Your food is no cleaner than mine

The secondary issue is defining clean eating. Which I'm not even going to attempt. It's been gone over a billion times. Just use the search function.

I have. I've seen plenty of people asking the questions I have, and no answers. That's why I bothered.

And again, while I've made it clear I find the term clean eating offputting, I've also made it clear I'm not criticizing how anyone eats. I'm just interested in the topic. I think it's odd that questions are met with claims that I'm criticizing your eating. Can't we divorce the topic from people's personal preferences, which will of course be individual?

It is to simply eat food that has not been chemically altered.

See? I told ya!


*singing*

Every food is clean! We all eat clean.
We all eat clean! We all eat clean!
Every food is clean!


Somebody grab a guitar and join me!

The secondary issue is defining clean eating. Which I'm not even going to attempt. It's been gone over a billion times. Just use the search function.

I have. I've seen plenty of people asking the questions I have, and no answers. That's why I bothered.

And again, while I've made it clear I find the term clean eating offputting, I've also made it clear I'm not criticizing how anyone eats. I'm just interested in the topic. I think it's odd that questions are met with claims that I'm criticizing your eating. Can't we divorce the topic from people's personal preferences, which will of course be individual?

But this thread is silly long, so if you are bored with the topic I won't get offended or anything.

It is to simply eat food that has not been chemically altered. It does not mean I can't go to the store and purchase crackers. It means that I wont' go to the store and purchase crackers that I cannot make at home. You purchase items that are whole and raw, like fresh fruits and veggies and lean meats and cook. If you get something that is in a box it has nothing added. Like Quinoa with nothing in it, although boxed would be clean. Yogurt, that is just yogurt would be clean. I'm not going to purchase flour that has been stripped of it's nutrients, bleached and then had the nutrients added back in (enriched flour) I'm not going to purchase things are made of added chemicals. In other words If it's supposed to rot and it doesn't, there is a problem. It's not about losing weight, it's about over all health.

I'd be willing to bet the 5 ingredient thing came from people reading labels and going "what is the purpose of all this added stuff why is it necessary and what does it do to me to eat this much extra". for example, I will purchase canned tomatoes or beans, but a lot of them have added salt and sugar.. Why??? I search the labels until I find one with no added salt or sugar. Just tomatoes, or just beans. Unnecessary and i don't need the extra.

And no.. unless you are a chemist i really doubt you use half the ingredients on the list of premade stuff. (do you use blue 1 or maltodextrin as an added ingredient?? No one i know does)

and I am bored of this thread, and this topic.

So ignorant, crackers are baked, baking chemically alters the product. Yougurt? Chemically altered through lacto fermentation

Maltodextrin? I have a big tub of it that I use

There's a big difference between chemical alteration through natural cooking methods and chemical alteration via the introduction of unnatural chemicals made in a laboratory. Yogurt is natural (provided it's just yogurt) because lacto fermentation is a natural process. Baking crackers is also a natural process.

So I suggest instead of enjoying your little game of trying to belittle other people, you go find a way of becoming a better person.

I've bowed out of the clean eating threads because of the folks here who are intent on belittling those who do choose to eat clean. I figure they have nothing better to do or it's the clouded thinking that belittling and bullying is cool. Later folks, I'm off to enjoy a brisk walk :laugh:

There's a big difference between chemical alteration through natural cooking methods and chemical alteration via the introduction of unnatural chemicals made in a laboratory. Yogurt is natural (provided it's just yogurt) because lacto fermentation is a natural process. Baking crackers is also a natural process

You know i lived on a horse ranch up till I left for college. I actually NEVER saw yogurt in the natural environment.
Anywhere.

or crackers.

or an oven that baked things- well I did- but it was the one that was installed in our house.

Maybe the horses ate them each night while you slept?

Amen

The secondary issue is defining clean eating. Which I'm not even going to attempt. It's been gone over a billion times. Just use the search function.

I have. I've seen plenty of people asking the questions I have, and no answers. That's why I bothered.

And again, while I've made it clear I find the term clean eating offputting, I've also made it clear I'm not criticizing how anyone eats. I'm just interested in the topic. I think it's odd that questions are met with claims that I'm criticizing your eating. Can't we divorce the topic from people's personal preferences, which will of course be individual?

But this thread is silly long, so if you are bored with the topic I won't get offended or anything.

It is to simply eat food that has not been chemically altered. It does not mean I can't go to the store and purchase crackers. It means that I wont' go to the store and purchase crackers that I cannot make at home. You purchase items that are whole and raw, like fresh fruits and veggies and lean meats and cook. If you get something that is in a box it has nothing added. Like Quinoa with nothing in it, although boxed would be clean. Yogurt, that is just yogurt would be clean. I'm not going to purchase flour that has been stripped of it's nutrients, bleached and then had the nutrients added back in (enriched flour) I'm not going to purchase things are made of added chemicals. In other words If it's supposed to rot and it doesn't, there is a problem. It's not about losing weight, it's about over all health.

I'd be willing to bet the 5 ingredient thing came from people reading labels and going "what is the purpose of all this added stuff why is it necessary and what does it do to me to eat this much extra". for example, I will purchase canned tomatoes or beans, but a lot of them have added salt and sugar.. Why??? I search the labels until I find one with no added salt or sugar. Just tomatoes, or just beans. Unnecessary and i don't need the extra.

And no.. unless you are a chemist i really doubt you use half the ingredients on the list of premade stuff. (do you use blue 1 or maltodextrin as an added ingredient?? No one i know does)

and I am bored of this thread, and this topic.

So ignorant, crackers are baked, baking chemically alters the product. Yougurt? Chemically altered through lacto fermentation

Maltodextrin? I have a big tub of it that I use

There's a big difference between chemical alteration through natural cooking methods and chemical alteration via the introduction of unnatural chemicals made in a laboratory. Yogurt is natural (provided it's just yogurt) because lacto fermentation is a natural process. Baking crackers is also a natural process.

So I suggest instead of enjoying your little game of trying to belittle other people, you go find a way of becoming a better person.

So you're saying when she said that she doesn't eat chemically altered food, she didn't actually mean that? So where do crackers get naturally baked at oh 300+ degrees F?

So pointing out someone's ignorance is belittling them? Do tell

No, I'm saying when we talk about processed it's in the common vernacular - just like junk food, it's a term everyone understands perfectly well, and no amount of thinking you're cool and funny for nitpicking will change the fact that you know exactly what we mean.

And BAKING is natural; increasing the temperature doesn't change that. Same with fermentation - that happens naturally, so if you make it happen (without adding anything unnatural to it) its still a natural process. And no, when we say we don't eat chemically altered food we generally mean food to which chemicals have been added that aren't natural. Doesn't refer to the chemical alterations that occur within food when you cook it, or freeze it, etc.


What's belittling is both calling a person ignorant, particularly when they're not, and talking down to them in the condescending manner you're taking up right now. You're coming off as an incredibly arrogant, condescending bully who enjoys belittling people for no reason. You're not actually debating things with merit at the moment, you're simply trying to insult people.

There's a big difference between chemical alteration through natural cooking methods and chemical alteration via the introduction of unnatural chemicals made in a laboratory. Yogurt is natural (provided it's just yogurt) because lacto fermentation is a natural process. Baking crackers is also a natural process

You know i lived on a horse ranch up till I left for college. I actually NEVER saw yogurt in the natural environment.
Anywhere.

or crackers.

or an oven that baked things- well I did- but it was the one that was installed in our house.

Maybe the horses ate them each night while you slept?

maybe- I would have thought it was the cats- but I mean my horse- he eats WEIRD WEIRD stuff- so maybe they got out at night and forested for fresh yogurt.

I never considered it- perhaps I'll task my mother to seeing if they do with a night cam!

That's a good idea. Don't let those pesky animals cheat you guys out of natural foods! Nanny-cam with night vision is a good idea!

Most if not all clean eaters WILL eat food that isn't considered clean; we just prefer to spend more of our diet on clean foods because we consider them better for our health.

But as you say below, there's an aspiration not to. Eating foods that I consider perfectly healthy parts of a diet, in reasonable quantities (like sriacha) are failures, deviations, etc. Also, this gets to the question of what's not clean. IMO, not being nutrient dense isn't the same as not being "clean," and there's also no detriment to eating non-nutrient dense foods on occasion. Similarly, being "processed" (which is a quite broad category) seems an odd thing to consider unclean, and again I'd argue that there are plenty of processed foods that rather than be discouraged probably should be encouraged if you like them. Like lots of frozen stuff, for example.

There's research that a lot of added chemicals in processed foods are bad for us, and litle to no research that any/all of them are ok or good for us. So even for the ones we don't know about (whether they're harmful or not), we prefer to avoid them when we can.

This is a separate issue that we could argue about on the specifics--don't worry, I'm not planning to at the moment--but of course what precisely is in a processed food depends on the food and whether it's important to avoid it seems to me to depend at least somewhat on amounts.

It's not really any different than a person choosing to eat more vegetables and less fast food to lose weight; clean eaters choose to eat less processed foods and instead focus on eating more clean foods. Many, myself included, may be shooting for an ideal world diet of only ever eating clean foods, but that doesn't mean we ever will. Striving for perfection's a good thing; actually living it not so much (because most of us aren't in a place yet where we wouldn't miss procesed foods, or would be able to live the lives we want without some of the more convenient foods).

So no, something not being considered a clean food does not mean that you can't consume it in any quantity. Most of us would probably agree it's not healthy for you, but in small doses in an otherwise healthful diet it probably isn't hurting you. So yes, as some people like to point out, it's a lot like moderation - focusing on foods we consider healthful and only occasionally having ones we don't consider healthful. Really just means a lot of people who dislike clean eating are eating clean themselves.

A couple of distinctions I'd make:

(1) I think (and yes this is personal) that there's a huge difference between focusing on what's good to add to your diet vs. foods being off limits. Eating more of one thing leads to less of another, sure, but saying "no sugary treats" seems to give them too much power and to make a diet about deprivation and the idea that certain foods are always a little sinful (word chosen intentionally) or a "cheat" if eaten, vs. the idea that you just want to make sure they are eaten after you fulfill nutrient goals and don't put you over the edge. The "clean eating" philosophy seems to be that it's worse for your health to occasionally eat a sweet treat than never doing so, and I don't agree that's true. That's why even if you and I happen to eat identical foods I couldn't call myself a clean eater honestly. I don't aspire to never eat ice cream or never eat soy sauce (back to processing) ever again. I don't understand why someone would. (But I'm not going to argue with you and tell you you are wrong--this seems a quite understandable definition of the term, which is what I was after.)

(2) With processed food, even beyond (1), I don't agree that it's necessarily a goal to eat less processed foods. Sometimes they further my personal nutrition aims (yogurt, frozen stuff) and I think they are healthy under any definition (nutrient dense, don't do bad things to your body, etc.) This is addressed by the focus on specific chemicals or additives (I like to at least understand why things are added), but again that seems a much more specific concern. I've thought about this in part because I do goofy stuff like flirt with trying a period of locavorism, so have thought about what I would give up and why it would be bad and decided that in many cases I couldn't eat as healthily, as I define it. But again, personal choice, I don't care how you eat, although I might argue in a subsequent thread about a particular item. I have my own turnoffs with certain kinds of processed foods too, but I suspect it's individual vs. generalizable, and can't claim to be at all consistent.

Hmm, I guess what's frustrating to me still is that there seems to be an assertion by at least several active clean eaters that not being a clean eater means you are anti what MFP's goals allegedly should be--specifically, encouraging healthy eating. Yet I'm all for healthy eating, nutrient dense foods, cooking with whole foods, etc., and based on what seems a sensible definition could never be a clean eater, since I don't think 100% is a thing to aspire to (whether one achieves it or not). But I strongly disagree that not being in favor of 100% clean (however one defines clean) means you are anti healthy eating.

Anyway, I know there's argument here, but I'm good and will try to shut up for now stop being so boring. Thanks for the answer. The last three really did help me understand.

I'm not the right person for the rest of your question, because I don't label my diet as clean, and I don't tell others to eat clean, so I'm not invested in a universal definition. When I try to eat clean, I'm trying to get the most nutrition bang for my buck. If I eat something with little macro or micronutrient value, not being in any danger of malnourishment or needing lots of calories for activities, I wouldn't see that as sticking with my clean guidelines. For me, having a goal of clean just helps me meet my calorie deficit (and maintenance, eventually). Many of the foods I include in my daily diet are processed. I like the idea of cooking my own food and knowing to the best of my knowledge what's in the food I'm eating, but most of the time, I'm not going to make my own almond milk. So I'm not opposed to processing, though I do think there is a middle ground between "NO PROCESSING" and "ALL PROCESSING IS OK." I don't care enough about the science to get into that debate, but I'm open to the idea that none of us knows the effect of every last thing out there.

I basically agree with this, but I just don't get why it's called clean eating (to be clear, I don't care if you call it that, I'm really just trying to understand). There are a whole bunch of basically conflicting definitions of clean eating, some which are basically how I eat (I'd call it trying to be health conscious or being aware and choosing consciously), and some of which are kind of hippy/granola stuff about processing, and some of which seem related to other dietary goals (I've definitely heard "eating clean" mean adhering to my pale diet). My problem with it is that I hear an implied "unlike all you other unclean eaters" whenever someone says it, and given the plethora of definitions find it an unhelpful term, but I will try to get past that. ;-)

I honestly don't understand why people care so much. Let me ask you - when someone tells you they eat vegan, do you feel they're judging you for eating meat and animal products? Does that make you feel guilty for eating chicken, putting butter on your bread or drinking a glass of milk? Are they shaming you? Or are they just telling you how they eat. I would say the latter, but to me it sounds like you're so invested in how other people eat that logically you should be feeling all of the former. The same goes if someone says they eats low carb - are they now judging you for eating nasty carbs? Or are they just describing their current macronutrient distribution?

I really don't understand why the term bothers people so much. Is it simply the label of "clean" that does it? To me, people refer to "clean" eating because most people know more or less what they're talking about when they say they eat "clean." Might their individual definition of "clean" eating differ from yours or someone else's? Probably so, but I suspect only in minor ways. Fresh veggies and grass fed beef probably fit the definition of "clean", taco bell probably does not, and there's probably some other examples that are shades of grey. Now does that somehow mean they're shaming you for eating "unclean" when they say they're trying to eat "clean?" I suspect the answer is yes only if you're really insecure. To me, someone eating "clean" is simply saying they're trying to prepare most of their own meals from fresh ingredients, rather than buying packaged meals and the like. Given that, my gut reaction to someone saying that would be "sounds good," rather than how dare you accuse me of eating unclean!

Now, as to the OP's point, is "clean" eating a helpful term? Maybe to a limited extent for people who don't count calories but as a general matter I don't think it's all that helpful, at least when it comes to weight loss.

Really, the *only* way a person can jump to "if you don't intuit my meaning of clean you are a condescending, mean, obtuse bully whut hates us allz!" from something as simple as, "Clean doesn't have a defnitive meaning" is if it's meaning is more emotional than technical.

Which is *exactly* what is being argued.

It's like that thing where people assume that organics taste more "real" than non-organics, when it's been repeatedly proven that you can't actually tell a difference in a blind taste test.

From what I've seen in this thread, all food is clean. You just have to *call* it clean, and it is so. All humans eat clean, you just have to say it. You don't even have to snap your heels together or anything else, just say, "It is clean," and it is so. (Maybe an "amen" or "abracadabra" helps too, idk)


I think hand gesture *do* help also: