Talk to me about "eating clean".

caribougal

Snip.
I'm not claiming pop tarts to be a clean food, I'm saying that the entire concept of "clean" vs "unclean" is largely irrelevant.

In talking about the Pop-Tarts I was trying to illustrate context as an aside from the "clean" vs "unclean" dichotomy.

Ok, gotcha. But having a definition for eating clean/unclean is not irrelevant for someone who wants to maximize their intake of the most nutrient-dense foods. If that's your goal, then it's helpful to have a personal definition of "clean" so you can make appropriate food choices. I think that's what the OP was asking for.

Maybe it's just the term "clean/unclean" you don't like, because it seems so judgmental? If we don't call it clean, and we call it "nutrient-dense" and non-nutrient-dense", is that better? Semantics.

So, for the OP... Foods that are nutrient-dense, foods that don't have lots of chemicals to preserve them or make them look or taste like an actual food, are "clean". But, as Sidesteel says, you can eat non-nutrient-dense (aka processed) foods too. They may not be very nutritious, but if you want to eat them because they taste good, or because they're cheap, or whatever... That's up to you. But that has nothing to do with eating "clean". That has to do with fitting those foods in the context of your entire diet.

SideSteel

Snip.
I'm not claiming pop tarts to be a clean food, I'm saying that the entire concept of "clean" vs "unclean" is largely irrelevant.

In talking about the Pop-Tarts I was trying to illustrate context as an aside from the "clean" vs "unclean" dichotomy.

Ok, gotcha. But having a definition for eating clean/unclean is not irrelevant for someone who wants to maximize their intake of the most nutrient-dense foods. If that's your goal, then it's helpful to have a personal definition of "clean" so you can make appropriate food choices. I think that's what the OP was asking for.

Maybe it's just the term "clean/unclean" you don't like, because it seems so judgmental? If we don't call it clean, and we call it "nutrient-dense" and non-nutrient-dense", is that better? Semantics.

So, for the OP... Foods that are nutrient-dense, foods that don't have lots of chemicals to preserve them or make them look or taste like an actual food, are "clean". But, as Sidesteel says, you can eat non-nutrient-dense (aka processed) foods too. They may not be very nutritious, but if you want to eat them because they taste good, or because they're cheap, or whatever... That's up to you. But that has nothing to do with eating "clean". That has to do with fitting those foods in the context of your entire diet.

It's partially semantics and partially the neglect to consider the entire diet. I favor nutrient dense vs not nutrient dense because this doesn't create a good/bad dichotomy.

So yes it's partially semantics but as I state in my write-up, there's other crap that goes with it that I dislike.

corneredbycorn

For me, eating clean is just eating food made from scratch, nothing exceptionally processed (homemade spaghetti with homemade bolognese is fantastic, Chef Boyardee tinned spaghetti with meatballs not so much). For me, the fewer ingredients, the better. If it has a lot of ingredients, it should be because I put them there.

sbro32

You guys are a wealth of information! I really appreciate everyone's time and input. I learn a great deal from this site!