Looking for new friends who quit sugar/eat clean :)

24

Replies

  • MarianMarMoi
    MarianMarMoi Posts: 87 Member
    edited December 2017
    RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »
    Not silly at all. the majority of people have a trigger food that they struggle to eat moderately.

    Mine is fresh crusty white bread smothered in salted butter. I have to just buy a single roll now and again.

    That sounds so good, though, almost forgot that I was hungry before I read that!

    Is trigger food the common name for that here? I suppose I have quite a few of those, like all those I mentioned, maybe it wasn't in this thread I mentioned them though, but I suppose "salty things" sums it up.
  • MarianMarMoi
    MarianMarMoi Posts: 87 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MarianMarMoi wrote: »
    RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »
    -
    Being a normal weight is the main indicator to good health.
    -

    I'm sorry but I will have to question this part. The only thing being normal weight means is that you eat the right amount of calories. I am normal weight and I've mainly eaten potato crisps for the past years. Even if this doesn't cause me to gain weight, do you think I'm healthy?

    Of course everyone choose what they want to eat, but completely denying that some foods are not healthy is not right.

    Nutrition is, IMO, important, but if you are obese, the number one thing you can do to improve health is probably losing weight. (I know you are not, but you are kind of jumping into another thread, and OP is and said she was trying to lose.)

    The second is probably getting active, if you aren't already. So all the obsession with one diet vs. another beyond "what makes it easier for me to sustain a healthy weight" tends to be overdone.

    I am actually pretty focused on healthy eating, since I think it helps me sustain a healthy weight and feel good, and because I think it is, also, important.

    Bigger point is that "healthy eating" is not "clean eating." As I normally understand "clean eating" (although there are about a million different definitions) is a focus on eliminating certain foods 100% (often added sugar, but not honey, which makes no sense, and often added sugar in absolutely any quantities, which also makes no sense -- if I want to add a bit of sugar to a rhubarb sauce or cranberry sauce made with fresh cranberries, that is going to end up still with less sugar and more fiber than an apple, so why does the added sugar make it BAD?). Other than sugar, the ingredients/foods eliminated vary so that there is no commonality, but often grains, potatoes, meat, dairy, etc.

    There is also a weird obsession with "processing" being bad, often without an understanding of what "processing" is. Something that is processed may have lots of problematic ingredients added (in terms of calories or nutrients or health effects), but so may something cooked at home. Many technically processed foods are ones that most would accept as healthful -- cottage cheese, smoked salmon, canned beans (low sodium), dried pasta (let's assume whole grain), Ezekial bread, skinless, boneless chicken breast, canned sardines, olive oil, so on.

    That is all why I consider myself really into healthy eating, but not a clean eater, personally, even though my main meals would often be considered "clean" by those who are into "clean eating." I've never added sugar to meals, don't eat much packaged or premade stuff, enjoy cooking from scratch.

    Someone can probably be a clean eater and eat lots of chips, btw, if you make them at home (depending on the definition), and someone who eats a diet mostly based on chips (which I don't think anyone does, probably) has a problem due to the lack of a healthy diet, based on poor nutrition, not because the diet is not clean. IMO, focusing on nutrition or eating a healthy diet requires a focus on what you do eat (like vegetables, protein, healthy fats) and how much, and is not generally about eliminating specific ingredients alone or really about processing (if it's easier for me to eat well if I occasionally get canned beans and tinned fish and smoked salmon and dried pasta and a premade spice mix, why would "clean eating" inherently be an improvement?).

    This are just things to think about, and I am genuinely curious about the answer. I don't think it's really related to OP's post, and that's why I asked her what she was interested in and suggested that my own eating patterns might mean we could exchange ideas and recipes even though I am not a self-identified clean eater (since I am interested in nutrition, cook from scratch, etc.).

    As for why "clean eating" sets people off, I tend to think it's the use of the term "clean" which isn't really a sensible term and suggests that if you eat some smoked salmon or a cookie your diet is dirty or unclean or whatever (I have opinions myself on the links between cleanliness/purity and both diet and morality, but again probably not worth getting into here).

    Personally I've decided that many people just (weirdly, to my mind) use "clean" to mean "nutrition conscious" and when they are I am probably on the same page with them (as are many of the people who objected to the term clean and mentioned calories), since I am very nutrition conscious and interested in talking about nutrition.

    OP seems to be interested in losing weight, btw, and why "clean eating" is working for her is that she has reduced calories eating that way and found a way of eating that is for now satisfying. If the restrictions aren't a problem for her, I think that's great. (My diet tends to be whole foods based not because I "gave up" other foods, but just because that's how I prefer to eat.)

    Anyway, sorry to go on so long, but I thought I'd try to answer some of the things that you seemed to find confusing about this thread.

    I've realised that there seems to be a million different definitions of "clean eating" after having this discussion. In my head it is pretty much the same as eating things that you yourself cook from scratch. Now, I won't eliminate everything processed, but some things will go. This is not because I think they're ultimately "bad" for you, it is because I don't want to eat them. My goal with it is mainly to eat a lot more vegetables and to cook my own food, make my own sauces, know exactly what I put in it and finally: learn how to cook. I don't view this as a diet, it's more of a lifestyle change to me. Eventually I hope that I'm good enough at cooking that I can adapt after the seasons to be a bit more environmentally friendly, but maybe that's another level of silly :tongue:


    Ofc I realise that someone that is overweight probably has as main goal to lose weight for their healths sake. I think I reacted poorly to that part, that being normal weight is the main indicator of health, since I have never been completely healthy in my entire life, but since I've never been overweight I suddenly have that main indicator of health. It just hit me the wrong way. Sorry about that.
    What I wrote in that post wasn't really related to the "clean eating" (btw, I do find that to be an odd word to use as well, makes me picture glossy food).


    The sugar discussion I can't say much about. I've never been that into sweet things. I do eat fruit, but mainly for the other things they contain + the fact that we have so many apple trees around here.

    Quitting with crisps (and things I tend to replace crisps with when I'm out of crisps) is not related to the "clean eating", it's just me changing what I eat.


    Maybe I should have stayed more on topic in this thread :sweat_smile:

    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Oh, to clarify one other thing (more briefly), one thing that tends to bug people is opposing "clean eating" to "CICO" and I think that's what started this thread on a sidetrack.

    I lost a lot of weight due to keeping CI below CO, and did so whether or not I counted calories (which I did) and whether or not my diet was "clean" (which it probably was, according to most definitions I've seen, even though I didn't do some "clean eating" program, it's just how I like to eat).

    Saying CICO is what matters does not mean you are saying "ignore nutrition" or eating a poor diet or eating a less nutritious diet than someone who claims to be into "clean eating."

    Does that help clarify?

    I don't think I understood that part of the discussion at all, so thank you for explaining!
  • GemstoneofHeart
    GemstoneofHeart Posts: 865 Member
    MarianMarMoi wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MarianMarMoi wrote: »
    RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »
    -
    Being a normal weight is the main indicator to good health.
    -

    I'm sorry but I will have to question this part. The only thing being normal weight means is that you eat the right amount of calories. I am normal weight and I've mainly eaten potato crisps for the past years. Even if this doesn't cause me to gain weight, do you think I'm healthy?

    Of course everyone choose what they want to eat, but completely denying that some foods are not healthy is not right.

    Nutrition is, IMO, important, but if you are obese, the number one thing you can do to improve health is probably losing weight. (I know you are not, but you are kind of jumping into another thread, and OP is and said she was trying to lose.)

    The second is probably getting active, if you aren't already. So all the obsession with one diet vs. another beyond "what makes it easier for me to sustain a healthy weight" tends to be overdone.

    I am actually pretty focused on healthy eating, since I think it helps me sustain a healthy weight and feel good, and because I think it is, also, important.

    Bigger point is that "healthy eating" is not "clean eating." As I normally understand "clean eating" (although there are about a million different definitions) is a focus on eliminating certain foods 100% (often added sugar, but not honey, which makes no sense, and often added sugar in absolutely any quantities, which also makes no sense -- if I want to add a bit of sugar to a rhubarb sauce or cranberry sauce made with fresh cranberries, that is going to end up still with less sugar and more fiber than an apple, so why does the added sugar make it BAD?). Other than sugar, the ingredients/foods eliminated vary so that there is no commonality, but often grains, potatoes, meat, dairy, etc.

    There is also a weird obsession with "processing" being bad, often without an understanding of what "processing" is. Something that is processed may have lots of problematic ingredients added (in terms of calories or nutrients or health effects), but so may something cooked at home. Many technically processed foods are ones that most would accept as healthful -- cottage cheese, smoked salmon, canned beans (low sodium), dried pasta (let's assume whole grain), Ezekial bread, skinless, boneless chicken breast, canned sardines, olive oil, so on.

    That is all why I consider myself really into healthy eating, but not a clean eater, personally, even though my main meals would often be considered "clean" by those who are into "clean eating." I've never added sugar to meals, don't eat much packaged or premade stuff, enjoy cooking from scratch.

    Someone can probably be a clean eater and eat lots of chips, btw, if you make them at home (depending on the definition), and someone who eats a diet mostly based on chips (which I don't think anyone does, probably) has a problem due to the lack of a healthy diet, based on poor nutrition, not because the diet is not clean. IMO, focusing on nutrition or eating a healthy diet requires a focus on what you do eat (like vegetables, protein, healthy fats) and how much, and is not generally about eliminating specific ingredients alone or really about processing (if it's easier for me to eat well if I occasionally get canned beans and tinned fish and smoked salmon and dried pasta and a premade spice mix, why would "clean eating" inherently be an improvement?).

    This are just things to think about, and I am genuinely curious about the answer. I don't think it's really related to OP's post, and that's why I asked her what she was interested in and suggested that my own eating patterns might mean we could exchange ideas and recipes even though I am not a self-identified clean eater (since I am interested in nutrition, cook from scratch, etc.).

    As for why "clean eating" sets people off, I tend to think it's the use of the term "clean" which isn't really a sensible term and suggests that if you eat some smoked salmon or a cookie your diet is dirty or unclean or whatever (I have opinions myself on the links between cleanliness/purity and both diet and morality, but again probably not worth getting into here).

    Personally I've decided that many people just (weirdly, to my mind) use "clean" to mean "nutrition conscious" and when they are I am probably on the same page with them (as are many of the people who objected to the term clean and mentioned calories), since I am very nutrition conscious and interested in talking about nutrition.

    OP seems to be interested in losing weight, btw, and why "clean eating" is working for her is that she has reduced calories eating that way and found a way of eating that is for now satisfying. If the restrictions aren't a problem for her, I think that's great. (My diet tends to be whole foods based not because I "gave up" other foods, but just because that's how I prefer to eat.)

    Anyway, sorry to go on so long, but I thought I'd try to answer some of the things that you seemed to find confusing about this thread.

    I've realised that there seems to be a million different definitions of "clean eating" after having this discussion. In my head it is pretty much the same as eating things that you yourself cook from scratch. Now, I won't eliminate everything processed, but some things will go. This is not because I think they're ultimately "bad" for you, it is because I don't want to eat them. My goal with it is mainly to eat a lot more vegetables and to cook my own food, make my own sauces, know exactly what I put in it and finally: learn how to cook. I don't view this as a diet, it's more of a lifestyle change to me. Eventually I hope that I'm good enough at cooking that I can adapt after the seasons to be a bit more environmentally friendly, but maybe that's another level of silly :tongue:


    Ofc I realise that someone that is overweight probably has as main goal to lose weight for their healths sake. I think I reacted poorly to that part, that being normal weight is the main indicator of health, since I have never been completely healthy in my entire life, but since I've never been overweight I suddenly have that main indicator of health. It just hit me the wrong way. Sorry about that.
    What I wrote in that post wasn't really related to the "clean eating" (btw, I do find that to be an odd word to use as well, makes me picture glossy food).


    The sugar discussion I can't say much about. I've never been that into sweet things. I do eat fruit, but mainly for the other things they contain + the fact that we have so many apple trees around here.

    Quitting with crisps (and things I tend to replace crisps with when I'm out of crisps) is not related to the "clean eating", it's just me changing what I eat.


    Maybe I should have stayed more on topic in this thread :sweat_smile:

    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Oh, to clarify one other thing (more briefly), one thing that tends to bug people is opposing "clean eating" to "CICO" and I think that's what started this thread on a sidetrack.

    I lost a lot of weight due to keeping CI below CO, and did so whether or not I counted calories (which I did) and whether or not my diet was "clean" (which it probably was, according to most definitions I've seen, even though I didn't do some "clean eating" program, it's just how I like to eat).

    Saying CICO is what matters does not mean you are saying "ignore nutrition" or eating a poor diet or eating a less nutritious diet than someone who claims to be into "clean eating."

    Does that help clarify?

    I don't think I understood that part of the discussion at all, so thank you for explaining!

    Just a quick follow up question for you (even though you kinda hijacked this thread from the OP), you say you cook everything from scratch at home, therefore you say it is “not processed” or “clean”.

    Do you cook with flour at all?

    Flour is one of the hallmarks of “processed”
  • megpie41
    megpie41 Posts: 164 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MarianMarMoi wrote: »
    RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »
    -
    Being a normal weight is the main indicator to good health.
    -

    I'm sorry but I will have to question this part. The only thing being normal weight means is that you eat the right amount of calories. I am normal weight and I've mainly eaten potato crisps for the past years. Even if this doesn't cause me to gain weight, do you think I'm healthy?

    Of course everyone choose what they want to eat, but completely denying that some foods are not healthy is not right.

    Nutrition is, IMO, important, but if you are obese, the number one thing you can do to improve health is probably losing weight. (I know you are not, but you are kind of jumping into another thread, and OP is and said she was trying to lose.)

    The second is probably getting active, if you aren't already. So all the obsession with one diet vs. another beyond "what makes it easier for me to sustain a healthy weight" tends to be overdone.

    I am actually pretty focused on healthy eating, since I think it helps me sustain a healthy weight and feel good, and because I think it is, also, important.

    Bigger point is that "healthy eating" is not "clean eating." As I normally understand "clean eating" (although there are about a million different definitions) is a focus on eliminating certain foods 100% (often added sugar, but not honey, which makes no sense, and often added sugar in absolutely any quantities, which also makes no sense -- if I want to add a bit of sugar to a rhubarb sauce or cranberry sauce made with fresh cranberries, that is going to end up still with less sugar and more fiber than an apple, so why does the added sugar make it BAD?). Other than sugar, the ingredients/foods eliminated vary so that there is no commonality, but often grains, potatoes, meat, dairy, etc.

    There is also a weird obsession with "processing" being bad, often without an understanding of what "processing" is. Something that is processed may have lots of problematic ingredients added (in terms of calories or nutrients or health effects), but so may something cooked at home. Many technically processed foods are ones that most would accept as healthful -- cottage cheese, smoked salmon, canned beans (low sodium), dried pasta (let's assume whole grain), Ezekial bread, skinless, boneless chicken breast, canned sardines, olive oil, so on.

    That is all why I consider myself really into healthy eating, but not a clean eater, personally, even though my main meals would often be considered "clean" by those who are into "clean eating." I've never added sugar to meals, don't eat much packaged or premade stuff, enjoy cooking from scratch.

    Someone can probably be a clean eater and eat lots of chips, btw, if you make them at home (depending on the definition), and someone who eats a diet mostly based on chips (which I don't think anyone does, probably) has a problem due to the lack of a healthy diet, based on poor nutrition, not because the diet is not clean. IMO, focusing on nutrition or eating a healthy diet requires a focus on what you do eat (like vegetables, protein, healthy fats) and how much, and is not generally about eliminating specific ingredients alone or really about processing (if it's easier for me to eat well if I occasionally get canned beans and tinned fish and smoked salmon and dried pasta and a premade spice mix, why would "clean eating" inherently be an improvement?).

    This are just things to think about, and I am genuinely curious about the answer. I don't think it's really related to OP's post, and that's why I asked her what she was interested in and suggested that my own eating patterns might mean we could exchange ideas and recipes even though I am not a self-identified clean eater (since I am interested in nutrition, cook from scratch, etc.).

    As for why "clean eating" sets people off, I tend to think it's the use of the term "clean" which isn't really a sensible term and suggests that if you eat some smoked salmon or a cookie your diet is dirty or unclean or whatever (I have opinions myself on the links between cleanliness/purity and both diet and morality, but again probably not worth getting into here).

    Personally I've decided that many people just (weirdly, to my mind) use "clean" to mean "nutrition conscious" and when they are I am probably on the same page with them (as are many of the people who objected to the term clean and mentioned calories), since I am very nutrition conscious and interested in talking about nutrition.

    OP seems to be interested in losing weight, btw, and why "clean eating" is working for her is that she has reduced calories eating that way and found a way of eating that is for now satisfying. If the restrictions aren't a problem for her, I think that's great. (My diet tends to be whole foods based not because I "gave up" other foods, but just because that's how I prefer to eat.)

    Anyway, sorry to go on so long, but I thought I'd try to answer some of the things that you seemed to find confusing about this thread.

    As usual you word things in a very clear way. I agree with what you say and agree that "clean eating" is s term that gets used when nutritious eating would fit better.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories