Why "clean eating" is a myth

magerum

*knock knock*
Me: yes?
Cancer: hi mam, I'm cancer. I've noticed you haven't been eating clean lately. Mind if I...,
Me: no! I don't want any! Go away!
*slam*

Ridiculous.

cwsreddy

I'm not religious but my Dad once told me that even if there's a 99.999999999% chance there's no God and no heaven, it is STILL in your best interest to be religious in the OFF CHANCE they do exist, because if they don't then I'm no worse off - but if I refuse to acknowledge God's existence and it turns out he's real... welp. I'm ****ed.

Same thing with food.

Well, that's a bit extreme. I do believe in whole food eating, but I don't believe lots of what religion touts as truth. I don't think that anyone that does IIFYM or even any other eating lifestyle will discount that eating whole foods isn't advantageous when it comes to nutrient density. But likening that to believing in god?

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Analogies aren't your strong point huh?

fast_eddie_72

Eh it's splitting hairs. I find articles like this more annoying than anything else, and only add to the confusion in this industry. The fact is that foods that are highly processed and/or packaged have higher calorie, fat, and sodium than the whole foods that we could choose instead, and have fewer nutrients and fiber than the whole foods.

I don't have time to split hairs all day, so I'll say this: *whole foods are more nutritious than processed and packaged foods*. TADA!
Oh but that's not enough to fill up a whole page which an article needs to fill so that the advertising can be sold. oops. I guess this is why I'm a humble commenter on a forum, not an article-writer.

It also doesn't really mean anything. What's more nutritious: raw oats or oatmeal? Broccoli or ground beef? Lettuce or protein powder?

Mmmmmm, depends on what you mean by "powder".

According to Webster, "Powder" can mean "To hit very hard".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/powder

I don't think being hit very hard by protein will help me lose weight. Semantics are very important! Hairs must be split.

cwsreddy

On the "you might as well do it" thing (which I think was sadly used to try and justify "tackling climate change" too, recently....
That argument massively falls down with religion. Which do you choose? There are so many and most don't like you being a part of another.
Similarly with food.
Eating JUST twinkies is good for you - it has been proven to improve your health and reduce body fat.
There. That statement is highly likely NOT to be true, but it could be. So do you go and if not eat them purely, at least add a few to your meal plan "just in case"?

if you take a whole food and run it through a food processor it does not count as processed. being intentionally obtuse for the win!

And this is the problem. People don't like it when obvious problems with the definitions are questioned, but don't provide their own congruent definition.

So, you've made a start with your definition.

What if several 'whole foods' are put through a food processor, cooked, packaged, frozen for 6 months in storage, then sold from a supermarket (defrosted)? Is it then a processed food?

yep. because i guarantee there are additives to help with preservation and freshness, even if it's just citric acid.

geebusuk

I would say that if the supermarket does it and because I assume ( maybe wrongly so....but I am suspicious ! ) that they add some chemical to keep the stuff from changing color and maintaining it's general shape/form and looks after thawing, yes, I would be suspicious of too much " processing " especially in the chemical sense.

So if the supermarket did not act any chemicals (sic) that you did not act yourself, it would be clean?
Could you define 'chemical' as you see it please.

Eh it's splitting hairs. I find articles like this more annoying than anything else, and only add to the confusion in this industry. The fact is that foods that are highly processed and/or packaged have higher calorie, fat, and sodium than the whole foods that we could choose instead, and have fewer nutrients and fiber than the whole foods.

I don't have time to split hairs all day, so I'll say this: *whole foods are more nutritious than processed and packaged foods, and everything is fine in moderation*. TADA! The article is basically saying the same thing- only in negative form, like a photograph.

That is in no way a fact.
There are plenty of processed prepackaged foods that have more micronutritients than unpackaged 'grown and prepared at home' foods.
Sorry if it is "splitting hairs" to point out what you are calling fact is not actually fact.
But for me, it's rather a big point, in fact I'd go as far as suggest it is THE point!

stevencloser

Wow this article is seriously suggesting that eating unprocessed food offers no serious health benefits. That's the kind of advice that will have cancer knocking at your door.

Also choosing to eat food as opposed to food-like substances is NOT an eating disorder. It's called common sense.

Then again I don't go around writing articles telling others that their food choices are nonsense. Whatever happened to eat and let eat?

Says the person who just 3 sentences before called other people's food choices "food-like substances" and one sentence before that suggests that everyone eating processed food gets cancer?



"To bake an apple pie from scratch, you first have to create the universe." Where's your cutoff for processed vs. unprocessed? Flour is processed grains, do you have a grain field in your backyard in case you want to eat bread?

Blue801

*knock knock*
Me: yes?
Cancer: hi mam, I'm cancer. I've noticed you haven't been eating clean lately. Mind if I...,
Me: no! I don't want any! Go away!
*slam*

Ridiculous.

What?! Would you have invited Cancer in? Guess I'm just a scaredy cat. In my defense my husband wasn't home at the time. Just being cautious you know? :blushing:

fast_eddie_72

Wow this article is seriously suggesting that eating unprocessed food offers no serious health benefits. That's the kind of advice that will have cancer knocking at your door.

Also choosing to eat food as opposed to food-like substances is NOT an eating disorder. It's called common sense.

Then again I don't go around writing articles telling others that their food choices are nonsense. Whatever happened to eat and let eat?

Says the person who just 3 sentences before called other people's food choices "food-like substances" and one sentence before that suggests that everyone eating processed food gets cancer?



"To bake an apple pie from scratch, you first have to create the universe." Where's your cutoff for processed vs. unprocessed? Flour is processed grains, do you have a grain field in your backyard in case you want to eat bread?

Wait! Post the chemical composition of an apple! That gets them every time!

SunofaBeach14

Wow this article is seriously suggesting that eating unprocessed food offers no serious health benefits. That's the kind of advice that will have cancer knocking at your door.

Also choosing to eat food as opposed to food-like substances is NOT an eating disorder. It's called common sense.

Then again I don't go around writing articles telling others that their food choices are nonsense. Whatever happened to eat and let eat?

Not all cancer is lifestyle based. To argue otherwise is beyond ignorant of the available science on the subject.

fast_eddie_72

*knock knock*
Me: yes?
Cancer: hi mam, I'm cancer. I've noticed you haven't been eating clean lately. Mind if I...,
Me: no! I don't want any! Go away!
*slam*

Ridiculous.

Not all cancer is lifestyle based. To argue otherwise is beyond ignorant of the available science on the subject.

But evidence shows that some almost certainly is.

Blue801

*knock knock*
Me: yes?
Cancer: hi mam, I'm cancer. I've noticed you haven't been eating clean lately. Mind if I...,
Me: no! I don't want any! Go away!
*slam*

Ridiculous.

Not all cancer is lifestyle based. To argue otherwise is beyond ignorant of the available science on the subject.

That's burgler cancer; he just breaks in.

ETA: sorry for the uncalled for level of silly. It has been a long day.

SunofaBeach14

*knock knock*
Me: yes?
Cancer: hi mam, I'm cancer. I've noticed you haven't been eating clean lately. Mind if I...,
Me: no! I don't want any! Go away!
*slam*

Ridiculous.

Not all cancer is lifestyle based. To argue otherwise is beyond ignorant of the available science on the subject.

But evidence shows that some almost certainly is.

So clean eating, as opposed to a 80/20 diet is going to save anyone? Good luck with that.

cwsreddy

*knock knock*
Me: yes?
Cancer: hi mam, I'm cancer. I've noticed you haven't been eating clean lately. Mind if I...,
Me: no! I don't want any! Go away!
*slam*

Ridiculous.

Not all cancer is lifestyle based. To argue otherwise is beyond ignorant of the available science on the subject.

But evidence shows that some almost certainly is.

So clean eating, as opposed to a 80/20 diet is going to save anyone? Good luck with that.

Why are those two things independent of the other?

geebusuk

Evidence I've seen also suggests that physical fitness and not being obese are more important than what you eat in most cases.

SunofaBeach14

*knock knock*
Me: yes?
Cancer: hi mam, I'm cancer. I've noticed you haven't been eating clean lately. Mind if I...,
Me: no! I don't want any! Go away!
*slam*

Ridiculous.

Not all cancer is lifestyle based. To argue otherwise is beyond ignorant of the available science on the subject.

But evidence shows that some almost certainly is.

So clean eating, as opposed to a 80/20 diet is going to save anyone? Good luck with that.

Why are those two things independent of the other?

The argument above indicates that if you don't eat clean then you will get cancer. I haven't seen any links there.For one, you all can't even identify what it is that clean eating is. It seems to consist of organic, non-GMO, raw, non-dairy, not in a box, on the perimeter of a grocery store, etc. depending on who you talk to.

We know about antioxidants. We know that fiber helps with colon health. We have indications that certain foods are connected with stomach cancer. But what does "clean" have to do with any of this?

fast_eddie_72

Evidence I've seen also suggests that physical fitness and not being obese are more important than what you eat in most cases.

I agree. I suggest doing both. Eat well and get fit. Sounds like a plan. So why is it BS to suggest that eating well can help you avoid getting cancer?

jonnythan

*knock knock*
Me: yes?
Cancer: hi mam, I'm cancer. I've noticed you haven't been eating clean lately. Mind if I...,
Me: no! I don't want any! Go away!
*slam*

Ridiculous.

Not all cancer is lifestyle based. To argue otherwise is beyond ignorant of the available science on the subject.

But evidence shows that some almost certainly is.

So clean eating, as opposed to a 80/20 diet is going to save anyone? Good luck with that.

Why are those two things independent of the other?

80/20 means you can have a McDouble every day, basically. I hardly consider that clean. If you do then the idea of clean eating is rather... diluted.

cwsreddy

Evidence I've seen also suggests that physical fitness and not being obese are more important than what you eat in most cases.

You've never heard of a runner dying of a heart attack or a former athlete dying of a heart attack or a triathlete developing cancer at a young age? I can keep going.

Weight =/= Fitness =/= Health

There's a reason they are three separate words.

jonnythan

Evidence I've seen also suggests that physical fitness and not being obese are more important than what you eat in most cases.

I agree. I suggest doing both. Eat well and get fit. Sounds like a plan. So why is it BS to suggest that eating well can help you avoid getting cancer?

Because well and clean are different things.

fast_eddie_72

*knock knock*
Me: yes?
Cancer: hi mam, I'm cancer. I've noticed you haven't been eating clean lately. Mind if I...,
Me: no! I don't want any! Go away!
*slam*

Ridiculous.

Not all cancer is lifestyle based. To argue otherwise is beyond ignorant of the available science on the subject.

But evidence shows that some almost certainly is.

So clean eating, as opposed to a 80/20 diet is going to save anyone? Good luck with that.

Why are those two things independent of the other?

The argument above indicates that if you don't eat clean then you will get cancer.

You're reading a LOT into a humorous little anecdote about cancer knocking at your door.