Clean Eating Bashing?
Options
Replies
-
I've dipped into the single digits wit no performance issues. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not a special snowflake.
What sport were you playing at the time. What level? What frequency?0 -
That is why I do not consider low bf% as fit. You may be fit and have a low bf%, but the low bf% is not what makes you fit.
You simply don't understand the perspective I am coming from.
I understand your perspective just fine. I don't think low body fat % makes someone fit either. Why are we even arguing about it at all?0 -
Actually, that was an aside.
My main thrust is that fit means "apt for a task". That is why I do not consider low bf% as fit. You may be fit and have a low bf%, but the low bf% is not what makes you fit.
You simply don't understand the perspective I am coming from. Probably because you haven't read about it in a scientific paper yet.
I think that's a better way to put it- BF is a function of food intake... I know several people who have fairly low BF but I feel like I "out perform" them in terms of intensity- I am sure though- I could do quiet a bit better if I were down 10 % body fat..
I also agree with waldo- most people WILDLY over eastimate how low their BF is- people tell me surely I must be concerned about dropping to much- in reality at 5'8" and 160 lbs- with barely visible abs- and insanely NOT visible quads- I could stand to lose another 15-20 lbs of body fat and probably be just fine.0 -
That is why I do not consider low bf% as fit. You may be fit and have a low bf%, but the low bf% is not what makes you fit.
You simply don't understand the perspective I am coming from.
I understand your perspective just fine. I don't think low body fat % makes someone fit either. Why are we even arguing about it at all?
Because you're argumentative. That means sometimes you have to start an argument with someone you agree with!0 -
If people say “I want to be strong”, “I want to be fit”, “I want to be attractive” on MFP, what does that mean? It has to be bullsh*t, right, because no one can clearly, scientifically, objectively define what being strong, fit, and attractive is? And yet these types of comments are posted all the time and don’t cause a sh*tstorm - no one calls these people smug and arrogant.
Stroger is a measurable quantity. Fitter is a measurable quantity, depending on your metric (5k time, resting heart rate, VO2max, etc). Attractive... well, I don't know, but generally people mean lower body fat percentage and/or greater quantity of lean mass, which are both measurable (as are waist/hip ratio, pants size, etc).
"Clean" is not a measurable quantity.
The comparison here is invalid.
“Attractive…well, I don’t know”. Exactly my point.
Clean eating, being strong, fit, and attractive are subjective across a large population, but can be objective at a personal level. I can break MY variation of clean eating down into a lot of objective components – minimal amount of ingredients, minimal amount of certain chemicals and antibiotics/hormones/pesticides/GMOs, sugar as only x% of carbs, minimal amount of refined sugar, etc. Those are all objective qualities, right? While that is my definition, each of the 400,000+ people on MFP has their own. Just as they do strength, fitness, and attractiveness. Lacking a universal standard doesn't render a concept invalid.
Your idea of fit may be doing X amount of circuits within 20 minutes in a Crossfit WOD, mine may be running a 5k in 25 minutes, and another’s may be walking a dog for 30 minutes. All are objective, but different levels of fitness. Each of us can say honestly “I’m fit”, by our own definitions, and yet it is meaningless without further explanation. Just like saying “I eat clean”. When people stop describing themselves or others as strong, fit, or attractive, I’ll stop saying that I try to eat clean.0 -
0
-
If people say “I want to be strong”, “I want to be fit”, “I want to be attractive” on MFP, what does that mean? It has to be bullsh*t, right, because no one can clearly, scientifically, objectively define what being strong, fit, and attractive is? And yet these types of comments are posted all the time and don’t cause a sh*tstorm - no one calls these people smug and arrogant.
Stroger is a measurable quantity. Fitter is a measurable quantity, depending on your metric (5k time, resting heart rate, VO2max, etc). Attractive... well, I don't know, but generally people mean lower body fat percentage and/or greater quantity of lean mass, which are both measurable (as are waist/hip ratio, pants size, etc).
"Clean" is not a measurable quantity.
The comparison here is invalid.
“Attractive…well, I don’t know”. Exactly my point.
Clean eating, being strong, fit, and attractive are subjective across a large population, but can be objective at a personal level. I can break MY variation of clean eating down into a lot of objective components – minimal amount of ingredients, minimal amount of certain chemicals and antibiotics/hormones/pesticides/GMOs, sugar as only x% of carbs, minimal amount of refined sugar, etc. Those are all objective qualities, right? While that is my definition, each of the 400,000+ people on MFP has their own. Just as they do strength, fitness, and attractiveness. Lacking a universal standard doesn't render a concept invalid.
Your idea of fit may be doing X amount of circuits within 20 minutes in a Crossfit WOD, mine may be running a 5k in 25 minutes, and another’s may be walking a dog for 30 minutes. All are objective, but different levels of fitness. Each of us can say honestly “I’m fit”, by our own definitions, and yet it is meaningless without further explanation. Just like saying “I eat clean”. When people stop describing themselves or others as strong, fit, or attractive, I’ll stop saying that I try to eat clean.
But the problem is that this isn't about whether anyone feels they personally eat clean. It's about them telling other people to eat clean because X will happen if they do or don't.
You "eat clean"? Awesome. Good for you. I don't care. If you come and tell someone else to "eat clean" because of X bogus reason, THEN we have a problem.0 -
Actually, that was an aside.
My main thrust is that fit means "apt for a task". That is why I do not consider low bf% as fit. You may be fit and have a low bf%, but the low bf% is not what makes you fit.
You simply don't understand the perspective I am coming from. Probably because you haven't read about it in a scientific paper yet.
I think that's a better way to put it- BF is a function of food intake... I know several people who have fairly low BF but I feel like I "out perform" them in terms of intensity- I am sure though- I could do quiet a bit better if I were down 10 % body fat..
I also agree with waldo- most people WILDLY over eastimate how low their BF is- people tell me surely I must be concerned about dropping to much- in reality at 5'8" and 160 lbs- with barely visible abs- and insanely NOT visible quads- I could stand to lose another 15-20 lbs of body fat and probably be just fine.
I'm not saying that you can't perform at lower bf%, just that there is a bf% at which things start sliding backwards for you. That bf% is probably different for everyone and probably is a function of genetics. Guess at a certain level we're all special snowflakes!
I also agree with Waldo about the estimation thing. Putting numbers on things is mostly unhelpful anyway. Am I doing okay? Can I still recover training at this frequency, this intensity at my current bf%? Why am I getting sick more often? These are the important questions. Putting numbers to things is helpful if you are a number orientated person. But, experientially speaking, unimportant in the grand scheme of things.0 -
That's a good link.0 -
I don't feel like the "clean eaters" want the rest of the world to accept their point of view. They have a point of view and they don't expect you to agree with it, they just don't want you to belittle them or their point of view in the process.
At it's base, that seams like a reasonable request. In reality, it's not.
Internet discussion boards are known for not being the healthiest place to debate anything that is considered controversial by the participants on that board. Some of you might be asking "how can eating clean be controversial?!?!", but in our MFP universe, it creates a lot of disagreement and debate so it fits the definition. People on internet boards can be aggressive, rude or even demeaning to points that are contrary to their own.
What people need to do is ignore the people they think are bashing them. If you think "Clean Eating" is great and you want to start a discussion about it... go for it. Just be prepared for an onslaught of people trying to tear the very notion of it down. Ignore those posts. Read the one's that seem relevant to your discussion.
That's it. Stop feeling bashed. Stop feeling offended. Just discuss your points, ask your questions, and ignore the rest.
If you can't do that. Go outside. The internet is no place for you.
.0 -
That's a good link.
I agree and it covers many of the misconceptions about both approaches. And how you can do both. I actually don't think they are mutually exclusive.0 -
4% body fat...fit or not?
Fit means different things to different people. It all boils down to that.
"if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
~Einstein
Hopefully some will see the correlation.0 -
0
-
I'm not saying that you can't perform at lower bf%, just that there is a bf% at which things start sliding backwards for you. That bf% is probably different for everyone and probably is a function of genetics. Guess at a certain level we're all special snowflakes!
I also agree with Waldo about the estimation thing. Putting numbers on things is mostly unhelpful anyway. Am I doing okay? Can I still recover training at this frequency, this intensity at my current bf%? Why am I getting sick more often? These are the important questions. Putting numbers to things is helpful if you are a number orientated person. But, experientially speaking, unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
But you also have to remember as you get leaner, diet becomes a MUCH bigger factor. The fatter you are, the blurier the link between diet and performance becomes. When obese, there is virtually no relationship between diet and performance. But as you lean out, there is much less room for error. Both total energy intake and carb intake become vitally important on a daily basis (plus rest, which also becomes more important) to maintain peak performance.
One could easily attribute a performance issue to having a low BF% that actually should be attributed to a poor diet for what you are trying to do.
Sooooo many people lean out using low-moderate carb diets while doing a training/exercise plan that is appropriate for a high carb intake. This is fine until you lean out, but then the lack of carbs is going to cause problems (IMHO this adrenal fatigue nonsense going around could be easily renamed "you eat too few carbs").0 -
Eating food is not the problem. Overeating causes problems. Balance and moderation is the key, specifically with food and generally in life. The world would be a better place if we sought balance and moderation in our lives, along with a healty dose of tolerance.0
-
This should, but won't, end each and every discussion involving "clean eating."0 -
I don't post much, but have stalked these boards for quite a while and the clean-eating bashing is a big turn-off for me personally. These are the reasons I choose to eat "cleaner":
1. I enjoy cooking
2. I want to know where as many elements of my food come from as possible
3. I want to maintain the energy to sustain an active lifestyle
4. I want good skin, hair, and teeth
5. I want good digestion
6. I want to set a good example for my children
7. I don't want to rely on supplements or medications
8. I don't want to feel bad if I chose to have some candy
8. When I know better, I do better
Of course all of this is subjective, but the great thing is I don't have to rely on anyone else's experiences but my own. I don't have to quantify or qualify or justify. Period.0 -
This would be an example of someone taking something to an extreme to prove a point. Of course everything is made of chemicals, even in nature. I prefer to eat those provided by nature rather then those provided in a lab. that is the difference. And this photo and description is a rebuttal to that argument. And no.. i would not eat a man created food that had this ingredient list, but I will gladly eat an apple. You don't have to see the difference. I do.
Of course everything is made up of chemicals. So are we, and everything around us. What does that have to do with it?0 -
This should, but won't, end each and every discussion involving "clean eating."
An article by a 17 year old isn't going to end this debate. It will definitely take more than that on this board...lol.0 -
A blog by a 17 year old. Granted, he may be 18 by now. :happy:
This should, but won't, end each and every discussion involving "clean eating."
An article by a 17 year old isn't going to end this debate. It will definitely take more than that on this board...lol.
Armi can do what he deems best for him. Just as everyone on here should do what they believe is best FOR THEM.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 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
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions