Learn What it means to "Eat Clean"
Replies
-
No. "Clean" doesn't mean one ingredient only. But I'd choose bread with a handful of pronounceable ingredients over Sara Lee fluffily bread like substance with 20 ingredients I can't pronounce.I'd love to see what meal plans and recipes you have! Also, is wheat bread considered clean? I'm thinking not, right? Are only natural foods (one ingredient) considered "clean". I'm sure I sound like a tool, but hey, it's an honest question. lol
Ezekiel is a good choice.
It's also pretty easy to make bread/rolls, especially if you have a bread maker. I make sweet breads in the oven (this week I made a great cinnamon carrot bread), and then loaves and rolls in my bread maker. We rarely eat loaf bread though, since my kid's prefer their school lunch sandwiches to be on rolls for some reason lol.
^^ Um. I don't think that means what you think it means.
Just had to google it lol. Yeah, in my family it means breads with fruit/nuts etc and not breads made wiith cow/lamb pancreas 0 -
You'd have to see my cultural foods list. High sodium, fried, and dripping with saturated fats. And bodybuilding prepping hasn't changed much since the 80's. It's still basically high protein, low carb and no added salts, sugar, etc.
Prepping for a contest (in the 80s no less) is a bit different. I've seen friends prep (in the 90s primarily). Eliminating cultural foods wouldn't be a goal of anyone I know who "eats clean". Foods that have been passed down from one's culture ARE typically minimally processed foods. If my family were of Mexican heritage, for example, why would I need to remove traditional Mexican foods to eat clean? I may decide not to eat the fast food version of those foods... but can't think of any traditional mexican food I'd need to dump. Unless I'm misunderstanding you...Being that I competed in the 80's, I learned what it means to eat "clean". It basically meant restriction from foods I actually like and foods from my culture when prepping for a contest. I'm not willing to keep that type of restriction for life. I've basically kept the same physique (but not at single digits on bodyfat) eating basically anything I want, but meeting my macros/micros and being aware of calorie intake. If those that want to eat the way like it, more power to them, but saying by not eating clean that people won't achieve goals or feel like crap is subjective. There's also lots of broscience that the OP touts, so take it for what it's worth.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
You still cut calories, but the main restriction came down to carbs and adding much of anything to food. I like soy sauce, but that's a no since it helps to retain water and "blurs" out definition. As for energy, I really didn't notice a lot of reduction since my attitude was that I was always up for training.Being that I competed in the 80's, I learned what it means to eat "clean". It basically meant restriction from foods I actually like and foods from my culture when prepping for a contest. I'm not willing to keep that type of restriction for life. I've basically kept the same physique (but not at single digits on bodyfat) eating basically anything I want, but meeting my macros/micros and being aware of calorie intake. If those that want to eat the way like it, more power to them, but saying by not eating clean that people won't achieve goals or feel like crap is subjective. There's also lots of broscience that the OP touts, so take it for what it's worth.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Now this is interesting to me. What changes did you make to your diet for competitions and what effect did they have on your physique? Did you knock out whole food groups, like diary? If so, what did you eat instead to keep your energy up?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Damn, I was hoping there was a Stevia shrub I could plant in my garden. Then I could harvest Stevia packets, content in the knowledge that I am so much better than all those plebes who eat bread and chemicals.
You asked - so here you go: http://seedrack.com/indiv/stevia.html?gclid=CK-65uyD1bkCFeIRMwodJkIAHg
And here's how to use the fresh leaves as sweetner:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/use-stevia-leaves-6944.html
So again...what makes stevia extract (which is processed using ethanol or methanol) more clean than sugar cane extract?
eta: my point being: Stevia is a plant, sure. So is sugar cane. The labeling of something as 'processed' or 'clean' is just completely arbitrary and seemingly based on current trends. Sugar cane has to be processed. It can also be used raw. Same for Stevia, but one is touted and the other demonized.
I didn't say that stevia as found in the store is less processed than refined white or brown sugar. This person just asked to be able to grow it in their front yard, so I provided the link to the seeds. If you want to grow sugar cane in your front yard or sugar beets go for that too. What you do with that information is up to you. And for the record, I don't like the taste of Stevia. Nor do I think it is less processed from other refined sweetners, although it does have different properties from refined sugar in how it reacts in the body (i.e. doesn't raise blood sugar levels).0 -
...may be laced with HFCS...
HFCS is nutritionally no different than honey.
What is your source for this info? I believe it is different. I believe different honeys even vary nutritionally.
I take it back - since the food item in question was a baked good, those typically use HFCS-42, which actually has a superior glucose-fructose ratio than honey.
Neither is a whole food, both are processed foods, both are basically pure sugar. Now, if you wanted to talk about eating actual *honeycomb*, then there might be something there...
PS Someone mentioned Stevia - Stevia the sweetener is not a whole food, it is a processed, manufactured product, and any definition of "clean" that includes Stevia must also include HFCS.
While there may be processed honey, honey is natural. and natural honey is a clean food. HFCS is not. I do not believe they are same nutritionally, but even if they were it wouldn't change the fact that one is clean and one is not. Clean is about "natural" foods, not nutritional content.0 -
New Mexican? ;-)
You'd have to see my cultural foods list. High sodium, fried, and dripping with saturated fats. And bodybuilding prepping hasn't changed much since the 80's. It's still basically high protein, low carb and no added salts, sugar, etc.
Prepping for a contest (in the 80s no less) is a bit different. I've seen friends prep (in the 90s primarily). Eliminating cultural foods wouldn't be a goal of anyone I know who "eats clean". Foods that have been passed down from one's culture ARE typically minimally processed foods. If my family were of Mexican heritage, for example, why would I need to remove traditional Mexican foods to eat clean? I may decide not to eat the fast food version of those foods... but can't think of any traditional mexican food I'd need to dump. Unless I'm misunderstanding you...Being that I competed in the 80's, I learned what it means to eat "clean". It basically meant restriction from foods I actually like and foods from my culture when prepping for a contest. I'm not willing to keep that type of restriction for life. I've basically kept the same physique (but not at single digits on bodyfat) eating basically anything I want, but meeting my macros/micros and being aware of calorie intake. If those that want to eat the way like it, more power to them, but saying by not eating clean that people won't achieve goals or feel like crap is subjective. There's also lots of broscience that the OP touts, so take it for what it's worth.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Well, doesn't sound too healthy as a day to day diet, but as with all things, moderation is key.
To me, eating clean isn't high protein, low carb, no added salt. (sounds like it's all about dropping water weight?)
I eat tons of carbs. I eat moderate protein, and Salt is my go to condiment.
I do limit added sugar (and won't eat HFCS if I know it's in there. Tough these days)0 -
Sure they are. Or rather they can be. This is not binary. It's not: live off the grid and grow your own hemp pants or nothing.I was put on a "clean" eating regimen 6 weeks ago when the Dr took me off my Cholesterol Medication because it was causing my joints and muscles severe pain. I eat all plant food and fish... I do eat a yogurt and eggwhites but other than that it's all clean healthy eating. It was hard at first but now it's just habit and I have no desire to eat the crap or junk food. I don't eat processed foods, breads, meats or pasta... I do however, love pizza and will cheat once in a great while and have a slice or two and wash it down with a couple beers. I am by no means perfect but I am feeling much better, my skin feels good and I am sleeping like a rock!! Oh and yeah I lost 17.4lbs in 6 weeks so I am all for Clean Eating and would LOVE some recipes and meal plans if you care to share, so friend me if you want!
Thanks!
Kelly
So egg whites and yogurt aren't even considered "Clean"? :huh:
Not unless you have some chickens & cows in your backyard!
I wouldn't eat Gogurt. Or the super sweet HFCS sweetened yogurts. But I eat yogurt all the time.
I eat eggs. All the time. I aim for buying eggs from my local co-op.0 -
As opposed to the donut patrol? who feels the need to launch into EVERY "clean eating" thread and go on and on about donuts and pizza (I eat pizza, btw)?How can you tell someone is a "Clean Eater"?
Don't worry - they'll tell you.
The "iifym" crowd is just as sanctimonious by and large as the "clean eaters".
In the end, it all comes to personal preference, and to what EACH OF US thinks will sustain us for life, as well as what is sustainable by us.
IIFYM may work great as a lifestyle approach for some. And so-called "clean eating" (I hate that term) may work for others. It works for me. I've been at maintenance for 12 years.0 -
Yes. It is 100% based on the naturalistic fallacy. which is why it is a ridiculous idea.Clean is about "natural" foods, not nutritional content.0 -
OP: for what it's worth there IS a "clean eating" group. If your aim is to support and be supported, join us.0
-
And isn't it great you dont have to do it?? YAY For you!!!
Yes. It is 100% based on the naturalistic fallacy. which is why it is a ridiculous idea.Clean is about "natural" foods, not nutritional content.0 -
Yes. It is 100% based on the naturalistic fallacy. which is why it is a ridiculous idea.Clean is about "natural" foods, not nutritional content.
Agreed.0 -
I have never seen any pro-iifym person say any of the following:
As opposed to the donut patrol? who feels the need to launch into EVERY "clean eating" thread and go on and on about donuts and pizza (I eat pizza, btw)?How can you tell someone is a "Clean Eater"?
Don't worry - they'll tell you.
The "iifym" crowd is just as sanctimonious by and large as the "clean eaters".
In the end, it all comes to personal preference, and to what EACH OF US thinks will sustain us for life, as well as what is sustainable by us.
IIFYM may work great as a lifestyle approach for some. And so-called "clean eating" (I hate that term) may work for others. It works for me. I've been at maintenance for 12 years.
-you will get cancer
-wait until you're 70
-my way is the only way anyone can be healthy
However, "clean eating" discussions always devlove into those completely baseless assertions, which are always made from the same 'side.'0 -
And I also don't have to put up with it being promoted to people who are new and trying to learn what is best for them.
And isn't it great you dont have to do it?? YAY For you!!!
Yes. It is 100% based on the naturalistic fallacy. which is why it is a ridiculous idea.Clean is about "natural" foods, not nutritional content.0 -
And I also don't have to put up with it being promoted to people who are new and trying to learn what is best for them.
And isn't it great you dont have to do it?? YAY For you!!!
Yes. It is 100% based on the naturalistic fallacy. which is why it is a ridiculous idea.Clean is about "natural" foods, not nutritional content.
When I am choosing among diet approaches, I want something that gives me a tool to decide what I can and cannot eat and is, at the same time, the least restrictive. Vague notions of "natural," "processed," and "clean" do not do this. Fear of "chemicals" does not do this. WW and beachbody do not do this. IIFYM does. It is clear and concise. Set the macros, abide by the macros, move along. I'd rather not hear so much about neanderthal man, brain fog, dietary intolerances that everyone swears I must have and I could find if I'd just cut this or that out of my diet, the ever present threat that I'll have cancer at 80, toxins without names or the remotest connection to the concept of dosage, or any of the other absolute nonsense. So yes, if a few people like to post pics of Pop Tarts, I'm fine with that. That is at least mildly amusing, though I suppose that the tin foil hat approach is amusing in a different way.0 -
I agree IIFYM gives you pretty clear guidelines. But I have yet to feel convinced that IIFYM and counting and measuring WILL be the answer for many folks in KEEPING THE WEIGHT OFF LONG TERM. Of course it will if folks do it forever. Is that sustainable? Time will tell.
And I also don't have to put up with it being promoted to people who are new and trying to learn what is best for them.
And isn't it great you dont have to do it?? YAY For you!!!
Yes. It is 100% based on the naturalistic fallacy. which is why it is a ridiculous idea.Clean is about "natural" foods, not nutritional content.
When I am choosing among diet approaches, I want something that gives me a tool to decide what I can and cannot eat and is, at the same time, the least restrictive. Vague notions of "natural," "processed," and "clean" do not do this. Fear of "chemicals" does not do this. WW and beachbody do not do this. IIFYM does. It is clear and concise. Set the macros, abide by the macros, move along. I'd rather not hear so much about neanderthal man, brain fog, dietary intolerances that everyone swears I must have and I could find if I'd just cut this or that out of my diet, the ever present threat that I'll have cancer at 80, toxins without names or the remotest connection to the concept of dosage, or any of the other absolute nonsense. So yes, if a few people like to post pics of Pop Tarts, I'm fine with that. That is at least mildly amusing, though I suppose that the tin foil hat approach is amusing in a different way.
I do believe that focusing on whole foods, and aiming for eating diet rich in fresh vegetables and fruits will. If that becomes a lifestyle. Which it did for me.
But yet, folks seem to mock that approach. Openly. My lifestyle was called "sad" on here recently. :laugh:
But again, time will tell with everyone else.
I'm not big on hearing about neanderthal man either. But that's paleo. I'm not paleo. "Clean eating" can be paleo, but isn't by definition paleo.
I believe in offering folks support when they decide to stop eating 30 ingredient bread and cut down or eliminate sodas. I don't see why that's problematic.
I do wonder, often, if I'm talking about my 80% of the time goals, while some others are talking about their 20% treats. Dunno.
I've tried an IIFYM approach, and found it more cumbersome. But again, to each his own.0 -
I agree IIFYM gives you pretty clear guidelines. But I have yet to feel convinced that IIFYM and counting and measuring WILL be the answer for many folks in KEEPING THE WEIGHT OFF LONG TERM. Of course it will if folks do it forever. Is that sustainable? Time will tell.
And I also don't have to put up with it being promoted to people who are new and trying to learn what is best for them.
And isn't it great you dont have to do it?? YAY For you!!!
Yes. It is 100% based on the naturalistic fallacy. which is why it is a ridiculous idea.Clean is about "natural" foods, not nutritional content.
When I am choosing among diet approaches, I want something that gives me a tool to decide what I can and cannot eat and is, at the same time, the least restrictive. Vague notions of "natural," "processed," and "clean" do not do this. Fear of "chemicals" does not do this. WW and beachbody do not do this. IIFYM does. It is clear and concise. Set the macros, abide by the macros, move along. I'd rather not hear so much about neanderthal man, brain fog, dietary intolerances that everyone swears I must have and I could find if I'd just cut this or that out of my diet, the ever present threat that I'll have cancer at 80, toxins without names or the remotest connection to the concept of dosage, or any of the other absolute nonsense. So yes, if a few people like to post pics of Pop Tarts, I'm fine with that. That is at least mildly amusing, though I suppose that the tin foil hat approach is amusing in a different way.
I do believe that focusing on whole foods, and aiming for eating diet rich in fresh vegetables and fruits will. If that becomes a lifestyle. Which it did for me.
But yet, folks seem to mock that approach. Openly. My lifestyle was called "sad" on here recently. :laugh:
But again, time will tell with everyone else.
I'm not big on hearing about neanderthal man either. But that's paleo. I'm not paleo. "Clean eating" can be paleo, but isn't by definition paleo.
I believe in offering folks support when they decide to stop eating 30 ingredient bread and cut down or eliminate sodas. I don't see why that's problematic.
I do wonder, often, if I'm talking about my 80% of the time goals, while some others are talking about their 20% treats. Dunno.
I've tried an IIFYM approach, and found it more cumbersome. But again, to each his own.
Internet yelling. Nice touch about keeping weight off there. Best of luck.0 -
No yelling. Emphasis.
I agree IIFYM gives you pretty clear guidelines. But I have yet to feel convinced that IIFYM and counting and measuring WILL be the answer for many folks in KEEPING THE WEIGHT OFF LONG TERM. Of course it will if folks do it forever. Is that sustainable? Time will tell.
And I also don't have to put up with it being promoted to people who are new and trying to learn what is best for them.
And isn't it great you dont have to do it?? YAY For you!!!
Yes. It is 100% based on the naturalistic fallacy. which is why it is a ridiculous idea.Clean is about "natural" foods, not nutritional content.
When I am choosing among diet approaches, I want something that gives me a tool to decide what I can and cannot eat and is, at the same time, the least restrictive. Vague notions of "natural," "processed," and "clean" do not do this. Fear of "chemicals" does not do this. WW and beachbody do not do this. IIFYM does. It is clear and concise. Set the macros, abide by the macros, move along. I'd rather not hear so much about neanderthal man, brain fog, dietary intolerances that everyone swears I must have and I could find if I'd just cut this or that out of my diet, the ever present threat that I'll have cancer at 80, toxins without names or the remotest connection to the concept of dosage, or any of the other absolute nonsense. So yes, if a few people like to post pics of Pop Tarts, I'm fine with that. That is at least mildly amusing, though I suppose that the tin foil hat approach is amusing in a different way.
I do believe that focusing on whole foods, and aiming for eating diet rich in fresh vegetables and fruits will. If that becomes a lifestyle. Which it did for me.
But yet, folks seem to mock that approach. Openly. My lifestyle was called "sad" on here recently. :laugh:
But again, time will tell with everyone else.
I'm not big on hearing about neanderthal man either. But that's paleo. I'm not paleo. "Clean eating" can be paleo, but isn't by definition paleo.
I believe in offering folks support when they decide to stop eating 30 ingredient bread and cut down or eliminate sodas. I don't see why that's problematic.
I do wonder, often, if I'm talking about my 80% of the time goals, while some others are talking about their 20% treats. Dunno.
I've tried an IIFYM approach, and found it more cumbersome. But again, to each his own.
Internet yelling. Nice touch about keeping weight off there. Best of luck.
Yep. Keeping the weight off , and being healthy is, or rather should be, the goals.0 -
Yes. It is 100% based on the naturalistic fallacy. which is why it is a ridiculous idea.Clean is about "natural" foods, not nutritional content.
Yeah, more or less, but when it comes to food "bad" and "good" are little more than opinion. One person's ridiculous idea is another's wonderful idea. To each his own, I say.0 -
No yelling. Emphasis.
I agree IIFYM gives you pretty clear guidelines. But I have yet to feel convinced that IIFYM and counting and measuring WILL be the answer for many folks in KEEPING THE WEIGHT OFF LONG TERM. Of course it will if folks do it forever. Is that sustainable? Time will tell.
And I also don't have to put up with it being promoted to people who are new and trying to learn what is best for them.
And isn't it great you dont have to do it?? YAY For you!!!
Yes. It is 100% based on the naturalistic fallacy. which is why it is a ridiculous idea.Clean is about "natural" foods, not nutritional content.
When I am choosing among diet approaches, I want something that gives me a tool to decide what I can and cannot eat and is, at the same time, the least restrictive. Vague notions of "natural," "processed," and "clean" do not do this. Fear of "chemicals" does not do this. WW and beachbody do not do this. IIFYM does. It is clear and concise. Set the macros, abide by the macros, move along. I'd rather not hear so much about neanderthal man, brain fog, dietary intolerances that everyone swears I must have and I could find if I'd just cut this or that out of my diet, the ever present threat that I'll have cancer at 80, toxins without names or the remotest connection to the concept of dosage, or any of the other absolute nonsense. So yes, if a few people like to post pics of Pop Tarts, I'm fine with that. That is at least mildly amusing, though I suppose that the tin foil hat approach is amusing in a different way.
I do believe that focusing on whole foods, and aiming for eating diet rich in fresh vegetables and fruits will. If that becomes a lifestyle. Which it did for me.
But yet, folks seem to mock that approach. Openly. My lifestyle was called "sad" on here recently. :laugh:
But again, time will tell with everyone else.
I'm not big on hearing about neanderthal man either. But that's paleo. I'm not paleo. "Clean eating" can be paleo, but isn't by definition paleo.
I believe in offering folks support when they decide to stop eating 30 ingredient bread and cut down or eliminate sodas. I don't see why that's problematic.
I do wonder, often, if I'm talking about my 80% of the time goals, while some others are talking about their 20% treats. Dunno.
I've tried an IIFYM approach, and found it more cumbersome. But again, to each his own.
Internet yelling. Nice touch about keeping weight off there. Best of luck.
Yep. Keeping the weight off , and being healthy is, or rather should be, the goals.
That may be your goal, and if it is, best of luck.
My fitness and heath goals center more on strength, performance, and keeping myself at a reasonable to low BF%. Weight is no longer much of a concern for me.0 -
No. "Clean" doesn't mean one ingredient only. But I'd choose bread with a handful of pronounceable ingredients over Sara Lee fluffily bread like substance with 20 ingredients I can't pronounce.I'd love to see what meal plans and recipes you have! Also, is wheat bread considered clean? I'm thinking not, right? Are only natural foods (one ingredient) considered "clean". I'm sure I sound like a tool, but hey, it's an honest question. lol
Ezekiel is a good choice.
It's also pretty easy to make bread/rolls, especially if you have a bread maker. I make sweet breads in the oven (this week I made a great cinnamon carrot bread), and then loaves and rolls in my bread maker. We rarely eat loaf bread though, since my kid's prefer their school lunch sandwiches to be on rolls for some reason lol.
^^ Um. I don't think that means what you think it means.
Just had to google it lol. Yeah, in my family it means breads with fruit/nuts etc and not breads made wiith cow/lamb pancreas
Actually, you were correct.
sweet breads == breads that are sweet
sweetbreads == thymus/pancreas0 -
...
I agree IIFYM gives you pretty clear guidelines. But I have yet to feel convinced that IIFYM and counting and measuring WILL be the answer for many folks in KEEPING THE WEIGHT OFF LONG TERM. Of course it will if folks do it forever. Is that sustainable? Time will tell.
I do believe that focusing on whole foods, and aiming for eating diet rich in fresh vegetables and fruits will. If that becomes a lifestyle. Which it did for me.
But yet, folks seem to mock that approach. Openly. My lifestyle was called "sad" on here recently. :laugh:
...
See, here's what confuses me. There are people who have this approach and are obese and are not losing on it. So, unless you have a component that accounts for how much food people are eating, I don't see how this method would be better than IIFIYM for long-term maintenance. Unless you mean that you think people are more likely to stick to your method than they would to the constant tracking of IIFIYM, and that's obviously debatable unless/until someone does a study.
I mean, if you follow IIFIYM, you are guaranteed to maintain weight (barring medical, stress, yada) because you're regulating your calories and nutrition. If you aren't tracking, then you're not doing IIFIYM anymore, and it wasn't IIFIYM that didn't work.
If you follow your plan, a person could easily start eating more whole foods, stay heavy on the veggies and fruit and still gain weight.0 -
I don't think you're supposed to eat miracle gro. Besides, plants eat poop.
*throws out salad*0 -
Sure. But my approach doesn't require measuring, counting, weighing and logging forever. Does IFFYM? Many on here say they plan to log "forever". If they stop measuring, logging, weighing, and counting couldnt they also easily gain weight? And wouldn't it be easier to gain weight on fast food, convenience foods, and what not than eggplant, veggies etc? Dunno. Again, time will tell....
I agree IIFYM gives you pretty clear guidelines. But I have yet to feel convinced that IIFYM and counting and measuring WILL be the answer for many folks in KEEPING THE WEIGHT OFF LONG TERM. Of course it will if folks do it forever. Is that sustainable? Time will tell.
I do believe that focusing on whole foods, and aiming for eating diet rich in fresh vegetables and fruits will. If that becomes a lifestyle. Which it did for me.
But yet, folks seem to mock that approach. Openly. My lifestyle was called "sad" on here recently. :laugh:
...
See, here's what confuses me. There are people who have this approach and are obese and are not losing on it. So, unless you have a component that accounts for how much food people are eating, I don't see how this method would be better than IIFIYM for long-term maintenance. Unless you mean that you think people are more likely to stick to your method than they would to the constant tracking of IIFIYM, and that's obviously debatable unless/until someone does a study.
I mean, if you follow IIFIYM, you are guaranteed to maintain weight (barring medical, stress, yada) because you're regulating your calories and nutrition. If you aren't tracking, then you're not doing IIFIYM anymore, and it wasn't IIFIYM that didn't work.
If you follow your plan, a person could easily start eating more whole foods, stay heavy on the veggies and fruit and still gain weight.
I lost my weight without counting, measuring, weighing. I used a logging site to see what foods had going for them. And I use MFP to help me choose among restaurant foods still.
I lost eating whole foods, not allowing myself to get hungry, and avoiding added sugars.I didn't count. I ate whole foods. Did I eat at a deficit: absolutely. Apparently.
And 12years later I'm still within 5LBS. It obviously became a lifestyle. For me that was a sustainable lifestyle. for ME measuring, weighing, counting and logging isn't it.
I'm not saying its THE right way. But why is eating whole foods mocked so much?0 -
That's enough derpage for one day.
*burp*
Sorry, but I'm full.
Time for pizza and whiskey.
You didn't share... :sad:
ETA:I'm not saying its THE right way. But why is eating whole foods mocked so much?
I don't think the practice of clean eating is truly mocked- I think the way it's presented is mocked.0 -
I'm not saying its THE right way. But why is eating whole foods mocked so much?
I think you're confused about what's being mocked. No one is really saying that eating whole foods is ridiculous-Nor has "Clean Eating" cornered the market for recommending nutritious food. What gets mocked is a mindset of placing value judgments on food using criteria that don't make much sense, supposedly.
Beliefs are beliefs. If everyone agrees that what they're doing is just a belief system, then I don't see much point in comparing systems, apart from just having a general idea of what's going on in the world of people's views on food.
When people try to justify beliefs using questionable claims and evidence as means of saying "Method X will work for you because of Y reasons" then hackles get raised, and rightfully so. And then the back peddling happens.
"Oh I was just saying what works for me." Ehhh...not really. Usually someone is advocating a stance because they want someone to try it. And I think people should actually have a good reason for trying a new way of looking at food. If someone just came out and said that they use X method for no other reason than it has a good backstory, then I might have more respect for it.0 -
I believe that eating whole foods gets a bad rap because in and of itself, it will not cause someone to lose or maintain weight. You can eat your face off on unroasted peanuts and organic cheese and get fat. There is no correlation between "eating whole foods" and losing, maintaining, or gaining weight. When you combine that with the fact that "whole foods" is not a clearly defined term, you have a recipe for disaster for people who thing that as long as they're eating avocados they'll never gain weight.
I contend that IIFYM and "Whole Foods" adherents are equally sanctimonious, but one is clearly defined and scientifically measurable/provable, and one is not. When people get sanctimonious about vague things, other people give them grief.
With regard to your success employing a whole foods approach, you've targeted and achieved a level of dietary intake that is on par with your caloric expenditure. I don't even contend that achieving that equilibrium is not easier with some sort of "whole foods" approach.
For the exact same reasons, IIFYM folks would not suddenly forget how many calories are in an average donut or start uncontrollably binging without a food scale.
To be clear I'm just trying to explain my perspective, not argue about it or 'win'.0 -
While there may be processed honey, honey is natural. and natural honey is a clean food.
No, it is not. Honey is not a primary product. You cannot get honey without processing the primary product, which is the messy gooey stuff in an actual beehive. Oh, but wait, 99.9999% of honey isn't even processed from natural bee hives, it's processed from artificial bee hives created by humans.
Anyway, this entire sidetrack is a prime example of why there is so much mocking of the "clean" religion - it is completely inconsistent and made up to fit biases that derive from a Dr. Suess-inspired perception of where food actually comes from. It's like like the Paleo crowd trying to justify drinking milk or "fasting" with "bulletproof coffee".
And it's really unfortunate, because there are nuggets of value hiding buried under all the self-righteous dreck that could actually help people....0 -
Sure. But my approach doesn't require measuring, counting, weighing and logging forever. Does IFFYM? Many on here say they plan to log "forever". If they stop measuring, logging, weighing, and counting couldnt they also easily gain weight? And wouldn't it be easier to gain weight on fast food, convenience foods, and what not than eggplant, veggies etc? Dunno. Again, time will tell.
I lost my weight without counting, measuring, weighing. I used a logging site to see what foods had going for them. And I use MFP to help me choose among restaurant foods still.
I'm not saying its THE right way. But why is eating whole foods mocked so much?
2 points I'd take issue with. First, IIFYM has nothing to do with fast food or convenience foods. If people doing IIFYM eat those items, that is their choice but IIFYM =/= fast food and convenience foods.
Secondly, I don't see any mocking of people eating whole foods. I do see mocking of "clean eating" and, IMHO, rightly so. It's an indefinable and ridiculous label.
You've accomplished your objectives on an intuitive eating plan of primarily whole foods. Kudos to you for getting there and maintaining. I don't believe it's a teachable or repeatable system though for most people who need to reduce body fat.
I've always eaten a diet of mostly whole foods and had no trouble gaining fat on the diet. Measuring helped awareness and I have been able to maintain that for a couple of years now. I don't measure that often anymore (count calories) as I've developed a fairly intuitive feel for my total intake and balancing my macros. If I started to store fat, I'd go back to counting again in a heartbeat.0 -
While there may be processed honey, honey is natural. and natural honey is a clean food.
No, it is not. Honey is not a primary product. You cannot get honey without processing the primary product, which is the messy gooey stuff in an actual beehive. Oh, but wait, 99.9999% of honey isn't even processed from natural bee hives, it's processed from artificial bee hives created by humans.
Anyway, this entire sidetrack is a prime example of why there is so much mocking of the "clean" religion - it is completely inconsistent and too many of the most vocal advocates have a Dr. Suess perception of where food actually comes from.
It's like like the Paleo crowd trying to justify drinking milk or "fasting" with "bulletproof coffee"...
I'm not promiting clean eating, nor do I condone mocking of those that do promote it. Honestly it seems much more sensible than telling someone to eat whatever they want as long as they meet their macros.
But I have no idea what you mean by honey not being the gooey stuff from the hive, since I have eaten honey right from a hive. Nor do I believe that bees living in a man-made hive would make the honey they produce "unnatural". Is beef from a cow living in a man made pasture unnatural? Is a fish caught in a man-made lake unnatural?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions