How do you keep your food intake "Clean"?
Options
Replies
-
I have a feeling you were being facetious, but it is more or less this. There is no reason to need to know the chemical make-up of every food you eat. I would wager that no one, even the most experienced nutrition scientist, does. But, there is a comfort for some in knowing that a food does not contain additives that, without time and research, they know nothing about other than the FDA has put them on the GRAS list (or whatever standard their country has for food additives).
So we should completely do away with food labeling? Because the fact of the matter is simple: unless you* are growing the items yourself - you really don't know what's in it. That apple/cucumber/lettuce/tomato you bought at the store/farmer's market/farmstand? You have no idea what sort(s) of pesticides/fertilizer/cleaning agents were used in its production. You have no idea if it was subjected to distilled water, tap water (and whatever is in it, depending upon municipality), or just outside and subjected to acid rain. There's sooooo much you really don't know about what it is you are about to consume. And, finally, if someone wants to avoid certain chemicals, then they really ought to know/realize that those chemicals may be found in the foods that they consider clean/natural/organic/whatever. There's no difference between the ethanol that's in an apple and the ethanol someone creates in a lab - it's CH3CH2OH, whether it's made by Mother Nature or man.
*You is not any one particular person, rather it's the generic you.
And, yes, I was being somewhat facetious.
This again?? Food labeling and chemical make-up are not the same things. Not even close really. They are completely different subjects.
And the rest of your rant is why many people go for organic produce, so that the pesticides and fertilizers are more limited. I'm sure many would like to avoid all food that was not grown in a controlled environment of clean soil and water and atmosphere. But, this is the real world. Not controlling things you feel strongly about, just because you can't control everything would be ridiculous.
People exclude things from their diet for various reasons, without caring if you think they should or not. It's personal choice.0 -
Bitter is one of the tastes that humans have either evolved or has been there to protect against poisons. Probably the reason bitter greens or other foods are either liked or disliked solely from that taste perspective. For some reason people have different tolerances of bitter and for me I probably don't react to bitter as a lot of people do, I enjoy bitter foods on their own or as a balance with other tastes, like savory, sweet, sour etc.....and why I like and enjoy kale, swiss chard, etc. Could be geographic or social too I think.......not use to it is an automatic turn down for losts of people. Anyway I'm digressing. lolAlso, the people who think natural = better are deluding themselves. Everything in nature has well-developed defense mechanisms. Surviving in nature is a constant arms race. Nature doesn't exist for our benefit. The history of organisms is a history of species taking advantage of one another, developing defenses against each other, and evolving new ways to get past those defenses and continue taking advantage of one another.
We exist because we evolved to survive despite other organisms' best efforts to screw us over. We evolved to be able to TOLERATE things in nature. They didn't evolve for OUR benefit.0 -
Does fish covered in panko count.
If it's paleo, then it's the Daniel Boone diet.
I was waiting for someone to mention this
Is this the "Fishes and Loaves" diet? Cause i eat a whole whitefish fillet and 2 slices of 12 grain bread (yes 12 as in the appossels (typo likely sue me) - 3-4 times a week....Im down for it
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Really i was just trying to be funny (well sort of).......But i do like me some Fishes and Loaves!
For me (diabetic) i try to avoid carbs that are quickly absorbed....but i havent looked at panko at all...not sure it would be a slow absorbed carb....if i bread my fish i use whole wheat flour and thats that. Usually i just broil, sear in omega 3 light butter substitute, or i bake in tin foil with same butter sub with lemon and herbs.
In small amounts, and along with protein, carbs are fine. My husband is diabetic too, but I sure bread his fish and chicken for him.0 -
Bitter is one of the tastes that humans have either evolved or has been there to protect against poisons. Probably the reason bitter greens or other foods are either liked or disliked solely from that taste perspective. For some reason people have different tolerances of bitter and for me I probably don't react to bitter as a lot of people do, I enjoy bitter foods on their own or as a balance with other tastes, like savory, sweet, sour etc.....and why I like and enjoy kale, swiss chard, etc. Could be geographic or social too I think.......not use to it is an automatic turn down for losts of people. Anyway I'm digressing. lolAlso, the people who think natural = better are deluding themselves. Everything in nature has well-developed defense mechanisms. Surviving in nature is a constant arms race. Nature doesn't exist for our benefit. The history of organisms is a history of species taking advantage of one another, developing defenses against each other, and evolving new ways to get past those defenses and continue taking advantage of one another.
We exist because we evolved to survive despite other organisms' best efforts to screw us over. We evolved to be able to TOLERATE things in nature. They didn't evolve for OUR benefit.
But I *like* bitter foods, at least some of them, like, dark chocolate, grapefruit, coffee, lager...0 -
We just read the label off the chocolate cake I had for my birthday at work... (my boss is one of those clean eater types) and our local chemist/biologist said one of the ingredients is essentially anti-freeze.
I'm still happy I got chocolate cake!0 -
We just read the label off the chocolate cake I had for my birthday at work... (my boss is one of those clean eater types) and our local chemist/biologist said one of the ingredients is essentially anti-freeze.
I'm still happy I got chocolate cake!
Propylene glycol. It's used as a nontoxic antifreeze. Very similar to ethlyene glycol, which is also used as antifreeze, but ethylene glycol is highly toxic and not used in food.
Both are very sweet-tasting. Propylene glycol is often used as a preservative and sometimes a sweetener. Ethylene glycol is found every now and then in products from China like toothpaste, because it is extremely cheap and sweet.0 -
I have been on my journey for the past 4 months with awesome results. As i begin my new workout regiment that a RL buddy is helping me put together for Strength Training, I keep hearing him, and others through research, mention "keeping it clean". Now being the noob i am, i assume i know what they are all saying cause no one ever really says what they mean, but, I want to get a feel from my new extended family.....
What does "keeping it clean" mean for you in terms of nutritional intake?!?!
CK
Literally it means nothing. How it is most likely meant... focus on nutrient dense whole foods for the bulk of your calories.
Get the maximum amount of nutrition with the least amount of calories and have an eye towards variety. Depending on your goals and personal preference, fill up the remaining calories however you like.0 -
There's no difference between the ethanol that's in an apple and the ethanol someone creates in a lab - it's CH3CH2OH, whether it's made by Mother Nature or man.
This again?? Food labeling and chemical make-up are not the same things. Not even close really. They are completely different subjects.
...
People exclude things from their diet for various reasons, without caring if you think they should or not. It's personal choice.
But they really are the same thing. The bolded above is how/why that is.
Personal choice is great. Personal choice, when armed with sufficient knowledge, is better.
eta: The point I was attempting to make is, quite simply, that if someone wants to avoid any particular item/chemical/whatever, then they need to know what contains that item/chemical/whatever. If you (again, generic) want/need to avoid ethanol, for whatever reason (I don't care why - it's none of my business), then you need to avoid apples (for example). If you don't know that apples contain ethanol, then you may very well be consuming whatever it is you need/want to avoid.0 -
There's no difference between the ethanol that's in an apple and the ethanol someone creates in a lab - it's CH3CH2OH, whether it's made by Mother Nature or man.
This again?? Food labeling and chemical make-up are not the same things. Not even close really. They are completely different subjects.
...
People exclude things from their diet for various reasons, without caring if you think they should or not. It's personal choice.
But they really are the same thing. The bolded above is how/why that is.
Personal choice is great. Personal choice, when armed with sufficient knowledge, is better.
Nope. Ethanol will not be on the label of a bag of apples. The label will say "apples". Because apples is the only ingredient. I think you need to research the difference between the terms 'ingredient' and 'chemical makeup'
And all man-made versions of naturally occurring chemicals are not the same as the naturally occurring versions. Vitamin A, for example.0 -
There's no difference between the ethanol that's in an apple and the ethanol someone creates in a lab - it's CH3CH2OH, whether it's made by Mother Nature or man.
This again?? Food labeling and chemical make-up are not the same things. Not even close really. They are completely different subjects.
...
People exclude things from their diet for various reasons, without caring if you think they should or not. It's personal choice.
But they really are the same thing. The bolded above is how/why that is.
Personal choice is great. Personal choice, when armed with sufficient knowledge, is better.
Nope. Ethanol will not be on the label of a bag of apples. The label will say "apples". Because apples is the only ingredient. I think you need to research the difference between the terms 'ingredient' and 'chemical makeup'
And all man-made versions of naturally occurring chemicals are not the same as the naturally occurring versions. Vitamin A, for example.
That's because "vitamin A" is not a chemical but a set of different chemicals that, generally, get metabolized into the same thing in the body.
Ethanol is ethanol whether it's in an apple, created by breakdown of aspartame, or is found in beer.0 -
I think you need to research the difference between the terms 'ingredient' and 'chemical makeup'
Not at all. Chemical makeup is simply the chemical ingredients of an item. No more. No less. Ingredient is (typically) a common name.And all man-made versions of naturally occurring chemicals are not the same as the naturally occurring versions. Vitamin A, for example.
Umm... eta: I see jonny's already addressed this part.0 -
There's no difference between the ethanol that's in an apple and the ethanol someone creates in a lab - it's CH3CH2OH, whether it's made by Mother Nature or man.
This again?? Food labeling and chemical make-up are not the same things. Not even close really. They are completely different subjects.
...
People exclude things from their diet for various reasons, without caring if you think they should or not. It's personal choice.
But they really are the same thing. The bolded above is how/why that is.
Personal choice is great. Personal choice, when armed with sufficient knowledge, is better.
Nope. Ethanol will not be on the label of a bag of apples. The label will say "apples". Because apples is the only ingredient. I think you need to research the difference between the terms 'ingredient' and 'chemical makeup'
And all man-made versions of naturally occurring chemicals are not the same as the naturally occurring versions. Vitamin A, for example.
Funny you should say that.
0 -
There's no difference between the ethanol that's in an apple and the ethanol someone creates in a lab - it's CH3CH2OH, whether it's made by Mother Nature or man.
This again?? Food labeling and chemical make-up are not the same things. Not even close really. They are completely different subjects.
...
People exclude things from their diet for various reasons, without caring if you think they should or not. It's personal choice.
But they really are the same thing. The bolded above is how/why that is.
Personal choice is great. Personal choice, when armed with sufficient knowledge, is better.
Nope. Ethanol will not be on the label of a bag of apples. The label will say "apples". Because apples is the only ingredient. I think you need to research the difference between the terms 'ingredient' and 'chemical makeup'
And all man-made versions of naturally occurring chemicals are not the same as the naturally occurring versions. Vitamin A, for example.
That's because "vitamin A" is not a chemical but a set of different chemicals that, generally, get metabolized into the same thing in the body.
Ethanol is ethanol whether it's in an apple, created by breakdown of aspartame, or is found in beer.
See, perfect example. The label would list Vitamin A as a additive, if it were man-made and added. Same for Ethanol. Niether would be listed if Mother Nature put them there.
All the arguments in the world won't change the fact that this distiction - how the chemical or group of chemicals got into the food - is important to some people.0 -
See, perfect example. The label would list Vitamin A as a additive, if it were man-made and added. Same for Ethanol. Niether would be listed if Mother Nature put them there.
All the arguments in the world won't change the fact that this distiction - how the chemical or group of chemicals got into the food - is important to some people.
This isn't quantum mechanics. You don't change the chemical nature of something just by writing it down. Whether it's on the label is immaterial; whether it's in the food is what matters.
Heck, most of the things written on labels are isolated from natural sources to begin with.
We're not arguing whether it's important to anyone. We're arguing whether it actually makes any difference in reality.0 -
See, perfect example. The label would list Vitamin A as a additive, if it were man-made and added. Same for Ethanol. Niether would be listed if Mother Nature put them there.
All the arguments in the world won't change the fact that this distiction - how the chemical or group of chemicals got into the food - is important to some people.
This isn't quantum mechanics. You don't change the chemical nature of something just by writing it down. Whether it's on the label is immaterial; whether it's in the food is what matters.
Heck, most of the things written on labels are isolated from natural sources to begin with.
We're not arguing whether it's important to anyone. We're arguing whether it actually makes any difference in reality.
It does make a difference. There will never be an unnatural substance in a food and NOT on the label. Sure, one could take the time to research all those added chemicals to see if they are natural additives vs. man-made, or you could just avoid them and not worry about it or spend time on it.
That is the point. The notion that everyone should take a science (or more correctly chemistry) class just so they can memorize every chemical additive is crazy.0 -
See, perfect example. The label would list Vitamin A as a additive, if it were man-made and added. Same for Ethanol. Niether would be listed if Mother Nature put them there.
All the arguments in the world won't change the fact that this distiction - how the chemical or group of chemicals got into the food - is important to some people.
This isn't quantum mechanics. You don't change the chemical nature of something just by writing it down. Whether it's on the label is immaterial; whether it's in the food is what matters.
Heck, most of the things written on labels are isolated from natural sources to begin with.
We're not arguing whether it's important to anyone. We're arguing whether it actually makes any difference in reality.
It does make a difference. There will never be an unnatural substance in a food and NOT on the label. Sure, one could take the time to research all those added chemicals to see if they are natural additives vs. man-made, or you could just avoid them and not worry about it or spend time on it.
That is the point. The notion that everyone should take a science (or more correctly chemistry) class just so they can memorize every chemical additive is crazy.
Everyone shouldn't take a science class.
However, they SHOULD have taken a science class before proclaiming that such-and-such chemical is bad or unhealthy, or that it's bad because they can't pronounce it and don't even know what it is.
By all means, avoid things that look scary to you if you're not willing to learn about them. That's fine.
But don't tell us things are bad because you're ignorant about what they are and how to pronounce them.0 -
See, perfect example. The label would list Vitamin A as a additive, if it were man-made and added. Same for Ethanol. Niether would be listed if Mother Nature put them there.
All the arguments in the world won't change the fact that this distiction - how the chemical or group of chemicals got into the food - is important to some people.
This isn't quantum mechanics. You don't change the chemical nature of something just by writing it down. Whether it's on the label is immaterial; whether it's in the food is what matters.
Heck, most of the things written on labels are isolated from natural sources to begin with.
We're not arguing whether it's important to anyone. We're arguing whether it actually makes any difference in reality.
It does make a difference. There will never be an unnatural substance in a food and NOT on the label. Sure, one could take the time to research all those added chemicals to see if they are natural additives vs. man-made, or you could just avoid them and not worry about it or spend time on it.
That is the point. The notion that everyone should take a science (or more correctly chemistry) class just so they can memorize every chemical additive is crazy.
Everyone shouldn't take a science class.
However, they SHOULD have taken a science class before proclaiming that such-and-such chemical is bad or unhealthy, or that it's bad because they can't pronounce it and don't even know what it is.
By all means, avoid things that look scary to you if you're not willing to learn about them. That's fine.
But don't tell us things are bad because you're ignorant about what they are and how to pronounce them.
Did someone tell you that?0 -
See, perfect example. The label would list Vitamin A as a additive, if it were man-made and added. Same for Ethanol. Niether would be listed if Mother Nature put them there.
All the arguments in the world won't change the fact that this distiction - how the chemical or group of chemicals got into the food - is important to some people.
This isn't quantum mechanics. You don't change the chemical nature of something just by writing it down. Whether it's on the label is immaterial; whether it's in the food is what matters.
Heck, most of the things written on labels are isolated from natural sources to begin with.
We're not arguing whether it's important to anyone. We're arguing whether it actually makes any difference in reality.
It does make a difference. There will never be an unnatural substance in a food and NOT on the label. Sure, one could take the time to research all those added chemicals to see if they are natural additives vs. man-made, or you could just avoid them and not worry about it or spend time on it.
That is the point. The notion that everyone should take a science (or more correctly chemistry) class just so they can memorize every chemical additive is crazy.
Everyone shouldn't take a science class.
However, they SHOULD have taken a science class before proclaiming that such-and-such chemical is bad or unhealthy, or that it's bad because they can't pronounce it and don't even know what it is.
By all means, avoid things that look scary to you if you're not willing to learn about them. That's fine.
But don't tell us things are bad because you're ignorant about what they are and how to pronounce them.
Did someone tell you that?
Your words I think.If you cant pronounce the names of the ingredients or the list takes up half the label, you shouldn't be putting it in your body.0 -
But don't tell us things are bad because you're ignorant about what they are and how to pronounce them.
Did someone tell you that?
Your words I think.If you cant pronounce the names of the ingredients or the list takes up half the label, you shouldn't be putting it in your body.
No. Page 1 of this thread, but a different poster.
And in response to question: all the time here on MFP. Don't pretend you haven't seen it several times.0 -
See, perfect example. The label would list Vitamin A as a additive, if it were man-made and added. Same for Ethanol. Niether would be listed if Mother Nature put them there.
All the arguments in the world won't change the fact that this distiction - how the chemical or group of chemicals got into the food - is important to some people.
This isn't quantum mechanics. You don't change the chemical nature of something just by writing it down. Whether it's on the label is immaterial; whether it's in the food is what matters.
Heck, most of the things written on labels are isolated from natural sources to begin with.
We're not arguing whether it's important to anyone. We're arguing whether it actually makes any difference in reality.
It does make a difference. There will never be an unnatural substance in a food and NOT on the label. Sure, one could take the time to research all those added chemicals to see if they are natural additives vs. man-made, or you could just avoid them and not worry about it or spend time on it.
That is the point. The notion that everyone should take a science (or more correctly chemistry) class just so they can memorize every chemical additive is crazy.
Everyone shouldn't take a science class.
However, they SHOULD have taken a science class before proclaiming that such-and-such chemical is bad or unhealthy, or that it's bad because they can't pronounce it and don't even know what it is.
By all means, avoid things that look scary to you if you're not willing to learn about them. That's fine.
But don't tell us things are bad because you're ignorant about what they are and how to pronounce them.
Did someone tell you that?
Your words I think.If you cant pronounce the names of the ingredients or the list takes up half the label, you shouldn't be putting it in your body.
No, not mine. But it doesn't say they are bad, it just says you shouldn't put them in your body. But if you knew what the chemical was, then you'd probably be able to pronounce it, then you could eat it.
So, we have the don't want to do research so I'll avoid it vs. I know what that is and it's not bad vs, I just don't care, it tastes good.
It's all fine. To each his own.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions