Learn What it means to "Eat Clean"
Replies
-
um folks, I thought the whole point of MFP was to encourage others along their journey to better health. Clearly there are differing opinions on this post, but I think folks need to take a step back and be kinder. just consider the impact of cutting words
Good advice, but is your jam "clean"?0 -
I've just never seen someone provide the advice of "eat what you want as long as it fits your macros" without mentioning/explaining the IIFYM philosophy and reminding them to stay under/at their calorie goal.
Not sure if serious.
Yes, I was being serious. I didn't mean to imply that those posts have NEVER happened- just that I haven't seen any. I can't imagine there are too many people who coach others to pay a bunch of attention to macros, but to disregard caloric intake.0 -
I've just never seen someone provide the advice of "eat what you want as long as it fits your macros" without mentioning/explaining the IIFYM philosophy and reminding them to stay under/at their calorie goal.
Not sure if serious.
Yes, I was being serious. I didn't mean to imply that those posts have NEVER happened- just that I haven't seen any. I can't imagine there are too many people who coach others to pay a bunch of attention to macros, but to disregard caloric intake.
If they are meeting their macros their calories should fall in line. It's the part about not just eating junk they leave out. In fact, some seem dead set on wanting others to think they eat mostly junk.0 -
I've just never seen someone provide the advice of "eat what you want as long as it fits your macros" without mentioning/explaining the IIFYM philosophy and reminding them to stay under/at their calorie goal.
Not sure if serious.
Yes, I was being serious. I didn't mean to imply that those posts have NEVER happened- just that I haven't seen any. I can't imagine there are too many people who coach others to pay a bunch of attention to macros, but to disregard caloric intake.
If they are meeting their macros their calories should fall in line. It's the part about not just eating junk they leave out. In fact, some seem dead set on wanting others to think they eat mostly junk.
I still don't recall seeing any posts telling people that they should eat mostly junk, or telling people that they eat mostly junk. The posts I've seen are all about moderation, saying things like "I don't deprive myself of things that I like if it fits into my day".
But, I digress. Clearly we have experienced different types of posts on the forums.0 -
I've just never seen someone provide the advice of "eat what you want as long as it fits your macros" without mentioning/explaining the IIFYM philosophy and reminding them to stay under/at their calorie goal.
Not sure if serious.
Yes, I was being serious. I didn't mean to imply that those posts have NEVER happened- just that I haven't seen any. I can't imagine there are too many people who coach others to pay a bunch of attention to macros, but to disregard caloric intake.
If they are meeting their macros their calories should fall in line. It's the part about not just eating junk they leave out. In fact, some seem dead set on wanting others to think they eat mostly junk.
That's the impression I got reading several posts. It took an 'argument' about eating 'healthy' foods to find out what IIFYM really means.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.'
Funny, I have never heard any of those statements from this OP nor read them on any other 'clean eating' threads.
You obviously didn't read the threads where several posters were bashing jonnythan. Their belief (and what sadly sounded like hope) that he would be sick when he gets older was pathetic.0 -
I've just never seen someone provide the advice of "eat what you want as long as it fits your macros" without mentioning/explaining the IIFYM philosophy and reminding them to stay under/at their calorie goal.
Not sure if serious.
Yes, I was being serious. I didn't mean to imply that those posts have NEVER happened- just that I haven't seen any. I can't imagine there are too many people who coach others to pay a bunch of attention to macros, but to disregard caloric intake.
If they are meeting their macros their calories should fall in line. It's the part about not just eating junk they leave out. In fact, some seem dead set on wanting others to think they eat mostly junk.
I still don't recall seeing any posts telling people that they should eat mostly junk, or telling people that they eat mostly junk. The posts I've seen are all about moderation, saying things like "I don't deprive myself of things that I like if it fits into my day".
But, I digress. Clearly we have experienced different types of posts on the forums.
Or it's just that you already know what IIFYM means. And no, the posts don't say "eat mostly junk". They simply list all the fast food places they ate this week, all the ice cream they eat daily, post pics of 3000 calorie burgers or bacon ice cream and just leave it at that. No mention of the lean meats or vegetables they also had. No mention that these are the minority and not the staples of their diet. It's the perception they project. Some when pressed about needing fruits and vegetables for vitamins will only say "take a multi-vitamin" as if they never eat them. Why do this? What is the point?
ETA: Sorry, I don't expect you to have the answer since I wasn't talking about you. I just don't get it.0 -
I've just never seen someone provide the advice of "eat what you want as long as it fits your macros" without mentioning/explaining the IIFYM philosophy and reminding them to stay under/at their calorie goal.
Not sure if serious.
Yes, I was being serious. I didn't mean to imply that those posts have NEVER happened- just that I haven't seen any. I can't imagine there are too many people who coach others to pay a bunch of attention to macros, but to disregard caloric intake.
If they are meeting their macros their calories should fall in line. It's the part about not just eating junk they leave out. In fact, some seem dead set on wanting others to think they eat mostly junk.
I still don't recall seeing any posts telling people that they should eat mostly junk, or telling people that they eat mostly junk. The posts I've seen are all about moderation, saying things like "I don't deprive myself of things that I like if it fits into my day".
But, I digress. Clearly we have experienced different types of posts on the forums.
Or it's just that you already know what IIFYM means. And no, the posts don't say "eat mostly junk". They simply list all the fast food places they ate this week, all the ice cream they eat daily, post pics of 3000 calorie burgers or bacon ice cream and just leave it at that. No mention of the lean meats or vegetables they also had. No mention that these are the minority and not the staples of their diet. It's the perception they project. Some when pressed about needing fruits and vegetables for vitamins will only say "take a multi-vitamin" as if they never eat them. Why do this? What is the point?
ETA: Sorry, I don't expect you to have the answer since I wasn't talking about you. I just don't get it.
I think their point is that you don't have to deny food you love in order to be fit and healthy. As well, many of the IIFYM people also have open diaries so if one really wanted to know what their complete dietary intake was, it only takes a few minutes.0 -
...0
-
I've just never seen someone provide the advice of "eat what you want as long as it fits your macros" without mentioning/explaining the IIFYM philosophy and reminding them to stay under/at their calorie goal.
Not sure if serious.
Yes, I was being serious. I didn't mean to imply that those posts have NEVER happened- just that I haven't seen any. I can't imagine there are too many people who coach others to pay a bunch of attention to macros, but to disregard caloric intake.
If they are meeting their macros their calories should fall in line. It's the part about not just eating junk they leave out. In fact, some seem dead set on wanting others to think they eat mostly junk.
I still don't recall seeing any posts telling people that they should eat mostly junk, or telling people that they eat mostly junk. The posts I've seen are all about moderation, saying things like "I don't deprive myself of things that I like if it fits into my day".
But, I digress. Clearly we have experienced different types of posts on the forums.
Or it's just that you already know what IIFYM means. And no, the posts don't say "eat mostly junk". They simply list all the fast food places they ate this week, all the ice cream they eat daily, post pics of 3000 calorie burgers or bacon ice cream and just leave it at that. No mention of the lean meats or vegetables they also had. No mention that these are the minority and not the staples of their diet. It's the perception they project. Some when pressed about needing fruits and vegetables for vitamins will only say "take a multi-vitamin" as if they never eat them. Why do this? What is the point?
ETA: Sorry, I don't expect you to have the answer since I wasn't talking about you. I just don't get it.
I think their point is that you don't have to deny food you love in order to be fit and healthy. As well, many of the IIFYM people also have open diaries so if one really wanted to know what their complete dietary intake was, it only takes a few minutes.
Having at one time been one who had never heard the term IIFYM, they don't make their point well.0 -
I've just never seen someone provide the advice of "eat what you want as long as it fits your macros" without mentioning/explaining the IIFYM philosophy and reminding them to stay under/at their calorie goal.
Not sure if serious.
Yes, I was being serious. I didn't mean to imply that those posts have NEVER happened- just that I haven't seen any. I can't imagine there are too many people who coach others to pay a bunch of attention to macros, but to disregard caloric intake.
If they are meeting their macros their calories should fall in line. It's the part about not just eating junk they leave out. In fact, some seem dead set on wanting others to think they eat mostly junk.
I still don't recall seeing any posts telling people that they should eat mostly junk, or telling people that they eat mostly junk. The posts I've seen are all about moderation, saying things like "I don't deprive myself of things that I like if it fits into my day".
But, I digress. Clearly we have experienced different types of posts on the forums.
Or it's just that you already know what IIFYM means. And no, the posts don't say "eat mostly junk". They simply list all the fast food places they ate this week, all the ice cream they eat daily, post pics of 3000 calorie burgers or bacon ice cream and just leave it at that. No mention of the lean meats or vegetables they also had. No mention that these are the minority and not the staples of their diet. It's the perception they project. Some when pressed about needing fruits and vegetables for vitamins will only say "take a multi-vitamin" as if they never eat them. Why do this? What is the point?
ETA: Sorry, I don't expect you to have the answer since I wasn't talking about you. I just don't get it.
I think, honestly, most people who post the pictures/gifs/etc do it in jest. I would assume those people simply believe that everyone on this site can infer that eating complete and utter junk as their only food source isn't healthy. I haven't seen anything as of yet regarding the "take a vitamin" bit, but obviously that's not something that I agree with (and I highly doubt anyone who talks about IIFYM in a serious/helpful manner would agree with it either).
There's a negative perception about clean eating too, though, and I guess that's my point. It's spoken about in a way that implies as long as you eat clean, you won't gain weight, which I think we both know isn't true.
I think clean eating threads take a harder beating than IIFYM threads because "eating clean" is such a vague term.
Edited for clarification.0 -
Yes, I agree. It was seeing the open diaries of the IIFYM'ers that helped me a great deal when I first started here. I thought I had to give up everything I loved under the misconception that it wasn't 'healthy' i.e. low fat, low sodium, organic... whatever. I couldn't believe they could go to McDonalds and/or eat ice cream and still meet their goals. It was a revelation for me and learning about that kind of moderation has helped me stay on the wagon this time. Also, IIFYM has clear guidelines, whereas 'clean' eating has as many definitions as it does followers, so the former is just simpler and more sustainable, IMO.I've just never seen someone provide the advice of "eat what you want as long as it fits your macros" without mentioning/explaining the IIFYM philosophy and reminding them to stay under/at their calorie goal.
Not sure if serious.
Yes, I was being serious. I didn't mean to imply that those posts have NEVER happened- just that I haven't seen any. I can't imagine there are too many people who coach others to pay a bunch of attention to macros, but to disregard caloric intake.
If they are meeting their macros their calories should fall in line. It's the part about not just eating junk they leave out. In fact, some seem dead set on wanting others to think they eat mostly junk.
I still don't recall seeing any posts telling people that they should eat mostly junk, or telling people that they eat mostly junk. The posts I've seen are all about moderation, saying things like "I don't deprive myself of things that I like if it fits into my day".
But, I digress. Clearly we have experienced different types of posts on the forums.
Or it's just that you already know what IIFYM means. And no, the posts don't say "eat mostly junk". They simply list all the fast food places they ate this week, all the ice cream they eat daily, post pics of 3000 calorie burgers or bacon ice cream and just leave it at that. No mention of the lean meats or vegetables they also had. No mention that these are the minority and not the staples of their diet. It's the perception they project. Some when pressed about needing fruits and vegetables for vitamins will only say "take a multi-vitamin" as if they never eat them. Why do this? What is the point?
ETA: Sorry, I don't expect you to have the answer since I wasn't talking about you. I just don't get it.
I think their point is that you don't have to deny food you love in order to be fit and healthy. As well, many of the IIFYM people also have open diaries so if one really wanted to know what their complete dietary intake was, it only takes a few minutes.0 -
Most people I hear on MFP are concerned, understandably, with weight management. Few are specialists in cancer treatment, management of diabetes, cardiac disease, etc. But preventing and dealing with those diseases contribute to my overall concept of healthy eating. (They've hit my family particularly hard in the past.) So, I guess I am interested in a larger view of nutrition than just weight loss.
I know enough about nutrition to know that I cannot parse all the scientific literature on the subject. For lack of any more reliable source I tend to pay attention to what institutions like the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the U.S. National Cancer Institute have to say about nutrition. Their recommendations contribute to the formation of the standard of care throughout the country. To wit:
U.S. National Cancer Institute's page on Nutrition in Cancer Care
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/supportivecare/nutrition/Patient/page1
U.S. National Institute of Health's page on Nutrition in the care of Cardiac Illness
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002436.htm
American Heart Association's page on nutrition
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Healthy-Diet-Goals_UCM_310436_SubHomePage.jsp
I'm not sure I trust these guys either. I just mistrust them less than any other source I can find at the moment. In any case, if you find that the recommendations of the above institutions are incorrect, I urge you to contact them directly and set them straight.0 -
Most people I hear on MFP are concerned, understandably, with weight management. Few are specialists in cancer treatment, management of diabetes, cardiac disease, etc. But preventing and dealing with those diseases contribute to my overall concept of healthy eating. (They've hit my family particularly hard in the past.) So, I guess I am interested in a larger view of nutrition than just weight loss.
I know enough about nutrition to know that I cannot parse all the scientific literature on the subject. For lack of any more reliable source I tend to pay attention to what institutions like the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the U.S. National Cancer Institute have to say about nutrition. Their recommendations contribute to the formation of the standard of care throughout the country. To wit:
U.S. National Cancer Institute's page on Nutrition in Cancer Care
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/supportivecare/nutrition/Patient/page1
U.S. National Institute of Health's page on Nutrition in the care of Cardiac Illness
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002436.htm
American Heart Association's page on nutrition
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Healthy-Diet-Goals_UCM_310436_SubHomePage.jsp
I'm not sure I trust these guys either. I just mistrust them less than any other source I can find at the moment. In any case, if you find that the recommendations of the above institutions are incorrect, I urge you to contact them directly and set them straight.
Ok, I didn't read all the links.
But, from the Cancer Care page
" A healthy diet includes eating and drinking enough of the foods and liquids that have the important nutrients (vitamins, minerals, protein, carbohydrates, fat, and water) the body needs."
Fits nicely in with IIFYM guidelines, right?
Nothing specific about clean eating though.0 -
Clean eating is a subjective turn thrown around by different followers of whatever crazy fitness phenom is current. I just eat to meat my nutrient goals.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.
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 can only speak from my own experience, but it's near impossible for me to overeat with my focus on a mostly whole foods, plant based diet. For instance, today I broke my fast at noon with 2 servings of brown rice with mushrooms, bell peppers, onion and carrots mixed in. I was full for hours and it was around 350 calories. For supper I had 2 servings of beans with more veggies, diced olives and a spoonful of full fat sour cream.. Another 400ish calories and I'm stuffed. So for today I've had under 800 calories, feel full/no hunger at all, and I have no desire to eat anything else tonight. But yet my maintenance calorie goal is somewhere around 1,800 calories. I also did a brisk two mile walk after supper, so there's extra calories I'm supposed to add in. If anything since switching to this way of eating I've continued to lose weight, even though I'm in maintenance.
I tend to stick to 'ingredients' instead of pre-made items and I either make things from them (like a batch of raw apple muffins or a bean dish), or I eat them as is (fresh veggies are eaten raw or steamed etc). For me this way of eating has allowed me to maintain effortlessly, with no tracking.0 -
You should check out the book Wheat Belly. It talks about how wheat today is not as healthy as they market it to be. I started back on my clean eating after letting myself go the last 11 months cause of work stress and I'm on day 3 of no grains/sugar and have lost 6lbs but that's also cause I have a lot to lose. Eating clean can be hard sometimes cause I'm such a foodie!!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. lol0
-
I can only speak from my own experience, but it's near impossible for me to overeat with my focus on a mostly whole foods, plant based diet. For instance, today I broke my fast at noon with 2 servings of brown rice with mushrooms, bell peppers, onion and carrots mixed in. I was full for hours and it was around 350 calories. For supper I had 2 servings of beans with more veggies, diced olives and a spoonful of full fat sour cream.. Another 400ish calories and I'm stuffed. So for today I've had under 800 calories, feel full/no hunger at all, and I have no desire to eat anything else tonight. But yet my maintenance calorie goal is somewhere around 1,800 calories. I also did a brisk two mile walk after supper, so there's extra calories I'm supposed to add in. If anything since switching to this way of eating I've continued to lose weight, even though I'm in maintenance.
I tend to stick to 'ingredients' instead of pre-made items and I either make things from them (like a batch of raw apple muffins or a bean dish), or I eat them as is (fresh veggies are eaten raw or steamed etc). For me this way of eating has allowed me to maintain effortlessly, with no tracking.
750 calories a day is unhealthy no matter what you eat.0 -
You should check out the book Wheat Belly. It talks about how wheat today is not as healthy as they market it to be. I started back on my clean eating after letting myself go the last 11 months cause of work stress and I'm on day 3 of no grains/sugar and have lost 6lbs but that's also cause I have a lot to lose. Eating clean can be hard sometimes cause I'm such a foodie!!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
Why would you suggest a work of fiction?0 -
Bump0
-
bumping0
-
:flowerforyou:I have some great meal planners and recipes, happy to help!
I'm glad you started this thread.. it's of interest to me... :drinker:
Congrats on your loss, was reading your profile... wonderful b/a's photos!:happy:0 -
I can only speak from my own experience, but it's near impossible for me to overeat with my focus on a mostly whole foods, plant based diet. For instance, today I broke my fast at noon with 2 servings of brown rice with mushrooms, bell peppers, onion and carrots mixed in. I was full for hours and it was around 350 calories. For supper I had 2 servings of beans with more veggies, diced olives and a spoonful of full fat sour cream.. Another 400ish calories and I'm stuffed. So for today I've had under 800 calories, feel full/no hunger at all, and I have no desire to eat anything else tonight. But yet my maintenance calorie goal is somewhere around 1,800 calories. I also did a brisk two mile walk after supper, so there's extra calories I'm supposed to add in. If anything since switching to this way of eating I've continued to lose weight, even though I'm in maintenance.
I tend to stick to 'ingredients' instead of pre-made items and I either make things from them (like a batch of raw apple muffins or a bean dish), or I eat them as is (fresh veggies are eaten raw or steamed etc). For me this way of eating has allowed me to maintain effortlessly, with no tracking.
750 calories a day is unhealthy no matter what you eat.
I realize that, which is why I ate something else before bed last night to get my calories up. I was just responding to someone's post, that it's very hard to overeat if you're focusing on a whole foods diet.0 -
Jonnythan who declared my lifestyle "sad"? meh
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.'
Funny, I have never heard any of those statements from this OP nor read them on any other 'clean eating' threads.
You obviously didn't read the threads where several posters were bashing jonnythan. Their belief (and what sadly sounded like hope) that he would be sick when he gets older was pathetic.0 -
WOW. Talk about subjective.Clean eating is a subjective turn thrown around by different followers of whatever crazy fitness phenom is current. I just eat to meat my nutrient goals.
I would try to explain my views on this again, but you likely wouldn't read them, or try to understand my perspective. So I won't bother. It's clear you've decided what YOU think it means.0 -
WOW. Talk about subjective.Clean eating is a subjective turn thrown around by different followers of whatever crazy fitness phenom is current. I just eat to meat my nutrient goals.
I would try to explain my views on this again, but you likely wouldn't read them, or try to understand my perspective. So I won't bother. It's clear you've decided what YOU think it means.
It does, quite literally, mean different things to different people. I have never seen two clean eaters agree: each of dairy, GMO, organic, legumes, and grains are or are not "clean" depending on the individual arguing the term. By any reasonable metric it is a useless term for that reason.
That said, I honestly don't care what others eat or do not eat. If someone wants to use pseudoscience to guide their life, that is certainly their right. It is also my right to point out the absurdity of doing that and to continue to shake my head. I'm entirely too old to believe that people who are so easily deluded by this type of thing are going to change their minds.
Best of luck!0 -
As I've said: I agree the term is silly. His post was also silly. And arrogant.
WOW. Talk about subjective.Clean eating is a subjective turn thrown around by different followers of whatever crazy fitness phenom is current. I just eat to meat my nutrient goals.
I would try to explain my views on this again, but you likely wouldn't read them, or try to understand my perspective. So I won't bother. It's clear you've decided what YOU think it means.
It does, quite literally, mean different things to different people. I have never seen two clean eaters agree: each of dairy, GMO, organic, legumes, and grains are or are not "clean" depending on the individual arguing the term. By any reasonable metric it is a useless term for that reason.
That said, I honestly don't care what others eat or do not eat. If someone wants to use pseudoscience to guide their life, that is certainly their right. It is also my right to point out the absurdity of doing that and to continue to shake my head. I'm entirely too old to believe that people who are so easily deluded by this type of thing are going to change their minds.
Best of luck!
I eat primarily vegetables, fruits (prepared minimally), lean meats, whole grains, no refined grains, no added sugar (when I can help it), no HFCS, and aim to limit my consumption of overly processed, packaged convenience foods. I bet most folks who use the phrase "clean eating" would say my diet is pretty "clean". Is my approach to eating a "crazy fitness" phenomenon? Do you, beachiron think that's odd, unsustainable or "sad"? Trendy? A fad? If I said my diet was built around "whole foods" would that phrase work? I'm figuring no.
How long has "IFFYM" been around as a buzz phrase in dieting?0 -
As I've said: I agree the term is silly. His post was also silly.
WOW. Talk about subjective.Clean eating is a subjective turn thrown around by different followers of whatever crazy fitness phenom is current. I just eat to meat my nutrient goals.
I would try to explain my views on this again, but you likely wouldn't read them, or try to understand my perspective. So I won't bother. It's clear you've decided what YOU think it means.
It does, quite literally, mean different things to different people. I have never seen two clean eaters agree: each of dairy, GMO, organic, legumes, and grains are or are not "clean" depending on the individual arguing the term. By any reasonable metric it is a useless term for that reason.
That said, I honestly don't care what others eat or do not eat. If someone wants to use pseudoscience to guide their life, that is certainly their right. It is also my right to point out the absurdity of doing that and to continue to shake my head. I'm entirely too old to believe that people who are so easily deluded by this type of thing are going to change their minds.
Best of luck!
I eat primarily vegetables, fruits (prepared minimally), lean meats, whole grains, no refined grains, no added sugar (when I can help it), no HFCS, and aim to limit my consumption of overly processed, packaged convenience foods. I bet most folks who use the phrase "clean eating" would say my diet is pretty "clean". Is my approach to eating a "crazy fitness" phenomenon? Do you, beachiron think that's odd, unsustainable or "sad"? Trendy? A fad? If I said my diet was built around "whole foods" would that phrase work? I'm figuring no.
How long has "IFFYM" been around as a buzz phrase in dieting?
I don't think IIFYM is really used as a "buzz phrase in dieting" so much as an approach that was developed during the course of participating in bodybuilding. It was actually a way of pulling back a bit from the craziness that is prevalent there in terms of "bro" or "clean" diet. No one is "selling" it so to speak, but you will see it mentioned here a bit and on places like bodybuilding.com, and there is a IIFYM.com, but again the idea is one of "pulling back" and bringing order into one's diet. Put another way, the idea is to better explain the minimum amount of dietary effort necessary to achieve the desired results. That said, if you want to use "buzz phrase in dieting," then I'm okay with that as I don't really find a semantic argument helpful in this context.
I don't think cutting out refined carbohydrates, added sugar, or "processed" foods is necessary, physiologically speaking, unless there is an individual medical need to do so. If someone desires to do so because they can't control themselves, then I would hope that they would work on that through teaching themselves moderation, rather than deciding to cut it out for the rest of their lives. And yes, I would personally find a life without ice cream or cake "sad." Just like I would find a life without sex, or beaches, or hiking, or any other of the joys I find in life would be "sad." That is not to personally attack your choices in life, but I certainly wouldn't be pushing dietary asceticism on others.0 -
As I've said: I agree the term is silly. His post was also silly.
WOW. Talk about subjective.Clean eating is a subjective turn thrown around by different followers of whatever crazy fitness phenom is current. I just eat to meat my nutrient goals.
I would try to explain my views on this again, but you likely wouldn't read them, or try to understand my perspective. So I won't bother. It's clear you've decided what YOU think it means.
It does, quite literally, mean different things to different people. I have never seen two clean eaters agree: each of dairy, GMO, organic, legumes, and grains are or are not "clean" depending on the individual arguing the term. By any reasonable metric it is a useless term for that reason.
That said, I honestly don't care what others eat or do not eat. If someone wants to use pseudoscience to guide their life, that is certainly their right. It is also my right to point out the absurdity of doing that and to continue to shake my head. I'm entirely too old to believe that people who are so easily deluded by this type of thing are going to change their minds.
Best of luck!
I eat primarily vegetables, fruits (prepared minimally), lean meats, whole grains, no refined grains, no added sugar (when I can help it), no HFCS, and aim to limit my consumption of overly processed, packaged convenience foods. I bet most folks who use the phrase "clean eating" would say my diet is pretty "clean". Is my approach to eating a "crazy fitness" phenomenon? Do you, beachiron think that's odd, unsustainable or "sad"? Trendy? A fad? If I said my diet was built around "whole foods" would that phrase work? I'm figuring no.
How long has "IFFYM" been around as a buzz phrase in dieting?
I don't think IIFYM is really used as a "buzz phrase in dieting" so much as an approach that was developed during the course of participating in bodybuilding. It was actually a way of pulling back a bit from the craziness that is prevalent there in terms of "bro" or "clean" diet. No one is "selling" it so to speak, but you will see it mentioned here a bit and on places like bodybuilding.com, and there is a IIFYM.com, but again the idea is one of "pulling back" and bringing order into one's diet. Put another way, the idea is to better explain the minimum amount of dietary effort necessary to achieve the desired results. That said, if you want to use "buzz phrase in dieting," then I'm okay with that as I don't really find a semantic argument helpful in this context.
I don't think cutting out refined carbohydrates, added sugar, or "processed" foods is necessary, physiologically speaking, unless there is an individual medical need to do so. If someone desires to do so because they can't control themselves, then I would hope that they would work on that through teaching themselves moderation, rather than deciding to cut it out for the rest of their lives. And yes, I would personally find a life without ice cream or cake "sad." Just like I would find a life without sex, or beaches, or hiking, or any other of the joys I find in life would be "sad." That is not to personally attack your choices in life, but I certainly wouldn't be pushing dietary asceticism on others.
Excellent representation. I pretty much feel this exact way and take this exact approach.
Maybe I'm a little tone deaf on this but I really don't see the reason for all the negative reaction to IIFYM. Yes, there are some that flaunt the treats aspect of what they eat. But as someone said earlier, why focus on the 20% instead of the 80% of solid, nutritional eating. Possibly, those who talk about the fast food and treats are skewing the perception. But as someone else said, go look at their diaries and that will tell the tale usually.
Sabine_Stroeh, it sounds like your eating method and mine are pretty much the same other that the measuring aspect. I will also allow myself, pizza, ice cream and the occasional baked good. It is the minor part of my diet. You may or may not do that same, I can't tell. Other than that, It's hitting my calorie targets and my macro targets with the priority being protein, then fats, then carbs with mostly whole foods (probably 90%). It's pretty simple really and pretty much straight forward and easy to follow.
I think the negative reaction to the "clean eating" threads is the "rules" based, holier than thou approach that is not supported b any data and the lack of any universal definition. It's pretty much common sense that most of the food we eat should be nutrient dense.0 -
Jonnythan who declared my lifestyle "sad"? meh
He tends to be inflammatory in his rhetoric.
Your lifestyle is only sad if you are pining for things you feel that you cannot have, but truly can, without impact.
It sounds like you very much enjoy your lifestyle, so I would suggest you toss him into the bucket of "people who say things to get a reaction" and for pete's sake please don't elect him a representative of the rational-diet-society.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