Learn What it means to "Eat Clean"
Options
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
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 -
I'd love to join! I try to keep my diet pretty clean and always like to learn more.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.
So you won't mock clean eating, but you'll mock IIFYM? :indifferent:
People who do IIFYM don't tell people to just stuff whatever they want into their mouths, anyway. They tell them "Meet all your macros with healthy food. Then, IF you have the extra calories, treat yourself with something that you like."
Edited for punctuation.0 -
My issue with this is where do you draw the line at "processed" and inevitably everyone has a different line...which is why I think the term is pretty ridiculous. Am I "bad" because I opened up a can of black beans instead of buying dry beans and spending all day cooking them? They're processed and canned afterall. How about bread...any bread you get, whether it's whole grain or white bleached flour with HFCS is processed. How about those protein shakes and recovery shakes...almost everyone I know who touts "clean eating" also consumes these supplements which are highly processed foods. Is my quinoa that comes in a package from Costco any different than the bulk Quinoa at Sprouts Market?
I definitely agree that a nutrient dense diet that is rich in naturally occuring whole foods is the way to go...but these terms like "clean" are incredibly arbitrary and open to ones personal interpretation. And when I look at my can of black beans (beans, salt, dried onion) the ingredients aren't any different than if I were to do it myself...save for I'd probably use fresh onion. So where is the line drawn at processed, "unclean" food?
Bravo - a 'friend' berates me for what I eat, but then she is gaga for PB2, which is powdered peanut butter. How is that cleaner/healthier/better than Teddie peanut butter which is just peanuts? I agree to disagree, but she will not leave it alone.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.
So you won't mock clean eating, but you'll mock IIFYM? :indifferent:
People who do IIFYM don't tell people to just stuff whatever they want into their mouths, anyway. They tell them "Meet all your macros with healthy food. Then, IF you have the extra calories, treat yourself with something that you like.
I wasn't mocking anyone, including IIFYM. My post did not even mention IIFYM. Perhaps you should re-read my post.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.
So you won't mock clean eating, but you'll mock IIFYM? :indifferent:
People who do IIFYM don't tell people to just stuff whatever they want into their mouths, anyway. They tell them "Meet all your macros with healthy food. Then, IF you have the extra calories, treat yourself with something that you like.
I wasn't mocking anyone, including IIFYM. My post did not even mention IIFYM. Perhaps you should re-read my post.
You didn't use the term, I'll give you that. The bolded part above is clearly referring to IIFYM, though. *shrug*0 -
I have decided I am just going to be a breatharian.
When I was a 100% organic raw foods vegan I discovered I was screwing it all up because cashews are never actually RAW!!!
So there is only one way to be sure you're clean......0 -
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?
A modern cow is in and of itself a man-made creation that would not even exist in nature without human intervention because it is completely incapable of surviving on its own - so yes, even that pastured cow in your example is not "clean".
Ditto for modern chicken breeds.
And extra-ditto for those fish farming in man made lakes.0 -
also, OP is a beachbody coach. Isn't that shakeology? And isn't that the very definition of processed?
I am soooooooooooooooo confused.
JUST MAKE ME SKINNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://youtu.be/BR4yQFZK9YM 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.
So you won't mock clean eating, but you'll mock IIFYM? :indifferent:
People who do IIFYM don't tell people to just stuff whatever they want into their mouths, anyway. They tell them "Meet all your macros with healthy food. Then, IF you have the extra calories, treat yourself with something that you like.
I wasn't mocking anyone, including IIFYM. My post did not even mention IIFYM. Perhaps you should re-read my post.
You didn't use the term, I'll give you that. The bolded part above is clearly referring to IIFYM, though. *shrug*
No, not really. There are numerous posts on MFP telling people to eat whatever they want as long as it meets your macros. Now, I have learned that most of these people do not follow that advice and actually eat pretty healthy and follow IIFYM. Most even eat pretty "clean".
BUT that's not what the posts say and it's not sensible IMO to tell someone who is not familiar with the IIFYM philosophy that. If only two pieces of advice are offered and one is to "eat clean" and one is to "eat whatever you want as long as it fits your macros" then the "eat clean" advice is more sensible. And that, my dear, is what I meant and what I said0 -
Thank you this made me snort!:flowerforyou:Reminds me of a conversation I heard in a store.
Customer: "The package says all natural?"
Clerk: "Yeah?"
Customer: "So why do you add sodium chloride? And what the hell is sodium bicarbonate!?!"
Clerk: "Salt. And Baking Soda."
This reminded me of one time I was buying some medicine in a health food store... it listed ingredients in their latin names.. You know like taraxicum officionale and tussilago farfara. I wanted to know if it was vegan (cuz I was at the time) and the person working there was like "well, yeah." And I asked them how they knew and they told me that only plants have latin names like that.
And I was like... 'Wow! Cool! I didn't know Homo Sapiens were plants!"0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions