Learn What it means to "Eat Clean"

bcattoes

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.

Oh, now I believe you are just arguing for the sake of it. Fish farming and a fish caught in a man-made lake are not the same things. I'm guessing you'd get arrested for catching a fish in a fish farm.

Everything in the world has been altered in some way by the existence of man, that does not mean everything is now unnatural.

Sabine_Stroehm

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.

Any time someone says: can I eat a snickers, the reply is "IFFYM".
Many posts about IFFYM end with the guy saying: I'm off to eat my pizza now".
I'm off to eat my Doritos now. I'm off to eat my third McDonalds for the week.

Awareness is the key. I don't disagree.
Mocking isn't an educational approach. It's not helpful.

Should people learn portion size too? Absolutely. As I said: I used a logging site to learn those things.
The two can easily go together. No one is saying: eat all the ezekiel bread and hummus you want.

The phrase "clean eating" IS stupid. Ive said that several times in this thread and others.
When I say I eat "primarily whole foods" the same crowd chimes in then and obtusely replies there as well.

I saw a thread where a much lauded poster went mental saying those who were eating a plant based whole food diet were judging him. Meh. he was judging himself.

Recently there was a thread where someone (of the IIFYM group) repeated the dogma that you can get as much nutrition from convenience foods and vitamins, because after all, everything's fortified now. Why would you "waste your time" eating whole foods.

And yes, I was told my lifestyle was "sad", by a little boy with a big ego. meh.

As I've said a few times: I hate the phrase "clean eating", just as I hated "eat more to weigh less" as the label for an approach.

I'm NOT saying my approach is right. I'm simply wondering why folks are repeatedly told to eat within their calories and macros and that's it.

Some folks are looking for more. I'll keep encouraging that.

Are they using some debunked science? Probably.

In 5 years will IIFYM be the thing to mock? Who knows.

So instead of mocking the label, immediately launching into nonsense, why not say: what do you mean by it? Oh whole foods? Fewer processed convenience foods, fewer unpronounceable chemicals? OH, great. Remember to also eat at a deficit. (just as I say: you want to eat poptarts for breakfast every day? Ok, please try to eat some vegetables as well, and stay at a deficit).
Instead they pretend not to understand what the OP means and talk about the chemicals in an apple, and the processing of butter. (or a few posts back about the processing of a frigging cow)

But then, even walking was mocked by pizza boy and a few others the other day.
"all in good fun" (for them).
Folks forget: not everyone is them.

capnrus789

When she shaves and showers and you get at it.

Sabine_Stroehm

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 said

And then what happens when they get to goal eating poptarts, lunchables, and lean cuisines?

Perhaps Michael Pollan really does have it right. Or at least, not too far off.

BrainyBurro

I've tried an IIFYM approach, and found it more cumbersome.

bcattoes

I've tried an IIFYM approach, and found it more cumbersome.

FInding something cumbersome = hate??? :huh:

CorvusCorax77

Please. I'm serious. Do people actually think this constitutes "eating" "clean" "whole" "foods"????

Mother_Superior

Oh hey look! It's another thread discussion that really only proves one thing: We're all excellent at taking whatever words we like and making them mean whatever we want. Arbitrary, ill-defined concepts are addictive little buggers!

rlinaresv

After all the discussion, the only thing that I can take is "do something that's sustainable in your life style as long as you are in deficit". The "cleaner" the food is the easier to process for the buddy is. Bottomline is being healthy

Cheers

BusyRaeNOTBusty

I like candy.

Sabine_Stroehm

Please. I'm serious. Do people actually think this constitutes "eating" "clean" "whole" "foods"????

Not myself or anyone replying to this thread, except perhaps the OP (thus my post to her earlier).

Sabine_Stroehm

I've tried an IIFYM approach, and found it more cumbersome.

Well burro (I'll skip the adjective), where did I say I hated it??

seliinac

How can you tell someone is a "Clean Eater"?

Don't worry - they'll tell you.

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)?

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.

I have never seen any pro-iifym person say any of the following:
-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.

rlinaresv

Sabine_Stroeh, I like your style, argumenting your beliefs but respecting the others
Well done

kyleekay10

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 said

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. However, I have seen several posts where people give the advice to "just eat clean" without adding "but make sure you're under your calorie goal".

TheJamLady

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

CorvusCorax77

Please. I'm serious. Do people actually think this constitutes "eating" "clean" "whole" "foods"????

Not myself or anyone replying to this thread, except perhaps the OP (thus my post to her earlier).

Thanks for replying!

For the record, I think OP's before and afters speak to her dedication and hard work.

tonyyung779

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."

Everyone knows salt isn't natural! It's da devil.

Salt, gluten and aspartame killed my family.

kyleekay10

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

No, the whole point of MFP is so people can track their caloric intake as well as their macro-nutrient intake if they so desire. The forums are not the main function or purpose of this site.

bcattoes

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.