Learn What it means to "Eat Clean"
Replies
-
I'm so late in this thread that my reply probably won't even be seen, but my definition of eating clean is avoiding trans fats and toxic metals.0
-
dietary asceticism. Interesting.
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.
I think I've said what I wanted to say, and you have done the same. Your final clause there sums up your perspective, and with that. I'm done discussing it with ya. cheers.0 -
He is rather inflammatory. And seems to enjoy it. So that he got a little back I don't really mind.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 -
I do eat pizza and ice cream. I may be a little more particular in my selection (because I choose not to eat HFCS), but sure. I never enjoyed baked goods, so that isn't anything for me to consider.
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.
Pizza isn't something I allow, per se it's just something I eat. It's one of my favorite foods, in fact. There's a nice little wood oven pizza place near by that we love and that fits quite nicely with my approach to eating. And Hubs makes a helluva good pizza.0 -
He is rather inflammatory. And seems to enjoy it. So that he got a little back I don't really mind.
If IIFYM and "Clean Eating"/"Whole Foods" could be considered groups, neither of us have a shortage of poor representatives.
It's a shame.0 -
LOL You got that right.He is rather inflammatory. And seems to enjoy it. So that he got a little back I don't really mind.
If IIFYM and "Clean Eating"/"Whole Foods" could be considered groups, neither of us have a shortage of poor representatives.
It's a shame.0 -
Should arrange some sort of snack mixer where we all exchange luna bars and protein bars as a sign of good will :-D0
-
dietary asceticism. Interesting.
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.
I think I've said what I wanted to say, and you have done the same. Your final clause there sums up your perspective, and with that. I'm done discussing it with ya. cheers.
Don't go away mad . . .0 -
BeachIron! We're organizing a mixer!0
-
BeachIron! We're organizing a mixer!
I'm in!0 -
Clean eating is... washing my chicken before I put it in the oven.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.
Totally agree. I also know it's possible to gain weight eating mostly whole foods. My diet is mostly whole foods and has been for years. I still became overweight. It was a slow gain (about 4 lbs per year) but it added up.
But I don't eat 100% whole foods so maybe I'm a bad example.0 -
Oh sweetie, I'm not mad. I just see that it's pointless to continue this conversation. "dietary asceticism" suggests that you believe I'm doing something extreme (or sad, as jonnyathon refers to it). If eating whole foods, and avoiding HFCS is "extreme" to you, then we will continue to have a failure to communicate.
dietary asceticism. Interesting.
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.
I think I've said what I wanted to say, and you have done the same. Your final clause there sums up your perspective, and with that. I'm done discussing it with ya. cheers.
Don't go away mad . . .
as·cet·i·cism
əˈsetiˌsizəm/
noun
noun: asceticism
1.
severe self-discipline and avoidance of all forms of indulgence, typically for religious reasons.
"acts of physical asceticism"
If that's what you think my lifestyle represents, I won't try to convince you otherwise, I'll just go on eating my fabulous foods and having my nice chardonnay.0 -
Oh sweetie, I'm not mad. I just see that it's pointless to continue this conversation. "dietary asceticism" suggests that you believe I'm doing something extreme (or sad, as jonnyathon refers to it). If eating whole foods, and avoiding HFCS is "extreme" to you, then we will continue to have a failure to communicate.
dietary asceticism. Interesting.
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.
I think I've said what I wanted to say, and you have done the same. Your final clause there sums up your perspective, and with that. I'm done discussing it with ya. cheers.
Don't go away mad . . .
as·cet·i·cism
əˈsetiˌsizəm/
noun
noun: asceticism
1.
severe self-discipline and avoidance of all forms of indulgence, typically for religious reasons.
"acts of physical asceticism"
If that's what you think my lifestyle represents, I won't try to convince you otherwise, I'll just go on eating my fabulous foods and having my nice chardonnay.
Honestly, I've read several descriptions of your diet and I'm still not clear on it. Are you saying that you avoid HFCS but will eat refined sugar in moderation and enjoy a little wine on a daily or slightly less than daily basis? If so, then we are talking a matter of degree and I'm confused as to why IIFYM doesn't work for you. IIFYM doesn't meant that you MUST eat refined sugar, rather it allows it. If you prefer alcohol but not refined sugar, then that's your personal choice. My only argument with that approach would be "why no refined sugar, rather than a small amount of refined sugar?" A diet of 80-90% of what you would call clean and 10-20% of whatever the heck you want, so long as you don't go over calories and get sufficient fiber, protein and good fats, is pretty much the basics of IIFYM.
I get annoyed with "clean" because it almost inevitably ends up in one of the semantic arguments. Is it "clean with some cheats" or "IIFYM"? Who the heck even knows? My mental switch from "clean with cheats" to "IIFYM," for me, was one of relief because of my frustration with using "clean" as a guide.
So to be clear, these are things that I think are perfectly healthy to eat, and I have eaten for years, that for many are decidedly not "clean" by at least some standard of the word: non-organic everything (dairy, meat, fruit, veggies), grains and bread, white rice, canned tomatoes, dried pasta, jarred pasta sauce, canned tuna and salmon, legumes, olives, and pickles (and yes, of course, bacon, refined sugar, HFCS, Oreo cookies, Klondike bars, beer, wine, and whiskey). With the exception of what is the parentheses, those foods are also part of my 80%.
And again, yes, I would consider completely cutting out sweets to be a form of dietary asceticism, as that would be a huge sacrifice for me. The only reason I would ever completely cut a pleasure out of my life is if it was absolutely necessary. Moderate? Okay. Cut out? No. That's absolutely not an insult to you, but I'm also not walking on egg shells about my diet and thinking.0 -
Honestly, I've read several descriptions of your diet and I'm still not clear on it. Are you saying that you avoid HFCS but will eat refined sugar in moderation and enjoy a little wine on a daily or slightly less than daily basis?
I'm also baffled. And how wine, a chemistry experiment in food spoilage, becomes ok on a "clean" diet is beyond me. And that's ignoring that for Chardonnay in particular, the grape strains are identified by the "clone" number, lol.
But then I'm also baffled by "whole grains" that are ground up, since eating actual whole grains is bio-chemically an entirely different thing than eating a slice of bread made from ground up "whole" grains.
It's all completely inconsistent and smacks of convenience-based arbitrarianism - but at the end of the day, I eat what I eat, others eat what others eat, obladi oblada life goes on.0 -
I read this whole thread... I was not taught what it means to "eat clean"... I want my money back0
-
I read this whole thread... I was not taught what it means to "eat clean"... I want my money back
:laugh:0 -
I'd never listen to a Shakeology salesperson talk about clean eating. It's a powdered processed product you drink lol.0
-
Been there...just recently. :explode: :grumble:I'd never listen to a Shakeology salesperson talk about clean eating. It's a powdered processed product you drink lol.
0 -
Everyone has their own opinion n different approaches to eating clean do work! Some people stay away from bread. I eat bread everyday, my approach to eating clean is to eat as much fruit n veggies as possible, eat lean meats, n if the product is processed It should have few ingredients n I should b able to pronounce them. I eat bread, pastas, n tortillas that have 100% whole grain as the first ingredient with no white flour no sugar n no high fructose corn syrup. Eating a lot of small meals def helps me. I have 0 cravings cuz I don't allow myself to get hungry n I also pair my carbs with proteins. I only eat carbs b4 6 most of the time so my dinners are usually low carb. I've lost 15lbs in 5 weeks so its clearly working 4 me. I feel better and knowing how all of that processed food has a negative effect on my body makes eating clean easy! I think people knock this way of eating because they feel they lack the discipline to do it themselves. There is no eating clean police that are gonna ticket u for having something that's unclean. Whatever works 4 u! The point is being aware that our bodies were not built 4 man made, chemically altered foods. Our bodies function efficiently on whole foods n things found in nature. Water is also very important. I think anyone who cares about themselves should give eating clean a try.0
-
As I've said: I don't eat food with added refined sugars.
Oh sweetie, I'm not mad. I just see that it's pointless to continue this conversation. "dietary asceticism" suggests that you believe I'm doing something extreme (or sad, as jonnyathon refers to it). If eating whole foods, and avoiding HFCS is "extreme" to you, then we will continue to have a failure to communicate.
dietary asceticism. Interesting.
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.
I think I've said what I wanted to say, and you have done the same. Your final clause there sums up your perspective, and with that. I'm done discussing it with ya. cheers.
Don't go away mad . . .
as·cet·i·cism
əˈsetiˌsizəm/
noun
noun: asceticism
1.
severe self-discipline and avoidance of all forms of indulgence, typically for religious reasons.
"acts of physical asceticism"
If that's what you think my lifestyle represents, I won't try to convince you otherwise, I'll just go on eating my fabulous foods and having my nice chardonnay.
Honestly, I've read several descriptions of your diet and I'm still not clear on it. Are you saying that you avoid HFCS but will eat refined sugar in moderation and enjoy a little wine on a daily or slightly less than daily basis? If so, then we are talking a matter of degree and I'm confused as to why IIFYM doesn't work for you. IIFYM doesn't meant that you MUST eat refined sugar, rather it allows it. If you prefer alcohol but not refined sugar, then that's your personal choice. My only argument with that approach would be "why no refined sugar, rather than a small amount of refined sugar?" A diet of 80-90% of what you would call clean and 10-20% of whatever the heck you want, so long as you don't go over calories and get sufficient fiber, protein and good fats, is pretty much the basics of IIFYM.
I get annoyed with "clean" because it almost inevitably ends up in one of the semantic arguments. Is it "clean with some cheats" or "IIFYM"? Who the heck even knows? My mental switch from "clean with cheats" to "IIFYM," for me, was one of relief because of my frustration with using "clean" as a guide.
So to be clear, these are things that I think are perfectly healthy to eat, and I have eaten for years, that for many are decidedly not "clean" by at least some standard of the word: non-organic everything (dairy, meat, fruit, veggies), grains and bread, white rice, canned tomatoes, dried pasta, jarred pasta sauce, canned tuna and salmon, legumes, olives, and pickles (and yes, of course, bacon, refined sugar, HFCS, Oreo cookies, Klondike bars, beer, wine, and whiskey). With the exception of what is the parentheses, those foods are also part of my 80%.
And again, yes, I would consider completely cutting out sweets to be a form of dietary asceticism, as that would be a huge sacrifice for me. The only reason I would ever completely cut a pleasure out of my life is if it was absolutely necessary. Moderate? Okay. Cut out? No. That's absolutely not an insult to you, but I'm also not walking on egg shells about my diet and thinking.0 -
If you're "baffled" by the wine part, I can't help you there.Honestly, I've read several descriptions of your diet and I'm still not clear on it. Are you saying that you avoid HFCS but will eat refined sugar in moderation and enjoy a little wine on a daily or slightly less than daily basis?
I'm also baffled. And how wine, a chemistry experiment in food spoilage, becomes ok on a "clean" diet is beyond me. And that's ignoring that for Chardonnay in particular, the grape strains are identified by the "clone" number, lol.
But then I'm also baffled by "whole grains" that are ground up, since eating actual whole grains is bio-chemically an entirely different thing than eating a slice of bread made from ground up "whole" grains.
It's all completely inconsistent and smacks of convenience-based arbitrarianism - but at the end of the day, I eat what I eat, others eat what others eat, obladi oblada life goes on.0 -
I'd never listen to a Shakeology salesperson talk about clean eating. It's a powdered processed product you drink lol.
:laugh: :drinker:0 -
So it's clean because you say it's clean?
My room is clean.0 -
I do need help to eat clean, I am getting there but still I get confused on certain items like whether eating non-organic is still considered clean eating as it has been treated with pesticides? But the problem is that organic food is more expensive and right now I cannot afford it!0
-
I'm in - always looking for new ideas!!0
-
I do need help to eat clean, I am getting there but still I get confused on certain items like whether eating non-organic is still considered clean eating as it has been treated with pesticides? But the problem is that organic food is more expensive and right now I cannot afford it!
Eating clean is a completely subjective concept. Foods treated with pesticides have less crop yield loss due to pest damage. Therefore with higher yields the food is cheaper. Rinse the food before you eat it, and you'll be okay.
Please do not eat clean simply because of a perceived benefit.0 -
OP is a "beachbody coach". Nuff said.0
-
1) "low fat dairy". Dairy does not come out of a cow "low fat". It has to be processed to become low fat.
3) Stevia is not at all natural, it is typically processed with ethanol.
Right. Everytime I see 'low fat' with 'eating clean' I can't help but roll my eyes. Same with artificial sweeteners.
Regarding canned food, it's my understanding that eating clean includes canned foods and anything that has only one ingredient.0 -
BUMP0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions