Why “Clean Eating” is a Myth by Armi Legge

Very interesting. My take on "clean": I think that the body would be best served eating what is found only in nature, We didn't eat processed foods when we were hunters and gathers. We ate meat, berries, fruits and vegetables and nuts. We drank only water. I doubt there were many overweight folks back then.

I'm betting we didn't live that long then either, or have as much fun!

We live longer now because of medicine and bacteria control. Not because of our food. Cancer and diabetes probably didn't exist back in time when we were hunters and gatherers. Yet, medicine keeps us alive longer when we have those diseases, and cleanliness protects us from infectious diseases.

It is a myth that our ancestors ate "clean". The meat people were eating even just 200 years ago (never mind 2000 years ago) was of poor quality, slowly turning into (essentially) carrion the longer it took to consume the animal. Generic CAFO meat at a generic American supermarket is generally of higher quality than what Henry VIII would have been served. Berries and nuts would have been eaten (literally) dirty, and in the case of fruits, many would have been in some state of fermentation (ie decomposition) before being eaten. The means to clean cookware was minimal, utensils were rudimentary, or consisted of dirty fingers, meaning everything was cooked and eaten in a perpetual state of dirtiness.

Etc etc etc.

Human culinary history is an exercise in making up for the dubious quality of the ingredients, a situation we have only recently overcome.

We are omnivores and hugely adaptable.

It's pretty much all good.

It is a myth that our ancestors ate "clean". The meat people were eating even just 200 years ago (never mind 2000 years ago) was of poor quality, slowly turning into (essentially) carrion the longer it took to consume the animal. Generic CAFO meat at a generic American supermarket is generally of higher quality than what Henry VIII would have been served. Berries and nuts would have been eaten (literally) dirty, and in the case of fruits, many would have been in some state of fermentation (ie decomposition) before being eaten. The means to clean cookware was minimal, utensils were rudimentary, or consisted of dirty fingers, meaning everything was cooked and eaten in a perpetual state of dirtiness.

Etc etc etc.

Human culinary history is an exercise in making up for the dubious quality of the ingredients, a situation we have only recently overcome.

We are omnivores and hugely adaptable.

It's pretty much all good.

Well, I can't speak for everyone but cleanliness isn't really part of my definition of "clean eating".

Yep. That is either one fine piece of trolling or, *shudder*

Never mind . . .

Well, I can't speak for everyone but cleanliness isn't really part of my definition of "clean eating".

Yes, I am well aware of that, and it's part of what's missing from the definition. "Dirty" food has all kinds nasty particulate on it that should be of greater concern than the GRAS filler material added to processed foods, and cross contamination across cooking surfaces is a serious matter when you're boiling the toxicity out of one ingredient and then cooking something else in the same pot.

But we have a definitional blind spot there, and that's cool.

The basic point remains - we evolved eating poor quality food, "clean eating" is wholly unnecessary.

I haven't been sick once in the last two years... coincidentally, I switched to unprocessed foods (i.e. paleo) two years ago.

I haven't been sick once in the last 10 years. I eat what I want.

Does anyone know of any long term studies that actually demonstrate that the diet approach Armi Legge recommends sufficiently motivates dieters enough to stick with the plan and see results?

First, Armi is 18. Second he doesn't perform his own experiments if that's what you're asking but he does all of his own research. And I can guarantee you that despite his age, he has spent the last few years immersing himself in reading study after study, interviewing doctors and scientists and learning everything he can about how to be a fit, healthy person.

As far as sustainability, what Armi proposes is a balanced approach that incorporates healthy food but leaves room for food you really like too. He advocates not going on diets where you eliminate entire food groups or relies on pills, potions or voodoo magic. And yes, that is sustainable. The longest running study on weight loss and maintenance shows us that counting calories and moderate exercise works.

I don't understand your point and I don't know what article some of you people read because no where does he say that you should eat nothing but junk as long as you count calories. Maybe you should read his follow up piece.