guess as to your opinion on those @Need2Exerc1se so I'll just ask if you consider "genetically modified" plants to be natural or man-made and if so what about them crossed that line for you?
I assume the answer is because the process isn't "natural" like agriculture itself is natural or like the techniques used in genetic engineering aren't from natural processes neither of which are true.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
I'd say that's a little beyond "natural".
Do you consider agriculture itself to be "natural"? My claim is not that genetic engineering is "natural" its a confusion as to why some people consider agriculture to be "natural" but genetic engineering to be not. It seems somewhat hypocritical or niave.
Both are man made processes devised by humans to engineer plants for a desired effect. Both utilize natural processes but put them into an order that produces something nature would not have produced by itself.
Recombinant DNA technology is based upon enzymes that occur naturally within bacteria coupled with natural processes such as homologous recombination and DNA repair. Humans did not make restriction enzymes, they did not make homologous recombination, they did not invent plasmids, these are all natural processes put into a particular order by humans to achieve the desired affect.
If you are asking how I view them I view them as equally unatural, equally man-made. Neither agriculture nor genetic engineering is natural, both are man-made engineered processes to produce desired products utilizing natural processes.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Okay, so in the context of many domesticated plants being significantly changed via human intervention, what do you see as the difference between "natural" and "manmade" when it comes to food?
Exactly what I said before. Manipulated vs. made.
But what do you see as the significance of that difference? Why should one avoid "made" food while including "manipulated" food in the diet?
I don't know that there is a significance in the way I think you mean (the differences is in proper term/work usage). IDK the answer to the second question, why should they?0 -
cmriverside wrote: »in for the pedantry.
You have more fortitude than I do. This whole go 'round makes me tired.
I define clean eating as eating nutrient dense food and accept that it's a nebulous term that a lot of people use with snobbery.
I really also no longer care about pinning down a definition for the term unless someone thinks that eating clean is making a huge difference in how fast or how much or the mechanics by which they're losing weight. Then they're entering the realm of magic land and I'm interested in arguing science with them.
If someone gets their rocks off feeling superior to me because I eat a Snickers bar every now and then and they don't, I still get to eat the Snickers bar. I feel like the real winner in that situation. Let them feel superior. Snickers 4 lyfe!5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »The other thing I don't get is the treatment of so called "genetically modified" foods. Apparently those aren't natural anymore, those are manmade. Yet they still grow. They aren't "poured into a mold". Why are they considered no longer natural? I'm not going to guess as to your opinion on those @Need2Exerc1se so I'll just ask if you consider "genetically modified" plants to be natural or man-made and if so what about them crossed that line for you?
I assume the answer is because the process isn't "natural" like agriculture itself is natural or like the techniques used in genetic engineering aren't from natural processes neither of which are true.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
I'd say that's a little beyond "natural".
Do you consider agriculture itself to be "natural"? My claim is not that genetic engineering is "natural" its a confusion as to why some people consider agriculture to be "natural" but genetic engineering to be not. It seems somewhat hypocritical or niave.
Recombinant DNA technology is based upon enzymes that occur naturally within bacteria. Restriction enzymes, homologous recombination, plasmids, these are all natural processes put into a particular order by humans to achieve the desired affect.
Agriculture is not natural. How could it be? I'd say agriculture is more natural than GE, and some agricultural methods are more natural than others.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Okay, so in the context of many domesticated plants being significantly changed via human intervention, what do you see as the difference between "natural" and "manmade" when it comes to food?
Exactly what I said before. Manipulated vs. made.
So a genetically engineered corn plant is "made" by humans by your definition? Or is it manipulated? I honestly don't know which way you'd view that.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.
I grew up in the 60's. I guess I was sheltered. I sure don't remember it.
I remember, I think, the word "wholesome". I think I remember that describing things as disparate as vegetables, bread, orange juice, and apple pie.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
I grew up in the 60's. I guess I was sheltered. I sure don't remember it.
I remember, I think, the word "wholesome". I think I remember that describing things as disparate as vegetables, bread, orange juice, and apple pie.
I had an older sister who was considered a hippie.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Okay, so in the context of many domesticated plants being significantly changed via human intervention, what do you see as the difference between "natural" and "manmade" when it comes to food?
Exactly what I said before. Manipulated vs. made.
So a genetically engineered corn plant is "made" by humans by your definition? Or is it manipulated? I honestly don't know which way you'd view that.
It's the same as for the apple, man can't make corn.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
I grew up in the 60's. I guess I was sheltered. I sure don't remember it.
I remember, I think, the word "wholesome". I think I remember that describing things as disparate as vegetables, bread, orange juice, and apple pie.
I had an older sister who was considered a hippie.
Hippies might have undertaken crunchy practices, but did she use the term "clean" to describe what she was doing?
I really don't remember that being part of the culture. There were some hippie kids in my baby sitter rotation.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »The other thing I don't get is the treatment of so called "genetically modified" foods. Apparently those aren't natural anymore, those are manmade. Yet they still grow. They aren't "poured into a mold". Why are they considered no longer natural? I'm not going to guess as to your opinion on those @Need2Exerc1se so I'll just ask if you consider "genetically modified" plants to be natural or man-made and if so what about them crossed that line for you?
I assume the answer is because the process isn't "natural" like agriculture itself is natural or like the techniques used in genetic engineering aren't from natural processes neither of which are true.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
I'd say that's a little beyond "natural".
Do you consider agriculture itself to be "natural"? My claim is not that genetic engineering is "natural" its a confusion as to why some people consider agriculture to be "natural" but genetic engineering to be not. It seems somewhat hypocritical or niave.
Recombinant DNA technology is based upon enzymes that occur naturally within bacteria. Restriction enzymes, homologous recombination, plasmids, these are all natural processes put into a particular order by humans to achieve the desired affect.
Agriculture is not natural. How could it be? I'd say agriculture is more natural than GE, and some agricultural methods are more natural than others.
The fact you think it is more natural than genetic engineering makes me think you don't know that much about how genetic engineering is actually done. What specific part of the process of genetic engineering is not a natural process.
Restriction enzymes are natural, DNA polymerase is natural, DNA ligase is natural, plasmids are natural, homologous recombination is natural. Using restriction enzymes to cut out a specific gene, amplify it with DNA polymerase, ligate it into a similarly cut plasmid with DNA ligase and then have that plasmid insert the gene via homolgous recombination is the man made process called genetic engineering.
Seeds are natural, cross-polination is natural. The act of planting seeds, growing plants, selecting those with favorable attributes, cross-polinating them, saving the seeds and starting again the next year is the man made process called agriculture.
Is the difference for you that you fully comprehend one but are less familiar with the other (I'm not trying to offend but it is a possible explanation)? Is it that one is more modern of a technique than the other? At what point do we cross that line from natural to man made if its not by using man made processes such as agriculture?3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »The other thing I don't get is the treatment of so called "genetically modified" foods. Apparently those aren't natural anymore, those are manmade. Yet they still grow. They aren't "poured into a mold". Why are they considered no longer natural? I'm not going to guess as to your opinion on those @Need2Exerc1se so I'll just ask if you consider "genetically modified" plants to be natural or man-made and if so what about them crossed that line for you?
I assume the answer is because the process isn't "natural" like agriculture itself is natural or like the techniques used in genetic engineering aren't from natural processes neither of which are true.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
I'd say that's a little beyond "natural".
Do you consider agriculture itself to be "natural"? My claim is not that genetic engineering is "natural" its a confusion as to why some people consider agriculture to be "natural" but genetic engineering to be not. It seems somewhat hypocritical or niave.
Recombinant DNA technology is based upon enzymes that occur naturally within bacteria. Restriction enzymes, homologous recombination, plasmids, these are all natural processes put into a particular order by humans to achieve the desired affect.
Agriculture is not natural. How could it be? I'd say agriculture is more natural than GE, and some agricultural methods are more natural than others.
The fact you think it is more natural than genetic engineering makes me think you don't know that much about how genetic engineering is actually done. What specific part of the process of genetic engineering is not a natural process.
Restriction enzymes are natural, DNA polymerase is natural, DNA ligase is natural, plasmids are natural, homologous recombination is natural. Using restriction enzymes to cut out a specific gene, amplify it with DNA polymerase, ligate it into a similarly cut plasmid with DNA ligase and then have that plasmid insert the gene via homolgous recombination is the man made process called genetic engineering.
Seeds are natural, cross-polination is natural. The act of planting seeds, growing plants, selecting those with favorable attributes, cross-polinating them, saving the seeds and starting again the next year is the man made process called agriculture.
Is the difference for you that you fully comprehend one but are less familiar with the other (I'm not trying to offend but it is a possible explanation)? Is it that one is more modern of a technique than the other? At what point do we cross that line from natural to man made if its not by using man made processes such as agriculture?
Agriculture can be as simple as plowing earth and dropping a seed, then nature takes over. IDK know the ins and outs of GE foods, but if the WHO says it's something that wouldn't happen naturally I tend to believe them.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
I grew up in the 60's. I guess I was sheltered. I sure don't remember it.
I remember, I think, the word "wholesome". I think I remember that describing things as disparate as vegetables, bread, orange juice, and apple pie.
I had an older sister who was considered a hippie.
Hippies might have undertaken crunchy practices, but did she use the term "clean" to describe what she was doing?
I really don't remember that being part of the culture. There were some hippie kids in my baby sitter rotation.
Yes. You should have heard her rant about clean eating whenever my mom brought home KFC.
A lot of people used the term then and since. I can't ever remember a time when I thought the term was odd.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »The other thing I don't get is the treatment of so called "genetically modified" foods. Apparently those aren't natural anymore, those are manmade. Yet they still grow. They aren't "poured into a mold". Why are they considered no longer natural? I'm not going to guess as to your opinion on those @Need2Exerc1se so I'll just ask if you consider "genetically modified" plants to be natural or man-made and if so what about them crossed that line for you?
I assume the answer is because the process isn't "natural" like agriculture itself is natural or like the techniques used in genetic engineering aren't from natural processes neither of which are true.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
I'd say that's a little beyond "natural".
Do you consider agriculture itself to be "natural"? My claim is not that genetic engineering is "natural" its a confusion as to why some people consider agriculture to be "natural" but genetic engineering to be not. It seems somewhat hypocritical or niave.
Recombinant DNA technology is based upon enzymes that occur naturally within bacteria. Restriction enzymes, homologous recombination, plasmids, these are all natural processes put into a particular order by humans to achieve the desired affect.
Agriculture is not natural. How could it be? I'd say agriculture is more natural than GE, and some agricultural methods are more natural than others.
The fact you think it is more natural than genetic engineering makes me think you don't know that much about how genetic engineering is actually done. What specific part of the process of genetic engineering is not a natural process.
Restriction enzymes are natural, DNA polymerase is natural, DNA ligase is natural, plasmids are natural, homologous recombination is natural. Using restriction enzymes to cut out a specific gene, amplify it with DNA polymerase, ligate it into a similarly cut plasmid with DNA ligase and then have that plasmid insert the gene via homolgous recombination is the man made process called genetic engineering.
Seeds are natural, cross-polination is natural. The act of planting seeds, growing plants, selecting those with favorable attributes, cross-polinating them, saving the seeds and starting again the next year is the man made process called agriculture.
Is the difference for you that you fully comprehend one but are less familiar with the other (I'm not trying to offend but it is a possible explanation)? Is it that one is more modern of a technique than the other? At what point do we cross that line from natural to man made if its not by using man made processes such as agriculture?
Agriculture can be as simple as plowing earth and dropping a seed, then nature takes over. IDK know the ins and outs of GE foods, but if the WHO says it's something that wouldn't happen naturally I tend to believe them.
It isn't something that would happen naturally...neither is agriculture. Neither of them are natural in that respect. That is my point.1 -
<shrug> its my time, if I find it worth doing that is up to me. If you find it worth replying to with statements about how its not worth doing then that is up to you. Feel free to not read or participate if it doesn't interest you.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »The other thing I don't get is the treatment of so called "genetically modified" foods. Apparently those aren't natural anymore, those are manmade. Yet they still grow. They aren't "poured into a mold". Why are they considered no longer natural? I'm not going to guess as to your opinion on those @Need2Exerc1se so I'll just ask if you consider "genetically modified" plants to be natural or man-made and if so what about them crossed that line for you?
I assume the answer is because the process isn't "natural" like agriculture itself is natural or like the techniques used in genetic engineering aren't from natural processes neither of which are true.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
I'd say that's a little beyond "natural".
Do you consider agriculture itself to be "natural"? My claim is not that genetic engineering is "natural" its a confusion as to why some people consider agriculture to be "natural" but genetic engineering to be not. It seems somewhat hypocritical or niave.
Recombinant DNA technology is based upon enzymes that occur naturally within bacteria. Restriction enzymes, homologous recombination, plasmids, these are all natural processes put into a particular order by humans to achieve the desired affect.
Agriculture is not natural. How could it be? I'd say agriculture is more natural than GE, and some agricultural methods are more natural than others.
The fact you think it is more natural than genetic engineering makes me think you don't know that much about how genetic engineering is actually done. What specific part of the process of genetic engineering is not a natural process.
Restriction enzymes are natural, DNA polymerase is natural, DNA ligase is natural, plasmids are natural, homologous recombination is natural. Using restriction enzymes to cut out a specific gene, amplify it with DNA polymerase, ligate it into a similarly cut plasmid with DNA ligase and then have that plasmid insert the gene via homolgous recombination is the man made process called genetic engineering.
Seeds are natural, cross-polination is natural. The act of planting seeds, growing plants, selecting those with favorable attributes, cross-polinating them, saving the seeds and starting again the next year is the man made process called agriculture.
Is the difference for you that you fully comprehend one but are less familiar with the other (I'm not trying to offend but it is a possible explanation)? Is it that one is more modern of a technique than the other? At what point do we cross that line from natural to man made if its not by using man made processes such as agriculture?
Agriculture can be as simple as plowing earth and dropping a seed, then nature takes over. IDK know the ins and outs of GE foods, but if the WHO says it's something that wouldn't happen naturally I tend to believe them.
It isn't something that would happen naturally...neither is agriculture. Neither of them are natural in that respect. That is my point.
I state a few posts ago I didn't think either was natural. You asked about more natural.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions