What is 'clean' eating??

lemurcat12

wanzik wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

wanzik wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

wanzik wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.

Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.

A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.

This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.

Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.

Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.

Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.

Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.

Well, I didn't feel insulted at all. Most people don't meet with dieticians just once in a day-long session. They meet several times over weeks in 30-60 minute sessions. Avoid prepared foods with more than 5 ingredients (or 4, or 6) is a good starting point. That was one of my first week "assignments." Then we were able to discuss that in sessions that followed and get into some of those ingredients. Changing ones habits takes time. And it takes work... dedication... and an ongoing education. I learned a lot "counting" ingredients. So it worked for me. My wife liked it too and still counts - it's a real eye opener realizing the things we have been putting in our bodies for so long.

If you meet with a dietitian the dietitian can figure out where you are and what would be helpful and come up with ideas to help you improve your diet, I agree with that and think a good one will understand the person and the issues when giving advice.

When I decided to lose weight I was already basically eating from whole foods for the most part and didn't buy many packaged goods, and I knew a lot about nutrition (which is why I didn't go to see a dietitian, in part). So for someone to tell me that I should start by "cleaning up my diet" and giving up foods with more than 5 ingredients would not have been helpful at all, and would have (again) seemed insulting and like she or he didn't pay attention to the information received, at all.

For someone to state as an absolute that a diet without ANY foods with more than 5 ingredients is to take a rather simplistic rule that might be helpful to certain people and proclaim it as something more. And it's (IMO) always better to actually understand why a particular choice is better for you in a particular case than another (and one factor might be convenience or taste), and relying on all or nothing rules like 5 or less=good, more than 5=bad is not, IMO, the ultimate goal or real knowledge.

Can it be a stepping stone? Sure, maybe for some. Like I said, different things work for different people, and that it feels insulting for me and like the person assumes I eat in a way I do not (or that I don't make thoughtful decisions about the processed foods I buy) may not apply for all.

My object is to the idea that "clean eating" has some obvious definition and is nutritionally better not eating in other ways. I don't self-define as a clean eater since I've yet to hear a definition that I really think makes a lot of sense, and because I think the word applied to eating is obnoxious and rather self-congratulatory, but as I always say I'm interested in nutrition and cooking from whole foods and open for discussion. That people don't say "great, that's what I'm looking for!" but instead seem to want to find people doing self-defined "clean eating plans" or the like says a lot, I think, about the real motive for using the term.

I don't know if I ever claimed to be a "clean eater" - maybe. Just like people can't call themselves "vegans" if they have a steak once in a while, maybe can't say I'm a "clean eater." What I do say a lot is "I'm trying to eat clean" and "I'm working toward a cleaner diet" but I have no desire or intention to permanently give up goodies once in a while.

It sounds like your way of eating is much like mine, then. (And I made smaller changes at one point, it just largely happened years ago, way before I was trying to lose weight this time -- ultra processed food wasn't the cause of my weight issues and I rather resent the idea that anyone who gets fat must be relying on them or not cooking or does not know about nutrition.) I don't get why you'd latch onto the term "clean eating" (not saying you are) or get annoyed when people ask what it means is all. That I question the term doesn't at all mean I question the goal of eating healthfully or cooking from whole foods, etc. -- as I said, I do this. Have for years.

Like I said before, different things work for different people. And I say "whatever works!" I don't see how it helps by blowing holes in strategies or muddying the waters with a bunch of unnecessary minutia. Lots of people here are just lost and looking for something to try and if counting ingredients gets them started down that path, why not?

Because I think real nutrition is simpler and less about minutia than "less than 5 ingredients!" and that understanding how it works is more helpful overall. For example, as I mentioned above, people post about wanting to clean eat and not eat vegetables. If you avoid foods with more than 5 ingredients and yet don't touch vegetables, your diet isn't so great (barring certain health issues, of course). If you do that and get super low protein or don't get in healthy fats or avoid fiber, same. For me, I could have said I was doing that and continued eating as I was when I got fat -- not what I needed.

Well, please accept my apologies for not being offended with my dietician when she was trying to help me. I'll try to be more sensitive and disagreeable in the future.

In that that's not at all what I said -- I said it could be helpful for the right person and a good dietitian would be in a position to know if a client/patient was that person or not -- I have to assume that you don't actually want to engage in a good-faith discussion about this.

What I think is insulting is to tell people in general on MFP that they should follow such simplistic rules to improve their diets and that if they don't their diets are somehow inferior (or not "clean").

Or, of course, to admit that following such rules is obviously what clean eating means, and that people who ask about it are dummies for not knowing that, which is what some in this thread seemed to be saying.

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld

Busy snacking on tortilla chips, 3 ingredients Maize flour, Sunflower oil and salt.

Who knew that this would be classed as eating clean

Need2Exerc1se

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

wanzik wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.

Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.

A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.

This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.

Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.

Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.

Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.

Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.

Why does it have to be so black and white? Who made that rule?

This is my understanding when I ask people on MFP what they mean by "clean eating." It is also my understanding from the various challenges and clean plans that get mentioned sometimes: NO whatever.

If it's about mostly trying to eat healthfully and from whole foods, it's pretty much how I eat, so why the special name and claim that they eat so differently?

I can see it being all or nothing during a challenge. That's pretty much the nature of the challenge, but if it was all or nothing all of the time all the time, why would there be a need for the challenge? In looking at open diaries of clean eaters, I'd say very few do it all the time.

Why the special name? I guess the same reason for anything that has a special name. For distinction. For definition. What makes "clean eating" more special than "healthy eating"?

Need2Exerc1se

stevencloser wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

wanzik wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.

Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.

A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.

This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.

Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.

Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.

Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.

Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.

Why does it have to be so black and white? Who made that rule?

It doesn't have to be, it can be subjective...but if its subjective then obviously its just your opinion and you can't act like your opinion about word meaning somehow applies to everyone and everything. You should not define terms on the basis of subjective opinion so that comes back to the idea of clean eating being overly vague. If you base something not on black and white terminology then you end up with some wishy-washy vague guideline that means completely different things to different people.

I get irritated that people get our (the United States) congress to literally pass laws based on their subjective opinion about what constitutes "natural" acting like it has some quantifiable meaning or actual application that isn't entirely subjective (ie recent GMO labeling law). We shouldn't be defining our terms or basing our laws on things like that.

I would agree with all that.

Edit: though it's pretty off subject for my comment which was in response to the comment from @lemurcat12 that said: "claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to <snip>. It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever"

I was just wondering why that particular term had to be black and white. Would the same be true of other diet terms. For example, if I say I eat low carb would that mean I had to eat low carb 100% of the time?

Yes. You also can't be vegan 5 days of the week, if you eat meat or use animal products at all, you're not vegan.

But I can eat vegan 5 days a week. My diet can be vegan 5 days a week. We are talking diets here, right? Not lifestyles.

lemurcat12

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

wanzik wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.

Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.

A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.

This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.

Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.

Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.

Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.

Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.

Why does it have to be so black and white? Who made that rule?

This is my understanding when I ask people on MFP what they mean by "clean eating." It is also my understanding from the various challenges and clean plans that get mentioned sometimes: NO whatever.

If it's about mostly trying to eat healthfully and from whole foods, it's pretty much how I eat, so why the special name and claim that they eat so differently?

I can see it being all or nothing during a challenge. That's pretty much the nature of the challenge, but if it was all or nothing all of the time all the time, why would there be a need for the challenge? In looking at open diaries of clean eaters, I'd say very few do it all the time.

I think the challenge is supposed to be for people trying out "clean eating." I agree with the last sentence, of course, but I think a lot of those people have different definitions of "clean" and don't realize that Chipotle or protein powder or boxed cereal or bread or whatever doesn't fit their proclaimed "no processed food diet."

Why the special name? I guess the same reason for anything that has a special name. For distinction. For definition. What makes "clean eating" more special than "healthy eating"?

I'm just going by people here. People who claim to "clean eat" insist that they are doing something different than many of us who just focus on eating mostly from whole foods, generally healthfully, so on, and in particular that eating a "healthy diet" isn't good enough, that for health it's important to cut out whatever the bad foods are supposed to be.

I find it a hindrance to communication. If someone asks "is anyone here a clean eater?" I don't know what they mean. Looking at diaries, I think I probably fit what some of them are thinking of (not because I do it to lose weight, but just that's how I eat), but if I say that I'm not cutting out foods but focus on whole foods and nutrition and am interested in sharing ideas, I get comments about how people who aren't "clean eating" are promoting daily fast food or some such nonsense. I mean, I'm pretty sure I'd be unwelcome in the clean eating group (and when I've peeked in in the past there were discussions about how people in the general forums eat so poorly and don't care about nutrition), but the fact I don't care for the term doesn't mean that I don't care about nutrition. If "clean" isn't about weight loss and isn't about nutrition and isn't really even about having a whole foods based diet unless you are 100% (which I know from trying to do at one point doesn't work for me and which I can't think of any good reason for other than personal preference), then what's it supposed to be about?

lemurcat12

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

wanzik wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.

Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.

A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.

This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.

Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.

Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.

Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.

Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.

Why does it have to be so black and white? Who made that rule?

It doesn't have to be, it can be subjective...but if its subjective then obviously its just your opinion and you can't act like your opinion about word meaning somehow applies to everyone and everything. You should not define terms on the basis of subjective opinion so that comes back to the idea of clean eating being overly vague. If you base something not on black and white terminology then you end up with some wishy-washy vague guideline that means completely different things to different people.

I get irritated that people get our (the United States) congress to literally pass laws based on their subjective opinion about what constitutes "natural" acting like it has some quantifiable meaning or actual application that isn't entirely subjective (ie recent GMO labeling law). We shouldn't be defining our terms or basing our laws on things like that.

I would agree with all that.

Edit: though it's pretty off subject for my comment which was in response to the comment from @lemurcat12 that said: "claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to <snip>. It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever"

I was just wondering why that particular term had to be black and white. Would the same be true of other diet terms. For example, if I say I eat low carb would that mean I had to eat low carb 100% of the time?

Yes. You also can't be vegan 5 days of the week, if you eat meat or use animal products at all, you're not vegan.

But I can eat vegan 5 days a week. My diet can be vegan 5 days a week. We are talking diets here, right? Not lifestyles.

Plant based vs. vegan thing aside, maybe when someone asks if anyone is into "clean eating" we should ask what percentage entitles one to be a "clean eater" in that person's view, as well as what foods are not clean.

I'm thinking (again) that being a "clean eater" just means that you enjoy calling yourself one. Why people make the label so significant, I dunno, but I think part of it (and with some other things, like paleo, LCHF) is that people find it easier to stick to ways of eating if they make it into an us against them kind of club.

Need2Exerc1se

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

wanzik wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.

Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.

A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.

This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.

Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.

Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.

Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.

Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.

Why does it have to be so black and white? Who made that rule?

It doesn't have to be, it can be subjective...but if its subjective then obviously its just your opinion and you can't act like your opinion about word meaning somehow applies to everyone and everything. You should not define terms on the basis of subjective opinion so that comes back to the idea of clean eating being overly vague. If you base something not on black and white terminology then you end up with some wishy-washy vague guideline that means completely different things to different people.

I get irritated that people get our (the United States) congress to literally pass laws based on their subjective opinion about what constitutes "natural" acting like it has some quantifiable meaning or actual application that isn't entirely subjective (ie recent GMO labeling law). We shouldn't be defining our terms or basing our laws on things like that.

I would agree with all that.

Edit: though it's pretty off subject for my comment which was in response to the comment from @lemurcat12 that said: "claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to <snip>. It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever"

I was just wondering why that particular term had to be black and white. Would the same be true of other diet terms. For example, if I say I eat low carb would that mean I had to eat low carb 100% of the time?

Yes. You also can't be vegan 5 days of the week, if you eat meat or use animal products at all, you're not vegan.

But I can eat vegan 5 days a week. My diet can be vegan 5 days a week. We are talking diets here, right? Not lifestyles.

Plant based vs. vegan thing aside, maybe when someone asks if anyone is into "clean eating" we should ask what percentage entitles one to be a "clean eater" in that person's view, as well as what foods are not clean.

I'm thinking (again) that being a "clean eater" just means that you enjoy calling yourself one. Why people make the label so significant, I dunno, but I think part of it (and with some other things, like paleo, LCHF) is that people find it easier to stick to ways of eating if they make it into an us against them kind of club.

"Us against them"?? I see very little of that from people who say they eat clean. IME it's much more from those that dislike the term than from those that use it to describe their WOE.

Need2Exerc1se

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

wanzik wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.

Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.

A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.

This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.

Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.

Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.

Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.

Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.

Why does it have to be so black and white? Who made that rule?

This is my understanding when I ask people on MFP what they mean by "clean eating." It is also my understanding from the various challenges and clean plans that get mentioned sometimes: NO whatever.

If it's about mostly trying to eat healthfully and from whole foods, it's pretty much how I eat, so why the special name and claim that they eat so differently?

I can see it being all or nothing during a challenge. That's pretty much the nature of the challenge, but if it was all or nothing all of the time all the time, why would there be a need for the challenge? In looking at open diaries of clean eaters, I'd say very few do it all the time.

I think the challenge is supposed to be for people trying out "clean eating." I agree with the last sentence, of course, but I think a lot of those people have different definitions of "clean" and don't realize that Chipotle or protein powder or boxed cereal or bread or whatever doesn't fit their proclaimed "no processed food diet."

Why the special name? I guess the same reason for anything that has a special name. For distinction. For definition. What makes "clean eating" more special than "healthy eating"?

I'm just going by people here. People who claim to "clean eat" insist that they are doing something different than many of us who just focus on eating mostly from whole foods, generally healthfully, so on, and in particular that eating a "healthy diet" isn't good enough, that for health it's important to cut out whatever the bad foods are supposed to be.

I find it a hindrance to communication. If someone asks "is anyone here a clean eater?" I don't know what they mean. Looking at diaries, I think I probably fit what some of them are thinking of (not because I do it to lose weight, but just that's how I eat), but if I say that I'm not cutting out foods but focus on whole foods and nutrition and am interested in sharing ideas, I get comments about how people who aren't "clean eating" are promoting daily fast food or some such nonsense. I mean, I'm pretty sure I'd be unwelcome in the clean eating group (and when I've peeked in in the past there were discussions about how people in the general forums eat so poorly and don't care about nutrition), but the fact I don't care for the term doesn't mean that I don't care about nutrition. If "clean" isn't about weight loss and isn't about nutrition and isn't really even about having a whole foods based diet unless you are 100% (which I know from trying to do at one point doesn't work for me and which I can't think of any good reason for other than personal preference), then what's it supposed to be about?

I would imagine it's about different things to different people. In my life when I've known someone to use it, it's been about health.

lemurcat12

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

wanzik wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.

Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.

A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.

This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.

Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.

Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.

Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.

Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.

Why does it have to be so black and white? Who made that rule?

It doesn't have to be, it can be subjective...but if its subjective then obviously its just your opinion and you can't act like your opinion about word meaning somehow applies to everyone and everything. You should not define terms on the basis of subjective opinion so that comes back to the idea of clean eating being overly vague. If you base something not on black and white terminology then you end up with some wishy-washy vague guideline that means completely different things to different people.

I get irritated that people get our (the United States) congress to literally pass laws based on their subjective opinion about what constitutes "natural" acting like it has some quantifiable meaning or actual application that isn't entirely subjective (ie recent GMO labeling law). We shouldn't be defining our terms or basing our laws on things like that.

I would agree with all that.

Edit: though it's pretty off subject for my comment which was in response to the comment from @lemurcat12 that said: "claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to <snip>. It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever"

I was just wondering why that particular term had to be black and white. Would the same be true of other diet terms. For example, if I say I eat low carb would that mean I had to eat low carb 100% of the time?

Yes. You also can't be vegan 5 days of the week, if you eat meat or use animal products at all, you're not vegan.

But I can eat vegan 5 days a week. My diet can be vegan 5 days a week. We are talking diets here, right? Not lifestyles.

Plant based vs. vegan thing aside, maybe when someone asks if anyone is into "clean eating" we should ask what percentage entitles one to be a "clean eater" in that person's view, as well as what foods are not clean.

I'm thinking (again) that being a "clean eater" just means that you enjoy calling yourself one. Why people make the label so significant, I dunno, but I think part of it (and with some other things, like paleo, LCHF) is that people find it easier to stick to ways of eating if they make it into an us against them kind of club.

"Us against them"?? I see very little of that from people who say they eat clean. IME it's much more from those that dislike the term than from those that use it to describe their WOE.

I know it might be me, but this desire to label people as "clean eaters" and others, to have special clean eating groups and the like, just the desire to label yourself as separate and eating some special, different way, even though in reality you eat like many of the rest of us, feels like a tribalistic thing. I do think some of the power of these labels is that it's an added incentive to eat a way that you want to be eating -- you make it into a group thing and not just how you eat.

Some of this, admittedly, is because I used to lurk in the "clean eating" group -- so sue me, I think I should have common cause with many of those people and be able to talk about things of common interest like nutrition and CSAs and gardening or whatever -- and there were lots of posts about how crappy non "clean eaters" ate and how badly gen pop in the forums eat and how we are supposedly promoting terrible diets.

That felt rather us and them.

I don't care for the term, but I don't think I'm negative about people who try to eat more whole food (even exclusively, if they want, although that didn't work for me). I am interested in discussions with them and encouraging each other and all of that. It's the "clean eaters only" thing that strikes me as divisive.

In commenting that I dislike the term I try to be clear that I'm not slamming the person or how they eat (which often is more like me than what they claim "clean" is supposed to mean). So I don't agree that anyone is anti "clean eater."