Learn What it means to "Eat Clean"

Clean eating is a subjective turn thrown around by different followers of whatever crazy fitness phenom is current. I just eat to meat my nutrient goals.

WOW. Talk about subjective.

I would try to explain my views on this again, but you likely wouldn't read them, or try to understand my perspective. So I won't bother. It's clear you've decided what YOU think it means.

It does, quite literally, mean different things to different people. I have never seen two clean eaters agree: each of dairy, GMO, organic, legumes, and grains are or are not "clean" depending on the individual arguing the term. By any reasonable metric it is a useless term for that reason.

That said, I honestly don't care what others eat or do not eat. If someone wants to use pseudoscience to guide their life, that is certainly their right. It is also my right to point out the absurdity of doing that and to continue to shake my head. I'm entirely too old to believe that people who are so easily deluded by this type of thing are going to change their minds.

Best of luck!

As I've said: I agree the term is silly. His post was also silly.

I eat primarily vegetables, fruits (prepared minimally), lean meats, whole grains, no refined grains, no added sugar (when I can help it), no HFCS, and aim to limit my consumption of overly processed, packaged convenience foods. I bet most folks who use the phrase "clean eating" would say my diet is pretty "clean". Is my approach to eating a "crazy fitness" phenomenon? Do you, beachiron think that's odd, unsustainable or "sad"? Trendy? A fad? If I said my diet was built around "whole foods" would that phrase work? I'm figuring no.

How long has "IFFYM" been around as a buzz phrase in dieting?

I don't think IIFYM is really used as a "buzz phrase in dieting" so much as an approach that was developed during the course of participating in bodybuilding. It was actually a way of pulling back a bit from the craziness that is prevalent there in terms of "bro" or "clean" diet. No one is "selling" it so to speak, but you will see it mentioned here a bit and on places like bodybuilding.com, and there is a IIFYM.com, but again the idea is one of "pulling back" and bringing order into one's diet. Put another way, the idea is to better explain the minimum amount of dietary effort necessary to achieve the desired results. That said, if you want to use "buzz phrase in dieting," then I'm okay with that as I don't really find a semantic argument helpful in this context.

I don't think cutting out refined carbohydrates, added sugar, or "processed" foods is necessary, physiologically speaking, unless there is an individual medical need to do so. If someone desires to do so because they can't control themselves, then I would hope that they would work on that through teaching themselves moderation, rather than deciding to cut it out for the rest of their lives. And yes, I would personally find a life without ice cream or cake "sad." Just like I would find a life without sex, or beaches, or hiking, or any other of the joys I find in life would be "sad." That is not to personally attack your choices in life, but I certainly wouldn't be pushing dietary asceticism on others.

dietary asceticism. Interesting.
I think I've said what I wanted to say, and you have done the same. Your final clause there sums up your perspective, and with that. I'm done discussing it with ya. cheers.

Don't go away mad . . .

Honestly, I've read several descriptions of your diet and I'm still not clear on it. Are you saying that you avoid HFCS but will eat refined sugar in moderation and enjoy a little wine on a daily or slightly less than daily basis?

I read this whole thread... I was not taught what it means to "eat clean"... I want my money back

I'd never listen to a Shakeology salesperson talk about clean eating. It's a powdered processed product you drink lol.

Clean eating is a subjective turn thrown around by different followers of whatever crazy fitness phenom is current. I just eat to meat my nutrient goals.

WOW. Talk about subjective.

I would try to explain my views on this again, but you likely wouldn't read them, or try to understand my perspective. So I won't bother. It's clear you've decided what YOU think it means.

It does, quite literally, mean different things to different people. I have never seen two clean eaters agree: each of dairy, GMO, organic, legumes, and grains are or are not "clean" depending on the individual arguing the term. By any reasonable metric it is a useless term for that reason.

That said, I honestly don't care what others eat or do not eat. If someone wants to use pseudoscience to guide their life, that is certainly their right. It is also my right to point out the absurdity of doing that and to continue to shake my head. I'm entirely too old to believe that people who are so easily deluded by this type of thing are going to change their minds.

Best of luck!

As I've said: I agree the term is silly. His post was also silly.

I eat primarily vegetables, fruits (prepared minimally), lean meats, whole grains, no refined grains, no added sugar (when I can help it), no HFCS, and aim to limit my consumption of overly processed, packaged convenience foods. I bet most folks who use the phrase "clean eating" would say my diet is pretty "clean". Is my approach to eating a "crazy fitness" phenomenon? Do you, beachiron think that's odd, unsustainable or "sad"? Trendy? A fad? If I said my diet was built around "whole foods" would that phrase work? I'm figuring no.

How long has "IFFYM" been around as a buzz phrase in dieting?

I don't think IIFYM is really used as a "buzz phrase in dieting" so much as an approach that was developed during the course of participating in bodybuilding. It was actually a way of pulling back a bit from the craziness that is prevalent there in terms of "bro" or "clean" diet. No one is "selling" it so to speak, but you will see it mentioned here a bit and on places like bodybuilding.com, and there is a IIFYM.com, but again the idea is one of "pulling back" and bringing order into one's diet. Put another way, the idea is to better explain the minimum amount of dietary effort necessary to achieve the desired results. That said, if you want to use "buzz phrase in dieting," then I'm okay with that as I don't really find a semantic argument helpful in this context.

I don't think cutting out refined carbohydrates, added sugar, or "processed" foods is necessary, physiologically speaking, unless there is an individual medical need to do so. If someone desires to do so because they can't control themselves, then I would hope that they would work on that through teaching themselves moderation, rather than deciding to cut it out for the rest of their lives. And yes, I would personally find a life without ice cream or cake "sad." Just like I would find a life without sex, or beaches, or hiking, or any other of the joys I find in life would be "sad." That is not to personally attack your choices in life, but I certainly wouldn't be pushing dietary asceticism on others.

dietary asceticism. Interesting.
I think I've said what I wanted to say, and you have done the same. Your final clause there sums up your perspective, and with that. I'm done discussing it with ya. cheers.

Don't go away mad . . .

Oh sweetie, I'm not mad. I just see that it's pointless to continue this conversation. "dietary asceticism" suggests that you believe I'm doing something extreme (or sad, as jonnyathon refers to it). If eating whole foods, and avoiding HFCS is "extreme" to you, then we will continue to have a failure to communicate.
as·cet·i·cism
əˈsetiˌsizəm/
noun
noun: asceticism
1.
severe self-discipline and avoidance of all forms of indulgence, typically for religious reasons.
"acts of physical asceticism"

If that's what you think my lifestyle represents, I won't try to convince you otherwise, I'll just go on eating my fabulous foods and having my nice chardonnay.

Honestly, I've read several descriptions of your diet and I'm still not clear on it. Are you saying that you avoid HFCS but will eat refined sugar in moderation and enjoy a little wine on a daily or slightly less than daily basis? If so, then we are talking a matter of degree and I'm confused as to why IIFYM doesn't work for you. IIFYM doesn't meant that you MUST eat refined sugar, rather it allows it. If you prefer alcohol but not refined sugar, then that's your personal choice. My only argument with that approach would be "why no refined sugar, rather than a small amount of refined sugar?" A diet of 80-90% of what you would call clean and 10-20% of whatever the heck you want, so long as you don't go over calories and get sufficient fiber, protein and good fats, is pretty much the basics of IIFYM.

I get annoyed with "clean" because it almost inevitably ends up in one of the semantic arguments. Is it "clean with some cheats" or "IIFYM"? Who the heck even knows? My mental switch from "clean with cheats" to "IIFYM," for me, was one of relief because of my frustration with using "clean" as a guide.

So to be clear, these are things that I think are perfectly healthy to eat, and I have eaten for years, that for many are decidedly not "clean" by at least some standard of the word: non-organic everything (dairy, meat, fruit, veggies), grains and bread, white rice, canned tomatoes, dried pasta, jarred pasta sauce, canned tuna and salmon, legumes, olives, and pickles (and yes, of course, bacon, refined sugar, HFCS, Oreo cookies, Klondike bars, beer, wine, and whiskey). With the exception of what is the parentheses, those foods are also part of my 80%.

And again, yes, I would consider completely cutting out sweets to be a form of dietary asceticism, as that would be a huge sacrifice for me. The only reason I would ever completely cut a pleasure out of my life is if it was absolutely necessary. Moderate? Okay. Cut out? No. That's absolutely not an insult to you, but I'm also not walking on egg shells about my diet and thinking.

I'd never listen to a Shakeology salesperson talk about clean eating. It's a powdered processed product you drink lol.

I do need help to eat clean, I am getting there but still I get confused on certain items like whether eating non-organic is still considered clean eating as it has been treated with pesticides? But the problem is that organic food is more expensive and right now I cannot afford it!

1) "low fat dairy". Dairy does not come out of a cow "low fat". It has to be processed to become low fat.
3) Stevia is not at all natural, it is typically processed with ethanol.