Why do people seem to bash "healthy"eating?

I've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.

I'm not advocating not having a treat if you want it (this from someone who had some chocolate ice cream last night). But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.

Just wondering.....

People don't bash eating in a way that is actually healthy. They bash the assertions that only a very narrow type of eating is "healthy."

Except...they don't. Or maybe they think they are, but what they're actually bashing / being judgmental about / getting aggressive towards are people simply SAYING the word clean eating, or that they eat clean, or healthy, etc.

It's been said again and again in this thread that the bashers aren't bashing eating healthy or choosing to eat clean, but rather people forcing clean eating down others' throats as if it was the only healthy way to eat. I agree, that would be annoying. And yet....show me one person on this thread that has taken that kind of extremist fanatical view that would justify all of the bashing of clean eating that's gone on in this thread alone. None that I can recall.

Those who bash are often trigger happy - they see the word clean and immediately jump on as if it's being pushed down their throats when 95% of the time it was entirely harmless. THAT's what's annoying for us, and in my opinion, far more annoying than the 5% of people who try to shove clean eating down others' throats since there's so many more bashers than fanatical clean eaters.

Cause it's not the "in" thing to do. It's not "cool". And people don't like to be held responsible for anything anymore, especialy not for what they're doing to their body when they eat terribly unhealthy things.

Cause it's not the "in" thing to do. It's not "cool". And people don't like to be held responsible for anything anymore, especialy not for what they're doing to their body when they eat terribly unhealthy things.

Just this afternoon a newer member on a new thread asked about vegetables because she was going to eat clean. I think it only took 4 replies before she was grilled as to why she wanted to eat clean. Honestly, other members don't realize how they come across. One simple question regarding vegetables and already it becomes a defend why you want to eat clean? It is no one's business why she wants to eat clean! The question was about vegetables. Anyway, anyone who mentions anything about eating clean is immediately put on the hot seat. And to make matters worse, if the member who says they eat clean doesn't provide some type of justification, links to why eating clean is better and open their diary things get worse. Honestly, these folks putting those who eat anything other than the SAD need to get a grip!

Why the assumption that the people who were asking her why she eats clean all eat the SAD?

Dichotomous thinking is faulty logic and leads to long drawn-out threads like these.

Dichotomous thinking = putting people (or things) into one of two categories, generally two extremes... people in this debate get polarised into "IIFYM/junk food warriors/people who eat nothing but junk" and "clean eaters/healthy eaters/people who systematically avoid all junk food" - your assumption that anyone who's questioning someone who says they eats clean must be eating the standard American diet is the result of such dichotomous thinking. And it's bad logic.... just because someone advises people that they can enjoy some "junk" food so long as they stick to their macro and calorie goals, it does not mean they themselves eat huge amounts of junk food, or that they're advising others to eat huge amounts of junk food....just that they can eat it if it fits in their calorie/macro goals.

It's interesting that the clean eaters who exercise dichotomous thinking with regards to people who advise others they don't have to give up all "junk" food, also have dichotomous thinking about food, i.e. classifying food into "healthy" and "junk" and striving to get all their diet from the "healthy" category and abstain from the "junk" category............ but foods don't fit into two extremes like this...... food generally falls on a continuum from extremely nutritious to empty calories. And most of the food that's classified as "Junk" doesn't actually fall at the empty calories end of the scale either... burgers are very nutritious - they contain protein, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals. The problem is that they're easy to overeat on and they don't contain much fibre. A diet consisting of only burgers is going to be unbalanced, and therefore unhealthy. But if you're getting fibre from other sources and a wider range of vitamins and minerals from other sources, then including a burger in your diet, while also watching your calories, is not unhealthy. Even foods that are genuinely empty calories (meaning they give you calories and sugar but nothing else, e.g. boiled sweets, gummy bears) - nothing wrong with having a few every now and then if the rest of your diet includes all the nutrition your body needs and you log the calories.

People don't fit neatly into categories. The diet of someone who does IIFYM properly is probably no different than someone who eats 80/20 clean or even 90/10 clean. And re the assumption about the SAD - a lot of people on this site are not even American... I eat a combination of Arabic, British, American and Indian food... that might be considered to be typically British but it's not typically American. And my diet contains plenty of protein, moderate amounts of fat and carbs, plenty of vitamins and minerals (I try to get my 7 servings of fruit and veg a day - as advised by the British health authorities) and also plenty of fibre. And I drink lots of water. So if I'm going to go to KFC or Dairy Queen or get Lebanese or Iranian takeaway once a week or once a fortnight, then I'll see that as a boost to my protein intake and a reason to be careful with fats and carbs for the rest of the day. I call it IIFYM, someone else will call how I eat 80/20 clean. Point is I'm happy and healthy and my way of eating is sustainable. And I get to eat DQ chocolate chunk frozen yoghurt every couple of weeks or so. and also that people don't fit neatly into categories regarding how they eat.


Most of what is perceived by the OP and other people on this thread as "bashing healthy eating" is actually an attempt to counteract dichotomous thinking, i.e. getting people to realise that a healthy diet is about balance and that it's possible to be healthy and lose weight and eat foods classified as "junk" by some, and that there's no reason to deprive yourself as long as you're careful about fitting it into your macro and calorie goals.

You were doing so good, and then...

Choosing not to eat junk is now self-deprivation? Perhaps YOU have an unhealthy relationship with food*

* Absolutely hate that phrase, since it just screams Tumblr-esque stupidity.

Where did I say that choosing not to eat "junk" food is self-deprivation? Nowhere. I said it's *possible* to eat these foods that some people (not me) classify as "junk".... not *mandatory* LOL.... and what foods do I consider junk food? None of them, I avoid using that term (and put it in "s when I have to use it such as in debates about "junk" food). How can I consider it mandatory for people to consume a category of food when I don't even consider the categorsation valid to begin with?

if there are foods that you really want to eat but you deny yourself those foods out of the mistaken belief that you can't be healthy or lose fat if you eat them, then yes that's self-deprivation. This only applies to food that you *actually really want* to eat. It doesn't apply to food that you don't want to eat. Very obvious statement is very obvious... but this is MFP so I guess having to state the obvious is necessary sometimes....

I really want to eat Reece's Peanut Butter cups but I won't do it because I know I will end up binging on the whole bag! So instead I make my own version with extra dark chocolate, coconut oil and peanut butter. Does that mean I am depriving myself because im not eating the actual 'Reece's' and instead opting to make my own with half the calories? I try to avoid processed where I can.

Edit to say I actually like mine a lot better {not to toot my own horn}, and am totally content with eating just one.

in for a healthy spanking.