What is 'clean' eating??
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
This entire part of the conversation started when someone said that their definition of "clean eating" was avoiding things that were manmade. If you see no significance in the differences between "natural" and "manmade" foods, then we agree that following this guidelines is pointless.
I think that following rules for eating, when there is no significance to those rules and no benefit to be found, *can* distract people from taking steps that can clearly improve either their success at weight management (if that is a goal) or their health. There are ways people can improve their diets, guidelines that have significance and differences between food choices (in the context of overall diet) that have a bearing on overall health.
Differences between "made," "manipulated," and "natural" foods aren't in this category.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
This entire part of the conversation started when someone said that their definition of "clean eating" was avoiding things that were manmade. If you see no significance in the differences between "natural" and "manmade" foods, then we agree that following this guidelines is pointless.
I think that following rules for eating, when there is no significance to those rules and no benefit to be found, *can* distract people from taking steps that can clearly improve either their success at weight management (if that is a goal) or their health. There are ways people can improve their diets, guidelines that have significance and differences between food choices (in the context of overall diet) that have a bearing on overall health.
Differences between "made," "manipulated," and "natural" foods aren't in this category.
That's fair. I don't think it's up to me to determine what is pointless to others. If they want to eat clean it's perfectly fine with me. If they want to limit foods based on number of ingredients, I don't care. If the want to only shop the perimeter of their store, I say shop away.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I don't think the statement "more natural" even makes sense so no I did not ask that. Something is either natural or it isn't.
Neither the process of genetic engineering nor the process of agriculture is natural. Both genetic engineering and agriculture use natural processes true but if using natural processes was the definition of natural then a metal sword would be natural. It is the implementation of those natural processes in a specific order that is human engineered and makes them man made.
The definition I am using for natural and not natural is pretty straightforward and I think once stated its easy to see what I would consider natural or not. It does not have a "manipulated" in there that is grey and hard to define. I legitimately did not know whether you would consider genetically engineered foods to be natural or man made based on your definition.
Things that are natural are things that would be produced by nature without any human intervention. Things that are man made are things that are produced via human intervention that otherwise would not have occured in nature. So in my view corn is man made, it is not natural. Corn arose from human intervention, it did not occur naturally and it would not occur naturally. The fish we eat are natural, they exist in nature without our influence. If we farm them that doesn't suddenly make them man made, you take a farmed salmon and toss it in the wild and it would probably do alright. You do that with corn and it wouldn't last a season. Things that are genetically engineered, also not natural..but not "more" or "less" natural than agriculture...to me they are equivalent...one is just a more modern technique.3 -
Need2Exerc1se 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.
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.
"Beginnings of the movement" doesn't mean anyone was using the term "clean eating." Approaches to food and health were definitely changing -- "Diet for a small planet" and other similar books talked about eating more "natural" foods, and then by the 70s the vegetarian movement was booming. But a lot of what was considered "natural foods" at that point were still not what anyone today would consider "clean," and that's just not what they were calling it. They were making granola and substituting carob for chocolate and making vegetarian dishes that used pounds of cheese in place of the meat. Processing wheat gluten into seitan and chowing down on tofu and making casseroles of cornmeal -- all things that are anathema to many "clean eaters" today.0 -
If anyone is frothing for more about the history of apples (and three other plants), Michael Pollan's "The Botany of Desire" is enjoyable.2
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.
Which is lacking..
I guess some could say "my diet is better than yours", referencing above poster that it is just something to make people feel superior about their food choices....
I guess I could say something off the wall like, I don't eat dirty food off the floor.. or do I?
Five second rule...Aaron_K123 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
I like vitupritive but no one ever uses it.
People make fun of you if you do.
0 -
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I like vitupritive but no one ever uses it.
That's because it's 'vituperative' not 'vitupritive'.
*ducks and runs quickly out of the room in a zig-zag pattern* 5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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!
@GottaBurnEmAll - nope. I merely posted that so I would be able to find this thread again.
I gave up this argument and, "Is milk bad for you?" and, "I'm addicted to sugar," and "Are 1200 calories enough, what about starvation mode?" and, "Veganism is the only way, think of the baby animals," and ...
ok.
I could go on. This ceased being an interesting discussion sometime during the last Bush presidency. It does amuse me how people will cut an entire two acre yard using nail clippers, though. Details, every last tiny one.
1 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I like vitupritive but no one ever uses it.
That's because it's 'vituperative' not 'vitupritive'.
*ducks and runs quickly out of the room in a zig-zag pattern*
*KITTEN*2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I like vitupritive but no one ever uses it.
That's because it's 'vituperative' not 'vitupritive'.
*ducks and runs quickly out of the room in a zig-zag pattern*
*KITTEN*
But you know now. That's what counts. 
2 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I like vitupritive but no one ever uses it.
That's because it's 'vituperative' not 'vitupritive'.
*ducks and runs quickly out of the room in a zig-zag pattern*
Hey, he's a molecular biologist, not an English professor!
2 -
Anvil_Head wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I like vitupritive but no one ever uses it.
That's because it's 'vituperative' not 'vitupritive'.
*ducks and runs quickly out of the room in a zig-zag pattern*
Hey, he's a molecular biologist, not an English professor!
2 -
Anvil_Head wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I like vitupritive but no one ever uses it.
That's because it's 'vituperative' not 'vitupritive'.
*ducks and runs quickly out of the room in a zig-zag pattern*
Hey, he's a molecular biologist, not an English professor!
Yeah...that is my Mom.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I like vitupritive but no one ever uses it.
That's because it's 'vituperative' not 'vitupritive'.
*ducks and runs quickly out of the room in a zig-zag pattern*
Hey, he's a molecular biologist, not an English professor!
Yeah...that is my Mom.
We won't tell her you misspelled 'vituperative'.
1 -
Chilli7777 wrote: »The amount of morons on this thread is alarming.
Is that including yourself
Also you haven't clarified your 5 item statement am still curious2 -
Chilli7777 wrote: »The amount of morons on this thread is alarming.
I dunno. We've got a molecular biologist, at least a couple organic chemists and several other people who are pretty well versed in nutrition and research, with or without degrees. I'd say we're batting above average for an MFP thread.8 -
A lot of commercially grown fruit is from grafted trees. The scion of the target tree is grafted onto the stock of another tree, especially common in apple farming.
Carrots are orange due to competition between Dutch farmers to grow a patriotic carrot.
Agriculture and horticulture are full of examples of man made products. Still nutritious and healthy.2 -
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.
Yeah, I was a child and teenager in the 60s and 70s, and ate at a food co-op run by hippy types frequently in the early and mid 80s, and the term I heard in those decades was "natural foods," generally referring to what we would call whole foods now. The closest I remember to hearing anyone talk about clean foods in those decades was mothers telling small children "don't put that in your mouth--it's dirty." Generally they were referring to something the child had picked up off the ground, or some non-food item that had been handled by lots of people without being washed. They were never talking about the nutritional or health aspects of a food based on how processed it was or how many ingredients it contained.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I like vitupritive but no one ever uses it.
That's because it's 'vituperative' not 'vitupritive'.
*ducks and runs quickly out of the room in a zig-zag pattern*
Hey, he's a molecular biologist, not an English professor!
Yeah...that is my Mom.
I soooo want to make a "your mom" joke right now.2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6H2edyPLU8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions