Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
Eating Clean vs. Orthorexia
SunofaBeach14
Posts: 4,899 Member
I found this article on T-Nation which tends to either surprise me with solid articles or leave me chuckling at the bravado. In any event, I think this one is a good one to share as it's reasonably balanced and is coming from the assumption that the audience already cares greatly about their nutrition intake. That, and he's not pushing one side or the other of the often heard debate on "clean eating" we so often have on here, so much as pushing for balance. So to be clear, although I don't necessarily agree with everything here I do think it's worth a read.
http://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/eating-clean-vs-orthorexia
It's worth reading the entire article if you have time for tl;dr, but the synopsis is as follows:
• Processed foods aren't all inherently bad. Some, like whey and casein, are in some ways equal to or better than their unprocessed sources.
• We still don't understand fats completely, but saturated fat is not the devil it was once thought to be. Also, some trans fats, contrary to what you hear from 9 AM TV news anchors, are good. CLA, for instance, is a trans fat which has been shown to improve heart health.
• Allow yourself some leeway every day. For instance, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that you could get roughly 20% of your daily calories from refined sugars and it wouldn't visually affect your body comp or the nutritional status of your diet. Yes, I mean you can eat Cocoa Puffs in moderation and not worry about it. Perhaps a better way to look at it is this way: Every day, 10 to 20% of your diet can satisfy wants, while the remaining 80 to 90% should satisfy needs.
• Above all, flexible eating has been scientifically associated with the absence of overeating. On the other hand, overly strict eating has been associated with overeating and increased bodyweight as it's linked to mood disturbances and anxiety.
• It's possible that high amounts of fructose, eaten for relatively long periods of time, may cause fatty livers, but realize that, in general, it's probably no worse for body comp than glucose. Besides, no one really eats pure fructose; it's usually blended with other sugars and a HFCS product might, at worst provide 5% more fructose than you'd ingest if you were eating a product that was 100% sucrose.
• Eat organic meats when possible, but realize that organic (when it's legitimate) isn't always better when it comes to fruits and vegetables.
• While it's a no-brainer that GM foods should be labeled as such, keep an open mind and realize that not all of it is Frankenfood. Some of it may actually save the world.
• The power of suggestion is powerful. If wheat or gluten truly makes you feel crummy, avoid it, but realize that wheat and grains containing gluten are nutritional powerhouses.
• Oh, and stop throwing away your egg yolks.
http://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/eating-clean-vs-orthorexia
It's worth reading the entire article if you have time for tl;dr, but the synopsis is as follows:
• Processed foods aren't all inherently bad. Some, like whey and casein, are in some ways equal to or better than their unprocessed sources.
• We still don't understand fats completely, but saturated fat is not the devil it was once thought to be. Also, some trans fats, contrary to what you hear from 9 AM TV news anchors, are good. CLA, for instance, is a trans fat which has been shown to improve heart health.
• Allow yourself some leeway every day. For instance, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that you could get roughly 20% of your daily calories from refined sugars and it wouldn't visually affect your body comp or the nutritional status of your diet. Yes, I mean you can eat Cocoa Puffs in moderation and not worry about it. Perhaps a better way to look at it is this way: Every day, 10 to 20% of your diet can satisfy wants, while the remaining 80 to 90% should satisfy needs.
• Above all, flexible eating has been scientifically associated with the absence of overeating. On the other hand, overly strict eating has been associated with overeating and increased bodyweight as it's linked to mood disturbances and anxiety.
• It's possible that high amounts of fructose, eaten for relatively long periods of time, may cause fatty livers, but realize that, in general, it's probably no worse for body comp than glucose. Besides, no one really eats pure fructose; it's usually blended with other sugars and a HFCS product might, at worst provide 5% more fructose than you'd ingest if you were eating a product that was 100% sucrose.
• Eat organic meats when possible, but realize that organic (when it's legitimate) isn't always better when it comes to fruits and vegetables.
• While it's a no-brainer that GM foods should be labeled as such, keep an open mind and realize that not all of it is Frankenfood. Some of it may actually save the world.
• The power of suggestion is powerful. If wheat or gluten truly makes you feel crummy, avoid it, but realize that wheat and grains containing gluten are nutritional powerhouses.
• Oh, and stop throwing away your egg yolks.
0
Replies
-
Labeling any food these days as genetically modified makes me mental. It's irrelevant really.0
-
Labeling any food these days as genetically modified makes me mental. It's irrelevant really.
People have the right to know and decide what's best for themselves. It's wrong that there are no studies of any long-term effects and that we have no right to know, and that there are laws going into place to protect the sellers and growers in the USA even in the event that they turn out dangerous and cause harm. That's sketch.0 -
So, just use common sense then? Sounds reasonable. :flowerforyou:0
-
stop injecting common sense into MFP forums bro….ain't no one got time for dat!0
-
So, just use common sense then? Sounds reasonable. :flowerforyou:
:drinker:0 -
Labeling any food these days as genetically modified makes me mental. It's irrelevant really.
People have the right to know and decide what's best for themselves. It's wrong that there are no studies of any long-term effects and that we have no right to know, and that there are laws going into place to protect the sellers and growers in the USA even in the event that they turn out dangerous and cause harm. That's sketch.
Food has been genetically modified since the dawn of agriculture. It's just happening faster and more accurately in a lab now.0 -
If your obsession with eating "clean" (which is a totally objective term) gets in the way of living a normal, fully-functional life... that is orthorexia.0
-
Got another one for you:
Just because some people get health problems from a food source doesn't mean no one should eat it. Someone who is not lactose intolerant will benefit from the protein and vitamins in milk, people who don't have gluten sensitivities can get important nutrients from wheat, etc.0 -
Didn't know spicing DNA has been around for 10,000 years, give or take...........interesting.Labeling any food these days as genetically modified makes me mental. It's irrelevant really.
People have the right to know and decide what's best for themselves. It's wrong that there are no studies of any long-term effects and that we have no right to know, and that there are laws going into place to protect the sellers and growers in the USA even in the event that they turn out dangerous and cause harm. That's sketch.
Food has been genetically modified since the dawn of agriculture. It's just happening faster and more accurately in a lab now.0 -
Labeling any food these days as genetically modified makes me mental. It's irrelevant really.
People have the right to know and decide what's best for themselves. It's wrong that there are no studies of any long-term effects and that we have no right to know, and that there are laws going into place to protect the sellers and growers in the USA even in the event that they turn out dangerous and cause harm. That's sketch.
http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/
0 -
0 -
Didn't know spicing DNA has been around for 10,000 years, give or take...........interesting.Labeling any food these days as genetically modified makes me mental. It's irrelevant really.
People have the right to know and decide what's best for themselves. It's wrong that there are no studies of any long-term effects and that we have no right to know, and that there are laws going into place to protect the sellers and growers in the USA even in the event that they turn out dangerous and cause harm. That's sketch.
Food has been genetically modified since the dawn of agriculture. It's just happening faster and more accurately in a lab now.
Genetic engineering of food sources has absolutely been around for tens of thousands of years. We engineer crops to be disease resistant, frost resistant, easier to process/peel, more flavorful, more colorful... The only difference is that in the past decade, more of that has been happening in a lab. Rather than spending twenty years trying to "naturally" breed a crop with a pest or disease immunity, the popular route is to instead take an already existing gene for these things and transplant it into the desired crop. It is an already existing gene that has been proven safe in the original "naturally" occurring crop.
I would personally feel safer eating an apple that is grown to be immune to pests and disease than an apple that has been sprayed down with pesticides.
People are just too easily worked up. There is absolutely no evidence that genetically modifying food sources is dangerous. I strongly dislike buzzwords like "frankenfood" because it incites fear without any actual evidence.
My friend tried to get me to sign a petition against a research facility that had successfully developed malaria-resistant mosquitoes. They released a batch in Florida to see if this trait could be bred into the existing population. What did the petition emphasize? "How do you feel about these scientists releasing mutant mosquitoes that are going to bite our children?" Seriously? Apparently, they actually would prefer mosquitoes with malaria bite their children instead of malaria-resistant mosquitoes JUST because this was accomplished in a lab. :huh:
The GMO scare is absolutely ridiculous.
(With that said, I think it's wrong for companies to lobby against labeling GMOs if that's what the people want--but I understand why they are concerned about labeling seeing as how half of America thinks they're selling radioactive goo or something. :grumble: )0 -
GMO has only been around since the 70's. My mother on the other hand has been winning awards with her orchids from cross breeding for a lot longer. I'm sure if she could figure out how to clone DNA or synthesis DNA and figure out where in the strand to insert said clone DNA she probably would.
Didn't know spicing DNA has been around for 10,000 years, give or take...........interesting.Labeling any food these days as genetically modified makes me mental. It's irrelevant really.
People have the right to know and decide what's best for themselves. It's wrong that there are no studies of any long-term effects and that we have no right to know, and that there are laws going into place to protect the sellers and growers in the USA even in the event that they turn out dangerous and cause harm. That's sketch.
Food has been genetically modified since the dawn of agriculture. It's just happening faster and more accurately in a lab now.
Genetic engineering of food sources has absolutely been around for tens of thousands of years. We engineer crops to be disease resistant, frost resistant, easier to process/peel, more flavorful, more colorful... The only difference is that in the past decade, more of that has been happening in a lab. Rather than spending twenty years trying to "naturally" breed a crop with a pest or disease immunity, the popular route is to instead take an already existing gene for these things and transplant it into the desired crop. It is an already existing gene that has been proven safe in the original "naturally" occurring crop.
I would personally feel safer eating an apple that is grown to be immune to pests and disease than an apple that has been sprayed down with pesticides.
People are just too easily worked up. There is absolutely no evidence that genetically modifying food sources is dangerous. I strongly dislike buzzwords like "frankenfood" because it incites fear without any actual evidence.
My friend tried to get me to sign a petition against a research facility that had successfully developed malaria-resistant mosquitoes. They released a batch in Florida to see if this trait could be bred into the existing population. What did the petition emphasize? "How do you feel about these scientists releasing mutant mosquitoes that are going to bite our children?" Seriously? Apparently, they actually would prefer mosquitoes with malaria bite their children instead of malaria-resistant mosquitoes JUST because this was accomplished in a lab. :huh:
The GMO scare is absolutely ridiculous.
(With that said, I think it's wrong for companies to lobby against labeling GMOs if that's what the people want--but I understand why they are concerned about labeling seeing as how half of America thinks they're selling radioactive goo or something. :grumble: )0 -
GMO has only been around since the 70's. My mother on the other hand has been winning awards with her orchids from cross breeding for a lot longer. I'm sure if she could figure out how to clone DNA or synthesis DNA and figure out where in the strand to insert said clone DNA she probably would.
Didn't know spicing DNA has been around for 10,000 years, give or take...........interesting.Labeling any food these days as genetically modified makes me mental. It's irrelevant really.
People have the right to know and decide what's best for themselves. It's wrong that there are no studies of any long-term effects and that we have no right to know, and that there are laws going into place to protect the sellers and growers in the USA even in the event that they turn out dangerous and cause harm. That's sketch.
Food has been genetically modified since the dawn of agriculture. It's just happening faster and more accurately in a lab now.
Genetic engineering of food sources has absolutely been around for tens of thousands of years. We engineer crops to be disease resistant, frost resistant, easier to process/peel, more flavorful, more colorful... The only difference is that in the past decade, more of that has been happening in a lab. Rather than spending twenty years trying to "naturally" breed a crop with a pest or disease immunity, the popular route is to instead take an already existing gene for these things and transplant it into the desired crop. It is an already existing gene that has been proven safe in the original "naturally" occurring crop.
I would personally feel safer eating an apple that is grown to be immune to pests and disease than an apple that has been sprayed down with pesticides.
People are just too easily worked up. There is absolutely no evidence that genetically modifying food sources is dangerous. I strongly dislike buzzwords like "frankenfood" because it incites fear without any actual evidence.
My friend tried to get me to sign a petition against a research facility that had successfully developed malaria-resistant mosquitoes. They released a batch in Florida to see if this trait could be bred into the existing population. What did the petition emphasize? "How do you feel about these scientists releasing mutant mosquitoes that are going to bite our children?" Seriously? Apparently, they actually would prefer mosquitoes with malaria bite their children instead of malaria-resistant mosquitoes JUST because this was accomplished in a lab. :huh:
The GMO scare is absolutely ridiculous.
(With that said, I think it's wrong for companies to lobby against labeling GMOs if that's what the people want--but I understand why they are concerned about labeling seeing as how half of America thinks they're selling radioactive goo or something. :grumble: )
When I say that genetic engineering has been around for thousands of years, I am referring to breeding and plant cloning and the like.
The food we eat has always been "genetically modified", just through lengthy and careful cultivation.0 -
My friend tried to get me to sign a petition against a research facility that had successfully developed malaria-resistant mosquitoes. They released a batch in Florida to see if this trait could be bred into the existing population. What did the petition emphasize? "How do you feel about these scientists releasing mutant mosquitoes that are going to bite our children?" Seriously? Apparently, they actually would prefer mosquitoes with malaria bite their children instead of malaria-resistant mosquitoes JUST because this was accomplished in a lab. :huh:
This part here may have just melted my brain. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to contribute anything to this discussion now.0 -
Learn the difference and refer to them properly, it's less confusing for everyone and informing at the same time.
GMO has only been around since the 70's. My mother on the other hand has been winning awards with her orchids from cross breeding for a lot longer. I'm sure if she could figure out how to clone DNA or synthesis DNA and figure out where in the strand to insert said clone DNA she probably would.
Didn't know spicing DNA has been around for 10,000 years, give or take...........interesting.Labeling any food these days as genetically modified makes me mental. It's irrelevant really.
People have the right to know and decide what's best for themselves. It's wrong that there are no studies of any long-term effects and that we have no right to know, and that there are laws going into place to protect the sellers and growers in the USA even in the event that they turn out dangerous and cause harm. That's sketch.
Food has been genetically modified since the dawn of agriculture. It's just happening faster and more accurately in a lab now.
Genetic engineering of food sources has absolutely been around for tens of thousands of years. We engineer crops to be disease resistant, frost resistant, easier to process/peel, more flavorful, more colorful... The only difference is that in the past decade, more of that has been happening in a lab. Rather than spending twenty years trying to "naturally" breed a crop with a pest or disease immunity, the popular route is to instead take an already existing gene for these things and transplant it into the desired crop. It is an already existing gene that has been proven safe in the original "naturally" occurring crop.
I would personally feel safer eating an apple that is grown to be immune to pests and disease than an apple that has been sprayed down with pesticides.
People are just too easily worked up. There is absolutely no evidence that genetically modifying food sources is dangerous. I strongly dislike buzzwords like "frankenfood" because it incites fear without any actual evidence.
My friend tried to get me to sign a petition against a research facility that had successfully developed malaria-resistant mosquitoes. They released a batch in Florida to see if this trait could be bred into the existing population. What did the petition emphasize? "How do you feel about these scientists releasing mutant mosquitoes that are going to bite our children?" Seriously? Apparently, they actually would prefer mosquitoes with malaria bite their children instead of malaria-resistant mosquitoes JUST because this was accomplished in a lab. :huh:
The GMO scare is absolutely ridiculous.
(With that said, I think it's wrong for companies to lobby against labeling GMOs if that's what the people want--but I understand why they are concerned about labeling seeing as how half of America thinks they're selling radioactive goo or something. :grumble: )
When I say that genetic engineering has been around for thousands of years, I am referring to breeding and plant cloning and the like.
The food we eat has always been "genetically modified", just through lengthy and careful cultivation.0 -
science is scary stuff . . . :huh:0
-
science is scary stuff . . . :huh:
confusing too apparently….0 -
Selective breeding is gene modification.0
-
Learn the difference and refer to them properly, it's less confusing for everyone and informing at the same time.Selective breeding is gene modification.
^^^ Exactly.
If you are modifying the genes of an organism, it is genetic modification. People just associate the term "genetically modified" with laboratory intervention and not traditional methods. It's a semantic difference, not a functional one.
That's why labeling GMOs is a little ridiculous. Most of what you will find in a grocery store is the product of genetic modification, and it has been that way for quite some time. Oranges and grapefruits are hybrids. Dairy cows are bred to produce more milk. Many fruits are the product of cloning through transplanting cuttings. No, they weren't made by directly splicing genes in a lab, but their genetic makeup was gradually altered to reach a desirable outcome.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 412 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions