Clean Eaters. Your experience.

As ever, from the outside it seems "clean eating" means labelling your preconceptions to justify your "belief" without doing any good research into whether your opinions is justified by fact.

It's simply eating whole foods that are not chemical and additive laden.

So, err, do you understand the word 'chemical'. (Sorry, sarcasm is bad it seems - to be clear, your use of it here suggests you do NOT understand the word .)
Also, how would you define 'additive'?

Yes.. i do understand the word chemical. Sorry, I'm very ok with you eating food that has chemicals added to it and other additives. I don't want to. I don't understand why you have a problem with it?

I want to eat an apple. Not an apple that has pesticides injected into it's seed. I want to eat a tomato, not a tomato that has salt and sugar (like a lot of canned tomatoes do) and other things added to it.

You don't care? Good for you. You can eat it. I won't belittle or attack your choices.

Oh.. and since you asked.. An additive is a substance that has had something added to it, so there's your lesson for the day..and don't be crass and say that I can't eat a potato that has butter on it, because I've added the butter. I'm speaking to chemicals or other substances that are not naturally found in the product and are not added by my choice. In other words, if I want MSG or salt or sugar. I'll add it myself. I do not believe that man made chemicals that are added to something are the same as the same one found in nature. It's my right to believe what I want and yours to believe what you want. There is no harm in not eating something that has been "enriched", and no one told you not to eat it.

The whole argument that "cutting an apple is processing it" is grasping at straws. Going to extremes is never a productive way to argue something. I don't see anyone here preaching that everyone must eat clean. I only see people here trying to put down those who want to eat clean.

Why? We are not doing anything harmful to ourselves and it is a healthy, nutritionally sound diet. I don't think anyone argues that. And it is sustainable, for those of us who really enjoy it and want to follow it. The biggest difference between how you eat and how I do is you will eat the pop tart/twinkie/GMO apple and I won't. So why all the hate?

So why do you keep using the word?
EVERYTHING is a 'chemical'. So saying 'chemicals or other substances' doesn't really make sense.
Chemical or other chemicals would make more sense; except rather unnecessary, of course!

Erm; last I heard, butter is NOT naturally found in potatoes :laugh:.
Butter IS made 'artificially' by men, or more likely machines.

The 'cutting an apple' argument begs for a description of where you draw the line for processing. That's a start. What about pressing the apple? What about cooking it? What about stewing it to make apple sauce? What if the apple is a not so sweet variety and you add more sugar to make it up to the sweetness of another apple?

As I may have asked already; if salt is made in the lab has the exact same make up as 'natural' salt, si one worse than the other?

I don't have a problem with people promoting a specific way of eating on a faith rather than scientific basis, which this seems to be, to me. Perhaps if the proponents of it could clearly answer questions, it would help me to understand the reasoning behind it.

You're splitting hairs and grabbing at straws...You may do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

I don't "eat this way" on faith. I eat this way because it makes the most sense and makes my body preform the best. I'd wager that if I just stated. I eat healthy.. and did not label it, you wouldn't have a problem with it.. Which is pretty much what I usually say anyway.

I don't' really know what other word to use in place of chemicals. Of course everything on earth is made up of chemicals. What do you suggest?? Added chemicals?? Ok. in the future, I will do my best to remember to use only the word additives or place the word added prior to chemicals to be more clear. If I were to utter the phrase GMO then i'd get a whole bunch of people telling me how great GMO is or at least that nothing has really been proven or that it has according to study XYZ or has not according to study MNO.. so you call it whatever you want.

Arguing about cooking and apple being processing it and therefore not "clean" seems a desperate tactic. To entertain you making applesauce comment. Yep.. stewing apples and adding sugar or cinnamon if need be is still "clean". As it does not have other chemical/preservatives/additives in it that are unnecessary and potentially harmful to me. I'd like to know how eating a food (for example rice) that has been stripped of it's nutrients and then had the nutrients added back in by man is somehow just as healthy as eating food that have not went through this process? White flour for example was originally put through this process because whole wheat flour would rot during transport. We no longer have this issue, so the process is really no longer necessary. Food that does not rot, but would in it's natural state, is unsettling to me.

Butter can be made by shaking (or using a blender, to make it quicker) heavy cream until it separates. so.. how is that unnatural?

Your arguments are just as ridiculous sounding to me as mine are to you. And the funniest part of the entire thing is you do absolutely know exactly what is being referred to when I make a statement. Honestly, I think you are putting to much faith in eating man altered foods and those with a bunch of added chemicals and additives to them. But that' just me. I don't really care if you believe that or not.

Live and let live eh?

You will note I did not mention 'eating' on faith, I specified promoting it on faith.
(*Also I should note I mean I DO have a problem with people promoting things on faith, my bad.)

I have no trouble with a case of people cutting out a load of food, finding it helps them and not bothering to find out which ones they've cut out have helped.
As mentioned, I have done exactly the same with clothes washing liquids. I only use a very small selection of liquids - no powders at all, because I know SOME cause me an adverse reaction, so I just cut the majority out.
I don't go selling this to everyone else as a healthy way of life.

If you think I'm "splitting hairs" then you're missing my point.
You have some arbitrary definitions which I do not believe you can properly spell out yourself - if you can describe your own definition of 'chemical' and 'additive' with out contradiction, please do so.
So far your mention of butter seems to directly contradict by both definitions.

And no; if you used 'healthy', I would also question what you mean by that.
A lot of people on here manage to eat a pot of Ben and Jerry's a day as part of a healthy life style - certainly with impressive bodies. But the same diet for other people wouldn't be "healthy" at all.

Sugar and cinamon are both 'uncessary' 'man made' chemicals AND additives for apple sauce by some people's definitions.
However, I was not offering this as an argument, which may be why you were confused. I was trying to understand

I was amused of your specific mentioning of rice. Brown rice actually has some components that are 'bad' for you, which are stripped out in white rice; such as Phytate which I believe restrictions the absorption of many useful minerals.

I'd like to know WHY food that has the same nutrients as another food is more or less healthy.
Could you explain, please? (And I'm looking for logic rather than just "because it's natural, innit", please! )

So, to sum, please also provide an actually useful definition of these too, as you see them:
'Chemical'
'Additive'
One that is not contradictory with the way you use it yourself, please.

And perhaps, cmriverside, that is because it is what the 'argument' boils down to?

To the poster of this thread:

Is this a school/college assignment? You asked a lot of questions on a pretty touchy subject around here.

There is no right or wrong way to eat, and everyone's definition of "clean" is different. Find your own happy place with the foods you enjoy.




also IBTgifs

No not a college student. I am new to the site. I don't see why it is touchy. I wanted to hear how other people define it so that I understand the concept better. I know what I thought it meant, but some of the vicious arguments I read on here make me wonder. I first started to eat more whole foods (is that okay to say?) when I didn't have much money and wanted to get more vitamins. Then I cut sodium down because my husbands family has heart problems. Then I got melasma and got scared my liver was bad or something so I started looking to detox eating. I tried a detox diet and couldn't stick to it all at once, but I liked how I was feeling. I guess it would fall in the "clean eating" category. I wonder how a big diet change to "clean eating" worked for others who tried it. People I know ask me for advice. I want to help, but I want more info than just what worked for me. It's still subjective, but I want to know what worked for others too and what their experience were.

It worries me that my grandma and grandpa would go on all you could eat pasta diets and wonder why they didn't lose weight (yeah, I know. They didn't count calories... I totally believe that a calories is a calorie btw), but it is scary that back in the 80's gains were king, and in the 90's it was the battle against fat, then carbs, and now people are going paleo with no grain. I want to learn more, but whenever anyone starts an interesting thread, it becomes an argument about chemicals in apples or the "a calorie is a calorie" thing.. (which I totally believe to be true!!).



If I could unpost this whole thread I would.

if you believe in calories in vs calories out ..then why don't you just eat in a calorie deficit? Clean Eating is not some magical fat burning diet/process/life style? All it does is help you create a calorie deficit….

Maybe some people do it because it, well, "helps you create a calorie deficit..." Actually, that's a dandy reason right there.

Also, if someone improves their healthy by just eating McDonalds, THEY get criticised too.

^^This.
Wow. Can't everyone just let other people eat whatever they want to eat?? It's not a competition.

Me, personally. I have never suggested anyone not do it nor have I suggested it's "bad"; while I've seen plenty of 'clean eaters' deride other choices.
But for some reason, why I ask these people some pretty basic questions about the reasoning behind their choices, they presume the questions are a specific attack on their choices.
To me that speaks about the background behind their choices.

The whole argument that "cutting an apple is processing it" is grasping at straws.

Care to point out where someone has used that as an argument?
I've asked questions in relation to it - because if someone can't explain their own thoughts, starting at one end makes sense.

If you don't want 'nit picking', then there's a very, very easy solution -
Offer up an appropriate definition which DOES stand.

I see preaching benefits which they can't prove and don't seem to be based on facts.
I'd suggest if you interpret asking questions as 'hate', then perhaps you're not as convinced of your belief (faith?) as yo might believe.

Bunp

Hi people who consider themselves clean eaters, or are working toward eating more clean. What does eating clean mean for you? Why did you decide to eat this way? Did you do it all at once, or did it evolve and how? What challenges or setbacks have you faced in your chosen way of eating. What solutions did you find? Are you trying to make any changes? What results to you think you diet has led to? Physically or lifestyle wise.

This is meant to be completely subjective, so please don't burn people who are just telling their own story.

I want to eat organic some day, if that's what you mean by clean. I wouldn't personally refer to it as "clean eating," I would just call it organic. Everybody seems to have a different definition around here. Sadly, organic foods are about double the price of regular foods. Organic candy bars are SUPER expensive. I WANT to do it because I suffer from idiopathic urticaria. . .which basically means that my body can "decide" that it's being invaded by allergens and then it produces excess histamine to fight them off which results in hives all over my body. No doctor has been able to figure out what I'm "allergic" to but through my own research, this seems the most plausible. I presented my theory to my doctor and he suggested eating organic to rule out an allergy to some kind of pesticide or something similar.

If I ever have enough money to actually do this, I imagine it would be as all at once as possible, but I expect that it would take some time to locate stores that have an organic version of certain items I may want to purchase. BUT. I work reduced "full-time" hours while I'm paying to put myself through full time school, so I doubt this will happen any time soon. I'll just keep popping Loratadine in the mean time since that works most days to keep away the itchiness.

Organic foods is not always twice the price as other foods. It depends on your location but you can also order online so you are not restricted to paying the high prices. Our health food store has prices comparable to the grocery store and I can buy organic produce for less than grocery store prices. Our free range chicken and eggs are less expensive than the grocery store price as is our grass fed beef. With a bit of creativity you can easily be eating organic foods for less than the cost of other foods.

An elimination diet may get to the root of your allergies if in fact it is caused by something you are eating. It may be due to another allergen though. Popping Loratadine, while giving temporary relief, is not the answer. At some point, your body will rebel against that as well. I'd rather spend my money on organic foods and make my indoor space healthy than spend it on drugs that temporarily mask the problem, speaking from experience.

I didn't read the whole thread but this is my reasoning.
I was overweight, true, but felt like I carried it well. However, i had so many health issues. I had debilitating migraines all the time, nausea, grogginess, digestive problems, you name it. I went to the doctor and he said I had to lose weight.
I started noticing patterns, that white sugar and white flour were harming me. Sugar was making me feel really really bad and I was having too much of it.
I started replacing foods and modifying my strategy on food dramatically to reduce sugar. Sugar was fine from fruit alone (actually made me feel great to get sugar from fruit) where possible. I even make sure to buy breads with 0 grams of sugar, and a short list of ingredients.
The bottom line is, the more my diet sticks to fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins and healthy fats, the better I feel over all, the less hungry I am and the less cravings I have.
But because I love love baked goods, I stray from my diet. When it gets to a point where I've strayed too far, all my symptoms come back. It's not the end of the world, but that is a good sign for me to go back to good habits.

Better food = feeling better

Better tasting food = fun

Somewhere between is where you find a happy medium

To me, Cleaning eating means to eat 1-ingredient (natural) foods as much as possible and practical.
....
I started by making my own foods

Erm, how is 'making' your own foods a start towards eating 1 ingredient foods?
Surely trying to avoid 'processed' means no "making"?a

Hi people who consider themselves clean eaters, or are working toward eating more clean.

I'm not entirely sure if I fit the bill for what you're looking for, but I'll try to answer.

What does eating clean mean for you?

I'm not sure exactly what "clean" eating really is. Seems like everyone has their own definition, so I'll just put mine in.

I generally consider eating from-scratch meals using fresh whole ingredients (raw for frozen vegetables, fruits, and fresh meat) to be "eating clean." However, that definition is pretty loose and can be interpreted any number of ways.

Why did you decide to eat this way?

I didn't really "decide" per se. I just like good food, and I love cooking.

Did you do it all at once, or did it evolve and how?

I'm gradually improving my cooking skills, so it's a slow process. I used to eat takeout or fast food almost every day (at least once per day but often 2-3 times per day). I slowly started cooking more, and I realized that I really enjoyed it so I just kept going.

What challenges or setbacks have you faced in your chosen way of eating. What solutions did you find?

I get lazy sometimes and reach for convenience food, but I'm trying to avoid having it in my house now as much as possible and to prep foods in advance on the weekends.

Are you trying to make any changes?

Sure. I'm trying to figure out ways to prep food and keep it stored for long periods of time in the freezer so I can reach for something homemade instead of fast food or convenience foods.

What results to you think you diet has led to? Physically or lifestyle wise.

I've lost a lot of weight, but that was due to calorie restriction not necessarily "eating clean." I will say that I enjoy eating more when it's food I've made and generally feel more satisfied throughout the day than if I just splurge on convenience food. I also have developed a distaste for any microwave dishes (blech).

Carb selections:
No salt canned diced tomato, ....kashi go lean high protein cereal, oatmeal, .....almond milk, ezekiel bread

Fats:
Peanut butter, some cheese, oils

I'm guessing you don't go for the 'no processed' or 'not packaged' definitions that so many try to use to describe their 'clean' eating .

I dumped the protein powder and felt better.
Turns out I'm intolerant to it. I didn't choose to cut out other foods I'm not intolerant to, however .

So why do you keep using the word?
EVERYTHING is a 'chemical'. So saying 'chemicals or other substances' doesn't really make sense.
Chemical or other chemicals would make more sense; except rather unnecessary, of course!

Erm; last I heard, butter is NOT naturally found in potatoes :laugh:.
Butter IS made 'artificially' by men, or more likely machines.

The 'cutting an apple' argument begs for a description of where you draw the line for processing. That's a start. What about pressing the apple? What about cooking it? What about stewing it to make apple sauce? What if the apple is a not so sweet variety and you add more sugar to make it up to the sweetness of another apple?

As I may have asked already; if salt is made in the lab has the exact same make up as 'natural' salt, si one worse than the other?

I don't have a problem with people promoting a specific way of eating on a faith rather than scientific basis, which this seems to be, to me. Perhaps if the proponents of it could clearly answer questions, it would help me to understand the reasoning behind it.

I don't think it's purely faith or scientifically based. I'm sure a lot of people who eating clean or try to eat more natural foods over highly processed foods are doing it solely because they've done the extensive scientific research to be sure each and every food is backed up as being healthy. I think there's a certain amount of common sense involved in knowing that, for instance, the apple you grew in your garden with absolutely no chemicals (and I'm using the common vernacular meaning of chemicals, not the strict scientific meaning of the word) is going to be better for your overall health than a Twinkie. There's been enough research into various man-made food additives, colourings, flavourings, etc. to suggest that at best it's not at all harmful to cut them out, and at worst that they're poisoning us and responsible for a lot of various diseases and disorders. Part of eating clean is going to be about chance and belief - do you want to take the chance that in 5 years they discover the man-made ingredient in your Twinkie is actually causing cancer/schizophrenia/autism/etc.? There's little to no chance of that happening when you're talking clean foods because humans have been eating those for thousands of years and there's a lot more research about them. By and large natural foods are things humans are meant to be ingesting; with the man-made added chemicals that we've taken to adding to our processed foods, we don't know, and in fact may have turned out to be extremely harmful (trans fat, for instance, or many of the food colourings used in children's cereal, etc.).


I won't accuse you of nitpicking as you've said before you're not, but that you're just trying to understand what people are saying. I find that harder to believe because unless you're from a different area of the world or language where these terms aren't commonly used in the common vernacular with a slightly different meaning than their strict scientific definition, you would perfectly understand what is meant by processed, and chemicals, etc. But I'll try to explain for you anyway.

Processing to me in this context largely relates to adding chemicals to food - whether it's preservatives or colouring or 'taste' enhancers like MSG, trans fat, etc. I differentiate this from natural processing like cooking, or smoking, or preserving something by pickling it, etc. because when you do that kind of natural processing you're using only natural ingredients (again, things that are naturally occurring and intended to be ingested in some way by a human). A good way of thinking about it would be to ask if you could have done this before the industrial age, or back in Greco-Roman times, etc. (basically before we started adding unnatural chemicals, etc. to our food). Smoking, pickling, salting, cooking, etc. are all natural processes that occurred before this time, so generally I'd consider them clean (not to say all ways of doing so are clean; if you're pickling it in unnatural chemicals or smoking it with unnatural chemicals, for instance, then it's no longer clean).

Chemicals, additives, etc. in this context (their common vernacular meaning) again generally refers to things not naturally found or meant to be ingested. So for instance, trans fat is not natural - it doesn't grow or come from a living animal, etc. They are things entirely created by humans, whose effects on the human body and our health may not be fully known because most have only been invented the last few decades (since before that we largely lacked the technology for this kind of thing). They're added to increase the longevity of the product, or its stability, or its ease of use, or to make something high carb low carb but still tasty, etc.

As for your salt example, that to me is an uncertain area. I'd have to know a lot more about the product and the way it was made (and probably understand a hell of a lot more about science lol) to be able to really be able to tell if for me it would still be as natural and clean as normal salt or if it'd be different. Either way I'd probably chose the natural salt over it because again, you're not taking the chance, and since normal salt's so easy to get why bother taking the chance on the uncertain man-made salt?

Really, there's been more than enough scientific research done on various chemicals - whether pesticides, or food additives, or whatever - to know that a lot of what is added to our food is not healthy for us. But with a lot of the chemicals we just don't know; there's not been enough time or research to establish whether they're ok or not. And personally I'd rather (as much as is realistically possible for me) eat the natural foods than the unnatural ones, because I'm taking less of a chance that next year they'll discover the unnatural food is gonna kill me. Doesn't mean I never eat the unnatural food, just means that I try to be aware of what I'm putting in my body and that includes the non-natural products in my food too. And I personally choose to avoid that stuff as much as is possible for me because 1) there's a lot of scientific evidence that a lot of it is crappy for your health and 2) there's very little scientific evidence that any of it is good or at the very least NOT dangerous at all to my health.