Your food is no cleaner than mine

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.

Hey, thanks for sticking up for me. This is the whole reason I don't answer those questions. People who are opposed to clean eating will take everything down to the tiniest detail in order to make a ridiculous point. What happens during cooking is a natural process. An egg does not stop being an egg because I put it in a pan and scramble it however an egg that if from a chicken that is pumped full of antibiotics is not an egg I want to eat. . I happen to believe that added chemicals do not equal natural occurring chemicals, regardless of their chemical components being the same (which is a moot point anyway since if the components of a chemical were different, it'd be a different chemical). I don't consider cutting an apple to be processing it. It should be obvious that when I say process i mean chemically altering something to make it different then it is intended to be. Clean eating was started as a movement to "clean up food" meaning taking out the man added chemicals or additives. I know the loudest mouths know this, but they like to argue and prove their point, and do so by pointing out that cutting/cooking and apple would be processing it. Or by posting the ingredient list of an apple.

I don't really care if they want to rip apart what I said and attempt to use it against me. It is what it is. That's what I (and many others) believe. I'm not better then because I strive to eat this way. i'm just eating the diet I think is most beneficial for me.

heating up an egg causes chemical reactions.. it does not add chemicals to the egg

Anyway. I am not getting into this again. Que Cera Cera hm?

heating up an egg causes chemical reactions.. it does not add chemicals to the egg

Anyway. I am not getting into this again. Que Cera Cera hm?

True.
Facts is facts.

I honestly don't understand why people care so much.

I don't understand why participating in a discussion means you care "so much." The purpose of a message board like this is to exchange ideas, see how the ideas of others are different, including different interpretations of language and all that, and then to battle until someone brings up Hit-- er, I mean and then to discuss it until there's either more understanding or a fleshing out of where the differences lie. I mean, sure I have a negative reaction to the term "clean" eating, and I've explained a boring number of times (for others, not me) why this is and why I think it's just logical and the term is poorly chosen and self-righteous. I also think plenty of other terms people use to describe themselves and others are illogical or annoying (for example, "progressive"), and might talk about that if it were the topic, it really doesn't mean I go around caring about it. In fact, I'd just agreed to shut up about it!

Let me ask you - when someone tells you they eat vegan, do you feel they're judging you for eating meat and animal products?

Some are, but generally not. I would if they called themselves CLEAN eaters, because animal flesh is disgusting and unclean. It's inherent in the name. But they don't. They use a word that actually describes how they eat, whereas the clean eaters seem to eat like many others here (including me). Turns out they aspire to eat 100% "clean," they think that's better than being only 98% "clean," so that's the difference. I don't agree with their labeling of all "processed" foods as unclean (or really the labeling of food as unclean at all, for the reasons set forth in the original article) but now that I understand more precisely where I disagree with them I plan to stop asking questions and be content, and it's nice to grasp the key distinction as I see it.

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?

Um, you are reading a lot of stuff into what I said that isn't there. And all of these questions were answered already. I don't think "clean eater" is a helpful label because people use it in so many different ways that you have no clue what they mean except that there are foods they think are unclean that they don't eat (usually, but sometimes they do). Also, 'tis weird to want a label for your eating unless you are actually conveying helpful information like "please don't serve me an egg" or "I need a restaurant that I will be able to order something at." The only point I can see for saying "I am a clean eater" is to convey that there are foods that should not be eaten, as they are unclean. If a vegan says that milk is unnatural and bad for everyone ON THE INTERNET, sure I might argue (I won't feel guilty, why would I?). Same if someone says that all processed food is bad and should be avoided by people trying to lose weight--as you see in these parts plenty of times. If someone says "I'm a vegan" or "I avoid processed foods," I do not care. I might ask why, and I might be more likely to ask the second person why, since I assume I know why the vegan eats how he does, but I probably don't even do that. If someone says "I eat clean," on the other hand, I think a reasonable follow up question is "what do you think is "unclean" and why."

I really don't understand why the term bothers people so much. Is it simply the label of "clean" that does it?

Partly the latter, IMO, but also the growth of clean eating plans and cookbooks and such when so far as I can tell "clean eating" is in practice just cooking with whole foods, not some special movement. It's pretty much covered by regular cookbooks. Also, if you care what got me personally posting on it on MFP, it was some assertions in another thread that being against "clean eating" made you anti healthy eating and non supportive, when the clean eaters have no monopoly over healthy eating, and it's quite reasonable to say that it's just as healthy (or more, but I don't care about that) to eat in moderation or with attention to meeting nutrition goals and not 100% "clean," however that's defined.

Might their individual definition of "clean" eating differ from yours or someone else's? Probably so, but I suspect only in minor ways.

That is not my experience. For example, I've heard people use "eating clean" to mean eating consistent with a paleo diet, as I said before, which means no bread or dairy, both items that others would consider perfectly clean. Sometimes people seem to use it to mean preferring "healthy" foods and then define potatoes or some such as not healthy. Others focus on added sugar, others--the majority--on processing, but obviously most things are processed to some degree so that's really a line drawing exercise. More significantly, there is frequently the claim that if you eat clean you won't get fat or have to count calories, which seems quite unlikely to me, certainly if clean just means not packaged or fast food I am evidence that one can get fat on "clean" food. In any event, it's silly to suggest that rejecting the label clean and not aspiring to avoid certain food items entirely, since you don't see the point, means that you eat snickers all day or are jealous of their diets (which probably don't even differ that much from mine) or don't understand the pleasures of a homemade roasted chicken (free range, natch) with vegetables, which are the sorts of things that have been asserted on these threads before I felt motivated to chime in (though granted more likely motivated by writers block at work and thus a desire to procrastinate and think about something else).

To be honest, if you said "I am a health-conscious eater" or "I try to choose consciously" and the right person took it the right way, you'd be the next to be labeled self-righteous or have fifty people ask you, "Why isn't my Cheesecake healthy? It helps me meet my macros and I have room for it in my day. It contains calcium and blah." "Are you implying that the rest of us don't eat consciously?

And I would say it's simply a matter of eating with attention to your nutrition goals, so sure, nothing about that person eating that cheesecake would not qualify. It might not work with my specific goals, in part depending on how much I like cheesecake and the specific recipe, but focusing on health conscious eating does not define any foods as bad in and of themselves or for everyone. That's why I don't think that can be fairly called self-righteous in the same way.

Anyway, I will acknowledge that for a lot of people there was this general concept of eating a particular way (no processed foods or whatever) that appealed and it was called eating clean, so they just adopted the name as going with the concept, as opposed to starting with the idea that there are clean and unclean foods, so don't see that as so strongly a part of it.

I think for others it is an identity, as redtree said, and the same is important, it relates to their food as purer, better, the rejection of processed food is a kind of gnosis, not just personal preference or individual priorities. But I do think I was over generalizing that aspect and there are plenty of people who just fit the prior paragraph. I know I tend to get bugged by words in a way not everyone does. Thinking of it this way does make more sense of the eh 80 percent approach, which was hard for me to square with a real belief in food as clean or unclean--it's certainly not how vegans approach their rules, IME.

To be honest, if you said "I am a health-conscious eater" or "I try to choose consciously" and the right person took it the right way, you'd be the next to be labeled self-righteous or have fifty people ask you, "Why isn't my Cheesecake healthy? It helps me meet my macros and I have room for it in my day. It contains calcium and blah." "Are you implying that the rest of us don't eat consciously?

And I would say it's simply a matter of eating with attention to your nutrition goals, so sure, nothing about that person eating that cheesecake would not qualify. It might not work with my specific goals, in part depending on how much I like cheesecake and the specific recipe, but focusing on health conscious eating does not define any foods as bad in and of themselves or for everyone. That's why I don't think that can be fairly called self-righteous in the same way.

I think for others it is an identity, as redtree said, and the same is important, it relates to their food as purer, better, the rejection of processed food is a kind of gnosis, not just personal preference or individual priorities. But I do think I was over generalizing that aspect and there are plenty of people who just fit the prior paragraph. I know I tend to get bugged by words in a way not everyone does. Thinking of it this way does make more sense of the eh 80 percent approach, which was hard for me to square with a real belief in food as clean or unclean--it's certainly not how vegans approach their rules, IME.

I don't really think anyone should be called self-righteous for their diet until they are actually being negative toward others. ("I try to keep my diet clean" versus "I won't eat dirty food like the rest of them.")

It's definitely not how vegans approach their rules. We're a pretty self-policing group. :laugh: That's why I refer to myself as a vegan but not a clean eater. The 80/20 claim to a diet bugs me unless the person is saying "I eat clean about 80% of the time." Not to resurrect the infamous Paleo debates, but I believe there's a big difference between trying to follow the Paleo diet and actually following the Paleo diet.

Ahhh . . . the Great Paleo Debates of 2013. Brutal, truly brutal. I sincerely hope that humanity has learned and progressed since then . . . *sigh*

It's definitely not how vegans approach their rules. We're a pretty self-policing group. :laugh: That's why I refer to myself as a vegan but not a clean eater. The 80/20 claim to a diet bugs me unless the person is saying "I eat clean about 80% of the time." Not to resurrect the infamous Paleo debates, but I believe there's a big difference between trying to follow the Paleo diet and actually following the Paleo diet.

I think the difference is that most vegans aren't eating vegan because of health reasons - more are eating vegan because of moral reasons. When it comes to morality, yes, you either are or you aren't - if you think its morally wrong to eat an animal or an animal product than doing so occasionally is bad. If however you just think eating animal products isn't terribly healthy, then doing so occasionally isn't really a big deal at all.
Clean eaters don't have any moral issues tied in to their views of food - they just think it's healthier this way. That means it really doesn't matter if sometimes they don't eat perfectly healthy.
As for the difference between trying to follow a lifestyle plan and actually following it, isn't the whole point of just about any lifestyle plan that you adapt it to YOUR lifestyle? That inherently means you're going to change things around a bit and make it work for you; there is no 100% right or wrong way to do it. Plus, again, this is about food and health not morality, so not having a perfect day isn't a big deal. Do all IIFYMers or moderation eaters have perfect days every day, or do they occasionally go over or not meet their macro/calorie goals? If so, does that mean they're not actually following their diet?

Can we just roll this **** so it stops appearing on my recent posts?

To be honest, if you said "I am a health-conscious eater" or "I try to choose consciously" and the right person took it the right way, you'd be the next to be labeled self-righteous or have fifty people ask you, "Why isn't my Cheesecake healthy? It helps me meet my macros and I have room for it in my day. It contains calcium and blah." "Are you implying that the rest of us don't eat consciously?

And I would say it's simply a matter of eating with attention to your nutrition goals, so sure, nothing about that person eating that cheesecake would not qualify. It might not work with my specific goals, in part depending on how much I like cheesecake and the specific recipe, but focusing on health conscious eating does not define any foods as bad in and of themselves or for everyone. That's why I don't think that can be fairly called self-righteous in the same way.

I think for others it is an identity, as redtree said, and the same is important, it relates to their food as purer, better, the rejection of processed food is a kind of gnosis, not just personal preference or individual priorities. But I do think I was over generalizing that aspect and there are plenty of people who just fit the prior paragraph. I know I tend to get bugged by words in a way not everyone does. Thinking of it this way does make more sense of the eh 80 percent approach, which was hard for me to square with a real belief in food as clean or unclean--it's certainly not how vegans approach their rules, IME.

I don't really think anyone should be called self-righteous for their diet until they are actually being negative toward others. ("I try to keep my diet clean" versus "I won't eat dirty food like the rest of them.")

It's definitely not how vegans approach their rules. We're a pretty self-policing group. :laugh: That's why I refer to myself as a vegan but not a clean eater. The 80/20 claim to a diet bugs me unless the person is saying "I eat clean about 80% of the time." Not to resurrect the infamous Paleo debates, but I believe there's a big difference between trying to follow the Paleo diet and actually following the Paleo diet.

Ahhh . . . the Great Paleo Debates of 2013. Brutal, truly brutal. I sincerely hope that humanity has learned and progressed since then . . . *sigh*

That was when I got my first strike, then promptly put almost every paleo eater on ignore.