Why "clean eating" is a myth
Replies
-
I'm sure there are, but that doesn't mean he is. Most of his facts were spot on, I'd just question what his definition of "clean eating" is since he never really said. He seemed to focus a lot on sugar, which I never thought of as "dirty" since it occurs naturally in nature in sugar cane, sugar beets, etc.If I read that right, the guy who wrote that is 18 and doesn't appear to have much of an education in nutrition or anything like that, just an eating disorder. And he admits he has a tendency to take things to extremes. He ate too little and exercised too much, I don't see what that really has to do with clean eating.
He made some valid arguments but I think the article is misleading. Junk food is not a food group. You don't need junk food to achieve a balanced, healthy diet. Yes, you can eat a balanced, healthy diet and still eat some junk food. I don't need to drink Diet Coke and Cheetos to be healthy. Eating "clean" is not going to harm your body, but avoiding certain food groups and depriving your body of certain nutrients could. A lot of junk food is not actually "food". It is a bunch of substances put together to make something we might ingest. Have you looked at the ingredients of the things you put in your mouth? I figure if I can't pronounce it, it's probably not a necessity of my diet.
I'm sorry but I will eat as clean or as unclean as I want and will choose not to take my advice from any 18 year old with a computer.
There exist 18 year olds who are smarter, more educated, and more successful than I. I am OK with that fact. Not everyone is, I guess.
But either way, it's the internet. Anyone can claim to know their stuff or have a PHD in nutrition, but that doesn't mean they do. So believe what you want I guess. I believe that clean certain forms of clean eating can have health benefits, but the misunderstanding of what's actually "clean" or going to extremes is where you can run into problems.0 -
Anywho, I fear real terms like "whole foods" and "processed foods" have become as murky as "clean foods" and it irks me.
This is true to varying degrees of any term in the diet world, but I think most people have a fairly clear meaning of what is meant by processed and whole foods. They just like to pick apart definitions for the sake of argument.
very true.
A definition that cannot withstand critical analysis is not of much use. Don't blame the debate, blame your definition.
As I mentioned before; I am a non-native speaker of English. Since you seem to imply that it is my definition that is wrong ; which very well might be possible, even though It seems to not be more wrong than most people's....But let's assume that we pretty much are all wrong....:o) ) and since I personally am interested in better communication, what definition would you suggest one should use ?
I have not found a suitable definition which can withstand critical analysis. Again, if you want to use it as a "rule of thumb" feel free but I don't see it guiding critical dietary decisions. That said, IIFM isn't perfect either, but it does seem to be cabable of providing an answer for people asking "can I eat xxxx?"
ETA: it also can answer the critical question of " why should I hit my macros." Not sure why anyone should "eat clean" though, depending of course on whatever definition you settle on.0 -
...And frankly, eating "cleaner" is not a bad health strategy overall. The problem is that a lot of people either place thems selves in the extremes of the camps or position the opposition as being extreme...
:drinker:0 -
I'm sure there are, but that doesn't mean he is. Most of his facts were spot on, I'd just question what his definition of "clean eating" is since he never really said. He seemed to focus a lot on sugar, which I never thought of as "dirty" since it occurs naturally in nature in sugar cane, sugar beets, etc.If I read that right, the guy who wrote that is 18 and doesn't appear to have much of an education in nutrition or anything like that, just an eating disorder. And he admits he has a tendency to take things to extremes. He ate too little and exercised too much, I don't see what that really has to do with clean eating.
He made some valid arguments but I think the article is misleading. Junk food is not a food group. You don't need junk food to achieve a balanced, healthy diet. Yes, you can eat a balanced, healthy diet and still eat some junk food. I don't need to drink Diet Coke and Cheetos to be healthy. Eating "clean" is not going to harm your body, but avoiding certain food groups and depriving your body of certain nutrients could. A lot of junk food is not actually "food". It is a bunch of substances put together to make something we might ingest. Have you looked at the ingredients of the things you put in your mouth? I figure if I can't pronounce it, it's probably not a necessity of my diet.
I'm sorry but I will eat as clean or as unclean as I want and will choose not to take my advice from any 18 year old with a computer.
There exist 18 year olds who are smarter, more educated, and more successful than I. I am OK with that fact. Not everyone is, I guess.
But either way, it's the internet. Anyone can claim to know their stuff or have a PHD in nutrition, but that doesn't mean they do. So believe what you want I guess. I believe that clean certain forms of clean eating can have health benefits, but the misunderstanding of what's actually "clean" or going to extremes is where you can run into problems.
He did go through some trouble to highlight the fact that the definition of "clean eating" varies quite widely depending on who you listen to.
Anyway, criticizing the guy on specious grounds like "he's young" and "he's on the internet" is just ad hominem. If you want to criticize the article, criticize its logic, facts, or conclusions. Don't just attack the author.0 -
...And frankly, eating "cleaner" is not a bad health strategy overall. The problem is that a lot of people either place thems selves in the extremes of the camps or position the opposition as being extreme...
:drinker:
"Clean eating" is by definition an extreme. Most of the rest of us are not an "extreme"; we simply say to hit nutrient goals and the end.0 -
Actually you should be looking the other way around. "Clean" eating HASN'T provided the evidence that eating that way is any more superior than an eating plan that meets daily macro/micro nutrients and doesn't exceed a given calorie limit.i didn't see any facts in there. just cause someone says it's a fact doesn't mean it is. where is the scientific proof? there is none. where are the scholarly resources that back up what you have to say?? there isn't any!! just cause it's on the internet doesn't mean its true LOL. i can see why your body looks like *kitten* if you follow that. not attractive at all LOL.
And my body looks like *kitten*? Lol, best way to argue when one runs out of ideas is to try to personally attack. Must be the clean eating.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
...And frankly, eating "cleaner" is not a bad health strategy overall. The problem is that a lot of people either place thems selves in the extremes of the camps or position the opposition as being extreme...
:drinker:
"Clean eating" is by definition an extreme. Most of the rest of us are not an "extreme"; we simply say to hit nutrient goals and the end.
Who are you referring to.......I assume just the US.
I know more countries where people eat clean as a rule of thumb than anything else. Considering that the world population is over 7 billion and the US population is around 320 millions, I would say that many more people " eat clean " than not and that would by definition make them main stream and not extreme.
Outside of a specific Health & Fitness culture, I am willing to bet that most people don't even know the expression " eating clean ", or " hitting one's macros ". It's just a big deal here in MFP and similar websites.0 -
Yeah! We made it to the "definition" phase! Now the knowledge will REALLY flow!0
-
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?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.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I have not found a suitable definition which can withstand critical analysis. Again, if you want to use it as a "rule of thumb" feel free but I don't see it guiding critical dietary decisions. That said, IIFM isn't perfect either, but it does seem to be cabable of providing an answer for people asking "can I eat xxxx?"
ETA: it also can answer the critical question of " why should I hit my macros." Not sure why anyone should "eat clean" though, depending of course on whatever definition you settle on.
The reason why a person might " eat clean " ( in it's different variations) :
because they grew up in a " clean eating culture "
they live in a clean eating culture now
they enjoy the food
they like cooking from scratch and enjoy eating the results
they get to eat a lot more food in volume ( important for me, because I am a volume eater )
they feel better when eating that kind of food.....
all those apply to me.....
and then there are specific health reasons, which I really don't want to mention, because they are obvious.0 -
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"?
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.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!
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?0 -
I tried eating clean once, but I found that bleach tasted yucky. Guess I'm doomed :sad:0
-
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"?
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.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!
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?
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.
However, when I do it at home in the knowledge that the lasagna was made from lasagna noodles I made with eggs from a friend's farm , where also the cheese comes from and with vegetables grown on my roof top.....then I would consider it to be a minimally processed meal based on whole/natural foods.....and yes, I consider cheese to be a natural food. Of course my lasagna that was frozen for five month will look really ugly compared to the Sam's Club Lasagna, but I at least will be certain that it is as natural as I chose it to be.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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?0 -
That's the kind of advice that will have cancer knocking at your door.
There it is.0 -
To me, the fact is that you can eat clean or include "junk food" and as long as you exercise and stay within proper caloric limits the majority of the debate is moot for the majority of people. beyond that it is personal preference. Don't care what the stats say either way.0
-
*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*0 -
I have not found a suitable definition which can withstand critical analysis. Again, if you want to use it as a "rule of thumb" feel free but I don't see it guiding critical dietary decisions. That said, IIFM isn't perfect either, but it does seem to be cabable of providing an answer for people asking "can I eat xxxx?"
ETA: it also can answer the critical question of " why should I hit my macros." Not sure why anyone should "eat clean" though, depending of course on whatever definition you settle on.
The reason why a person might " eat clean " ( in it's different variations) :
because they grew up in a " clean eating culture "
they live in a clean eating culture now
they enjoy the food
they like cooking from scratch and enjoy eating the results
they get to eat a lot more food in volume ( important for me, because I am a volume eater )
they feel better when eating that kind of food.....
all those apply to me.....
and then there are specific health reasons, which I really don't want to mention, because they are obvious.
They're so obvious a group of fit and healthy people are calling BS . . .
Nice evasion though.0 -
*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.0 -
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?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.
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?0 -
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.0 -
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"?
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.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!
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.0 -
So if the supermarket did not act any chemicals (sic) that you did not act yourself, it would be clean?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.
Could you define 'chemical' as you see it please.
That is in no way a fact.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.
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!0 -
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?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?
"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?0 -
*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:0 -
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?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?
"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!0 -
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.0 -
*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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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