The only difference between a "clean" and "dirty" food is...

Pebble321

I find it funny, when people claim to be die hard clean eaters. No processed food whatsoever. Yet they turn around and take all kinds of supplements, medicine. Where is the logic in that? The term "clean" or "dirty" has no standard definition. It varies a lot. Therefore it shouldn't be used to describe foods.

Agreed. The one that gets me every time is the protein shakes - they seem to be right outside the definition for "clean eating" for many people. I don't see how drinking a mixture of highly processed powder fits with "clean" eating.
But hey, it's a free world (for the most part) and what everyone else eats has no impact on me (except for my husband, but luckily we have a similar food philosophy).

SIGP229

So you don't consider meats with cancer causing nitrates and obscene amounts of sodium dirty?

Green, leafy vegetables have more nitrates than hot dogs.

It's within portion control then? Did you know eating deli meats/hot dogs, one serving per day, has shown an increased risk of colon cancer by 21-25 (varying studies)%? http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/a-hot-dog-a-day-increases-your-risk-of-colorectal-cancer-by-21-percent.html

OOOH scary.

Unless you actually look at the statistics. The probability of aquiring colorectal cancer is around 5.1%. Worst case scenario, eating a hot dog EVERY SINGLE DAY will increase your odds to 6.35%.

This is assuming that correlation=causation, which it doesn't.

krypt5

Fast food, processed foods are slow killers, as well they up the medical costs from food related diseases etc. I know many parents who give their kids hot dogs at least 4x a week. Sad. All starts at home. Unfortunately, the obesity rate is climbing drastically. Many of today's children won't out live their parents.

Obesity is on the rise, because people eat too damn much. Thats all there is too it. Nothing to do with processed foods.

Ebbykins

So you don't consider meats with cancer causing nitrates and obscene amounts of sodium dirty? It's within portion control then? Did you know eating deli meats/hot dogs, one serving per day, has shown an increased risk of colon cancer by 21-25 (varying studies)%? http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/a-hot-dog-a-day-increases-your-risk-of-colorectal-cancer-by-21-percent.html

I generally agree with the idea of eating whole foods and "clean" foods. However, be careful when interpreting those studies that suggest "Eating X will increase you risk of Y cancer by Z%"! They are often observational studies based on correlations. You can find correlations in anything and controlling for all the variables is almost impossible. Personally I wouldn't eat a hot dog every day, but I also am extremely skeptical about any study that makes those sorts of claims.

That study can be disregarded because it is not published. You are right in the sense that context must be established. Even water can kill you.

There are many scientific studies. All published, where else? Pubmed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8671549
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21685410
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/5/439.short
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20681011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19808637

Ebbykins

I find it funny, when people claim to be die hard clean eaters. No processed food whatsoever. Yet they turn around and take all kinds of supplements, medicine. Where is the logic in that? The term "clean" or "dirty" has no standard definition. It varies a lot. Therefore it shouldn't be used to describe foods.

Agreed. The one that gets me every time is the protein shakes - they seem to be right outside the definition for "clean eating" for many people. I don't see how drinking a mixture of highly processed powder fits with "clean" eating.
But hey, it's a free world (for the most part) and what everyone else eats has no impact on me (except for my husband, but luckily we have a similar food philosophy).

Whey protein isn't highly processed, it's just the liquid skimmed from the top of dairy products, which is then dried. You don't have to get it with additives like artificial sweeteners, many people shop around for purer forms of unflavoured whey or even organic dairy non additive types.

krypt5

So you don't consider meats with cancer causing nitrates and obscene amounts of sodium dirty? It's within portion control then? Did you know eating deli meats/hot dogs, one serving per day, has shown an increased risk of colon cancer by 21-25 (varying studies)%? http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/a-hot-dog-a-day-increases-your-risk-of-colorectal-cancer-by-21-percent.html

I generally agree with the idea of eating whole foods and "clean" foods. However, be careful when interpreting those studies that suggest "Eating X will increase you risk of Y cancer by Z%"! They are often observational studies based on correlations. You can find correlations in anything and controlling for all the variables is almost impossible. Personally I wouldn't eat a hot dog every day, but I also am extremely skeptical about any study that makes those sorts of claims.

That study can be disregarded because it is not published. You are right in the sense that context must be established. Even water can kill you.

There are many scientific studies. All published, where else? Pubmed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8671549
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21685410
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2062934/
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/5/439.short
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20681011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19808637

This just shows that you're great at searching the database. Did you review the methods? Did you review the data? None of it has any relevance to the real world. None of them made clear conclusions.

I'm not disputing any of the findings. What I'm pointing out is, you lack the understanding of dosing and context and simply making poor conclusions based on them.
Simply posting studies without understanding methodology and data will not do.

You are knowledgeable no doubt, but I question your interpretations and deduction skills.

Ebbykins

So you don't consider meats with cancer causing nitrates and obscene amounts of sodium dirty? It's within portion control then? Did you know eating deli meats/hot dogs, one serving per day, has shown an increased risk of colon cancer by 21-25 (varying studies)%? http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/a-hot-dog-a-day-increases-your-risk-of-colorectal-cancer-by-21-percent.html

I generally agree with the idea of eating whole foods and "clean" foods. However, be careful when interpreting those studies that suggest "Eating X will increase you risk of Y cancer by Z%"! They are often observational studies based on correlations. You can find correlations in anything and controlling for all the variables is almost impossible. Personally I wouldn't eat a hot dog every day, but I also am extremely skeptical about any study that makes those sorts of claims.

That study can be disregarded because it is not published. You are right in the sense that context must be established. Even water can kill you.

There are many scientific studies. All published, where else? Pubmed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8671549
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21685410
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2062934/
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/5/439.short
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20681011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19808637

This just shows that you're great at searching the database. Did you review the methods? Did you review the data? None of it has any relevance to the real world. None of them made clear conclusions.

I'm not disputing any of the findings. What I'm pointing out is, you lack the understanding of dosing and context and simply making poor conclusions based on them.
Simply posting studies without understanding methodology and data will not do.

You are knowledgeable no doubt, but I question your interpretations and deduction skills.

LOL. I've read them. I've read a lot of things over the years. I understand them. Why? Because I don't just read diet books, I read about chemistry, biology, physiology, kinesiology, in university text books and medical publications, just because I don't spout jargon that no one will understand here doesn't mean I lack understanding, what I'm saying comes within logical reasoning abilities.

krypt5

So you don't consider meats with cancer causing nitrates and obscene amounts of sodium dirty? It's within portion control then? Did you know eating deli meats/hot dogs, one serving per day, has shown an increased risk of colon cancer by 21-25 (varying studies)%? http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/a-hot-dog-a-day-increases-your-risk-of-colorectal-cancer-by-21-percent.html

I generally agree with the idea of eating whole foods and "clean" foods. However, be careful when interpreting those studies that suggest "Eating X will increase you risk of Y cancer by Z%"! They are often observational studies based on correlations. You can find correlations in anything and controlling for all the variables is almost impossible. Personally I wouldn't eat a hot dog every day, but I also am extremely skeptical about any study that makes those sorts of claims.

That study can be disregarded because it is not published. You are right in the sense that context must be established. Even water can kill you.

There are many scientific studies. All published, where else? Pubmed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8671549
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21685410
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2062934/
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/5/439.short
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20681011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19808637

This just shows that you're great at searching the database. Did you review the methods? Did you review the data? None of it has any relevance to the real world. None of them made clear conclusions.

I'm not disputing any of the findings. What I'm pointing out is, you lack the understanding of dosing and context and simply making poor conclusions based on them.
Simply posting studies without understanding methodology and data will not do.

You are knowledgeable no doubt, but I question your interpretations and deduction skills.

LOL. I've read them. I've read a lot of things over the years. I understand them. Why? Because I don't just read diet books, I read about chemistry, biology, physiology, kinesiology, in university text books and medical publications, just because I don't spout jargon that no one will understand here doesn't mean I lack understanding, what I'm saying comes within logical reasoning abilities.

Well great then, glad we're on the same page. Logically speaking, within context of proper amounts, we shouldn't be worried about ill effects whatsoever. That is the whole point of this thread. You didn't need to bring up studies done on cancer in the first place. Thats what many people took issue with.

3dogsrunning

I notice you edited to remove one of the studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2062934/

krypt5

I notice you edited to remove one of the studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2062934/

This was in the last line "our study does not support a positive association between the intake of nitrate or nitrite and gastric cancer risk."

Ebbykins

So you don't consider meats with cancer causing nitrates and obscene amounts of sodium dirty? It's within portion control then? Did you know eating deli meats/hot dogs, one serving per day, has shown an increased risk of colon cancer by 21-25 (varying studies)%? http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/a-hot-dog-a-day-increases-your-risk-of-colorectal-cancer-by-21-percent.html

I generally agree with the idea of eating whole foods and "clean" foods. However, be careful when interpreting those studies that suggest "Eating X will increase you risk of Y cancer by Z%"! They are often observational studies based on correlations. You can find correlations in anything and controlling for all the variables is almost impossible. Personally I wouldn't eat a hot dog every day, but I also am extremely skeptical about any study that makes those sorts of claims.

That study can be disregarded because it is not published. You are right in the sense that context must be established. Even water can kill you.

There are many scientific studies. All published, where else? Pubmed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8671549
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21685410
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2062934/
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/5/439.short
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20681011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19808637

This just shows that you're great at searching the database. Did you review the methods? Did you review the data? None of it has any relevance to the real world. None of them made clear conclusions.

I'm not disputing any of the findings. What I'm pointing out is, you lack the understanding of dosing and context and simply making poor conclusions based on them.
Simply posting studies without understanding methodology and data will not do.

You are knowledgeable no doubt, but I question your interpretations and deduction skills.

LOL. I've read them. I've read a lot of things over the years. I understand them. Why? Because I don't just read diet books, I read about chemistry, biology, physiology, kinesiology, in university text books and medical publications, just because I don't spout jargon that no one will understand here doesn't mean I lack understanding, what I'm saying comes within logical reasoning abilities.

Well great then, glad we're on the same page. Logically speaking, within context of proper amounts, we shouldn't be worried about ill effects whatsoever. That is the whole point of this thread. You didn't need to bring up studies done on cancer in the first place. Thats what many people took issue with.

And I take issue with people, nonchalantly running their mouths off about "clean" and "dirty" foods and how "moderation" is all that matters, when in fact people should be educated about "dirty" foods like deli meats etc, so they can make informed choices in regards to their daily consumption. Thanks for the discussion. Ciao.

Pebble321

I find it funny, when people claim to be die hard clean eaters. No processed food whatsoever. Yet they turn around and take all kinds of supplements, medicine. Where is the logic in that? The term "clean" or "dirty" has no standard definition. It varies a lot. Therefore it shouldn't be used to describe foods.

Agreed. The one that gets me every time is the protein shakes - they seem to be right outside the definition for "clean eating" for many people. I don't see how drinking a mixture of highly processed powder fits with "clean" eating.
But hey, it's a free world (for the most part) and what everyone else eats has no impact on me (except for my husband, but luckily we have a similar food philosophy).

Whey protein isn't highly processed, it's just the liquid skimmed from the top of dairy products, which is then dried. You don't have to get it with additives like artificial sweeteners, many people shop around for purer forms of unflavoured whey or even organic dairy non additive types.

Yeeeessss, I'm sure there are plainer versions, but whenever I skim discussions on the topic they mostly seem to revolve around things like "i love the XYZ super chocolate mocha double lalalala". They never sound very "clean" to me.
Any of the ones I've picked up to check out before have hideously long ingredient lists containing things I've never heard of - but it's good to know that there are some "less processed" versions, thanks for the info.

Ebbykins

I notice you edited to remove one of the studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2062934/

This was in the last line "our study does not support a positive association between the intake of nitrate or nitrite and gastric cancer risk."

Yes, I realized that as I was going through my bookmarks and reading them afterwards, thanks for catching that one.

Ebbykins

I find it funny, when people claim to be die hard clean eaters. No processed food whatsoever. Yet they turn around and take all kinds of supplements, medicine. Where is the logic in that? The term "clean" or "dirty" has no standard definition. It varies a lot. Therefore it shouldn't be used to describe foods.

Agreed. The one that gets me every time is the protein shakes - they seem to be right outside the definition for "clean eating" for many people. I don't see how drinking a mixture of highly processed powder fits with "clean" eating.
But hey, it's a free world (for the most part) and what everyone else eats has no impact on me (except for my husband, but luckily we have a similar food philosophy).

Whey protein isn't highly processed, it's just the liquid skimmed from the top of dairy products, which is then dried. You don't have to get it with additives like artificial sweeteners, many people shop around for purer forms of unflavoured whey or even organic dairy non additive types.

Yeeeessss, I'm sure there are plainer versions, but whenever I skim discussions on the topic they mostly seem to revolve around things like "i love the XYZ super chocolate mocha double lalalala". They never sound very "clean" to me.
Any of the ones I've picked up to check out before have hideously long ingredient lists containing things I've never heard of - but it's good to know that there are some "less processed" versions, thanks for the info.

Yeah, there are a lot of great organic isolates without any fillers, they do have an "off" sort of dried milk flavour though so they are best used in smoothies where you can cover that up, LOL, hence why so many people find the flavoured ones preferable. Even better though is dried egg white powder.

krypt5

So you don't consider meats with cancer causing nitrates and obscene amounts of sodium dirty? It's within portion control then? Did you know eating deli meats/hot dogs, one serving per day, has shown an increased risk of colon cancer by 21-25 (varying studies)%? http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/a-hot-dog-a-day-increases-your-risk-of-colorectal-cancer-by-21-percent.html

I generally agree with the idea of eating whole foods and "clean" foods. However, be careful when interpreting those studies that suggest "Eating X will increase you risk of Y cancer by Z%"! They are often observational studies based on correlations. You can find correlations in anything and controlling for all the variables is almost impossible. Personally I wouldn't eat a hot dog every day, but I also am extremely skeptical about any study that makes those sorts of claims.

That study can be disregarded because it is not published. You are right in the sense that context must be established. Even water can kill you.

There are many scientific studies. All published, where else? Pubmed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8671549
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21685410
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2062934/
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/5/439.short
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20681011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19808637

This just shows that you're great at searching the database. Did you review the methods? Did you review the data? None of it has any relevance to the real world. None of them made clear conclusions.

I'm not disputing any of the findings. What I'm pointing out is, you lack the understanding of dosing and context and simply making poor conclusions based on them.
Simply posting studies without understanding methodology and data will not do.

You are knowledgeable no doubt, but I question your interpretations and deduction skills.

LOL. I've read them. I've read a lot of things over the years. I understand them. Why? Because I don't just read diet books, I read about chemistry, biology, physiology, kinesiology, in university text books and medical publications, just because I don't spout jargon that no one will understand here doesn't mean I lack understanding, what I'm saying comes within logical reasoning abilities.

Well great then, glad we're on the same page. Logically speaking, within context of proper amounts, we shouldn't be worried about ill effects whatsoever. That is the whole point of this thread. You didn't need to bring up studies done on cancer in the first place. Thats what many people took issue with.

And I take issue with people, nonchalantly running their mouths off about "clean" and "dirty" foods and how "moderation" is all that matters, when in fact people should be educated about "dirty" foods like deli meats etc, so they can make informed choices in regards to their daily consumption. Thanks for the discussion. Ciao.

Lol! You're not helping anyone by coming off as an alarmist. It was nice talking to you. Stay safe. Beware of the evil deli meats!

3dogsrunning

I notice you edited to remove one of the studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2062934/

This was in the last line "our study does not support a positive association between the intake of nitrate or nitrite and gastric cancer risk."

Yes, I realized that as I was going through my bookmarks and reading them afterwards, thanks for catching that one.

So why the delete? Is it not valid? I am not being rude, I actually feel similar to you, although not quite a strongly. I was curious because I wasn't sure if I was reading these links wrong. Some were not very conclusive, and this one seemed to say it found no correlation.
ETA - I dont' have the ability to evaluate the methods and such.

krypt5

I notice you edited to remove one of the studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2062934/

This was in the last line "our study does not support a positive association between the intake of nitrate or nitrite and gastric cancer risk."

Yes, I realized that as I was going through my bookmarks and reading them afterwards, thanks for catching that one.

So why the delete? Is it not valid? I am not being rude, I actually feel similar to you, although not quite a strongly. I was curious because I wasn't sure if I was reading these links wrong. Some were not very conclusive, and this one seemed to say it found no correlation.

Exactly. Which makes posting them totally pointless and unnecessary.

Pebble321

I find it funny, when people claim to be die hard clean eaters. No processed food whatsoever. Yet they turn around and take all kinds of supplements, medicine. Where is the logic in that? The term "clean" or "dirty" has no standard definition. It varies a lot. Therefore it shouldn't be used to describe foods.

Agreed. The one that gets me every time is the protein shakes - they seem to be right outside the definition for "clean eating" for many people. I don't see how drinking a mixture of highly processed powder fits with "clean" eating.
But hey, it's a free world (for the most part) and what everyone else eats has no impact on me (except for my husband, but luckily we have a similar food philosophy).

Whey protein isn't highly processed, it's just the liquid skimmed from the top of dairy products, which is then dried. You don't have to get it with additives like artificial sweeteners, many people shop around for purer forms of unflavoured whey or even organic dairy non additive types.

Yeeeessss, I'm sure there are plainer versions, but whenever I skim discussions on the topic they mostly seem to revolve around things like "i love the XYZ super chocolate mocha double lalalala". They never sound very "clean" to me.
Any of the ones I've picked up to check out before have hideously long ingredient lists containing things I've never heard of - but it's good to know that there are some "less processed" versions, thanks for the info.

Yeah, there are a lot of great organic isolates without any fillers, they do have an "off" sort of dried milk flavour though so they are best used in smoothies where you can cover that up, LOL, hence why so many people find the flavoured ones preferable. Even better though is dried egg white powder.

Or... eggs???

krypt5

I find it funny, when people claim to be die hard clean eaters. No processed food whatsoever. Yet they turn around and take all kinds of supplements, medicine. Where is the logic in that? The term "clean" or "dirty" has no standard definition. It varies a lot. Therefore it shouldn't be used to describe foods.

Agreed. The one that gets me every time is the protein shakes - they seem to be right outside the definition for "clean eating" for many people. I don't see how drinking a mixture of highly processed powder fits with "clean" eating.
But hey, it's a free world (for the most part) and what everyone else eats has no impact on me (except for my husband, but luckily we have a similar food philosophy).

Whey protein isn't highly processed, it's just the liquid skimmed from the top of dairy products, which is then dried. You don't have to get it with additives like artificial sweeteners, many people shop around for purer forms of unflavoured whey or even organic dairy non additive types.

Yeeeessss, I'm sure there are plainer versions, but whenever I skim discussions on the topic they mostly seem to revolve around things like "i love the XYZ super chocolate mocha double lalalala". They never sound very "clean" to me.
Any of the ones I've picked up to check out before have hideously long ingredient lists containing things I've never heard of - but it's good to know that there are some "less processed" versions, thanks for the info.

Yeah, there are a lot of great organic isolates without any fillers, they do have an "off" sort of dried milk flavour though so they are best used in smoothies where you can cover that up, LOL, hence why so many people find the flavoured ones preferable. Even better though is dried egg white powder.

Or... eggs???

Yea, make sure they're organic free range eggs .

JRMcCaghren

Listen I'm not one of those serious forum people who eats clean like a freak everyday of my life and lectures people. I'm just saying, you do people a disservice by saying that it's okay to eat certain types of known "dirty" foods on a regular basis that medical studies are showing to be terrible for us. You can go have your hay day, I'm not going to get my panties all tied in a wad over the stupid retorts people are making about a "Dirty" food, everyone should know.

The fact is there is a scientific study proving practically everything. There's probably been a study done showing that one log of monkey *kitten* a day keeps the doctor away, but I'm not don't believe it. Have you ever seen the movie Fat Head?