"Clean" vs. "unclean" eating studies?

For me personally I think of clean as whole foods that I have prepared that nutritionally dense but necessarily calorie dense. This would include: fresh/frozen vegetables, fresh fruit, lean meat, potatoes, sweet potatoes, milk, nuts, legumes, whole oats.

I don't quite understand this. Clearly frozen veggies, oats, most dairy products, dried or canned legumes, and some lean meat (think ground beef) is processed even beyond the standard processing that anything you buy undergoes (especially meat and anything in a carton, like milk).

So are you saying you have a different definition of "clean" entirely--nutritionally dense but not calorie dense? Even lean meats and whole milk and potatoes and legumes/grains are calorie dense in some sense. But I think this is a more sensible way to look at nutrition than what is normally talked about as "clean", although again I think it makes much more sense to talk about a diet than specific foods. That's because eating 100% oats or broccoli or lean meat isn't any good either--the goal is to get a nice balance, and if you get a balance and have leftover calories or a need for added energy, what's unhealthy about including some non nutrient dense items in moderation?

Also, what does the "leanness" of a meat have to do with its "cleanliness"? Like I've mentioned, I get meat from a local farm, and those cuts tend often to be less lean than commercially available meat. Pork, for example, comes from less lean breeds. But beyond that, why would the fattier cuts of the animal be "unclean"? Seems to me that it's more "natural" to eat as much of the animal as possible, after all.

Canned foods, pre-prepared meals, whole foods that have been processed (added chemicals and or cooked at a factory - out of my control) would be considered unclean I guess.

Well, as discussed above, the food items listed as "clean" are often processed.

Its kind of hard to get fat eating the "clean foods", because they are typically lower in calories and I they do not induce cravings in me so I don't tend to overeat.

Well, if you introduce personal definitions like beef short ribs are unclean and skinless, boneless chicken breast (speaking of processed) is clean, then that might be true, but I don't think the claim about lower in calories is really true.

As for cravings, it depends on the person. I don't really get cravings, but I am hungrier if I eat lots of carbs on their own than if I eat carbs with protein and fat. I haven't found that whole wheat/brown rice vs. white makes much difference here, but I generally try not to eat carbs on their own. I did experiment with steel cut oats instead of my usual eggs for breakfast and found that for me, due to the higher carbs/lower fat, it was less satisfying by lunch. I'll still eat it on occasion to switch it up, but it's the macros, not the "cleanliness" that seems to matter for me.

I note that you acknowledged that your points were anecdotal ones, and I totally agree that people should see what works for them and go with it. I just dislike the rather arbitrary and unnecessary use of the term "clean" as part of this process. Especially since it tends to mean "foods that I approve of." I mean, I could just declare that the foods I find helpful are clean too, but that seems confusing and obnoxious and kind of hypocritical, so I don't (and keep getting into these discussions).

I'm still baffled as to what inherent quality canned food possesses that makes it automatically unclean? For example, I recently bought a can of pumpkin puree. The ingredient list: Pumpkin. That's all. They didn't even add salt. How, exactly, is this different than buying a pumpkin and pureeing it myself?

Time

I'm still baffled as to what inherent quality canned food possesses that makes it automatically unclean? For example, I recently bought a can of pumpkin puree. The ingredient list: Pumpkin. That's all. They didn't even add salt. How, exactly, is this different than buying a pumpkin and pureeing it myself?

Time

LOL! Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I thought the context made the question clear...How, exactly, is a can of pumpkin puree more or less "clean" than a fresh pureed pumpkin? How does the process of canning it make it less clean, and what specific health metric is impacted by eating canned as opposed to fresh pumpkin?

Again. clean has no clear definition and therefore, no right answer. I just finished canning 48 litre jars of tomatoes with basil from my garden and if you include processing as a disqualification of clean, then my tomatoes don't meet that criteria, do they? Ask yourself does that makes sense and does anything processed disqualify itself automatically?

I'm still baffled as to what inherent quality canned food possesses that makes it automatically unclean? For example, I recently bought a can of pumpkin puree. The ingredient list: Pumpkin. That's all. They didn't even add salt. How, exactly, is this different than buying a pumpkin and pureeing it myself?

Time

LOL! Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I thought the context made the question clear...How, exactly, is a can of pumpkin puree more or less "clean" than a fresh pureed pumpkin? How does the process of canning it make it less clean, and what specific health metric is impacted by eating canned as opposed to fresh pumpkin?

Again. clean has no clear definition and therefore, no right answer. I just finished canning 48 litre jars of tomatoes with basil from my garden and if you include processing as a disqualification of clean, then my tomatoes don't meet that criteria, do they? Ask yourself does that makes sense and does anything processed disqualify itself automatically?

Indeed...which is why I keep questioning it when previous posters list "canned" as a disqualifier. I'd like to know what intrinsic property canned food has that makes it automatically unclean, regardless of its contents.

Well because there is no clear definition of what clean is.......people that put food into categories like that generally are fairly new to nutrition and are easily influenced by rhetoric that sounds awfully close to authoritative. Barnum & Bailey took that show on the road and made lots of money.

I'll read this thread when I get home tonight...but I can give personal data supporting clean.

I took part in a BB comp on 30 Aug, came in at 184 lbs, BF 5.4%
Yesterday, same person doing BF % measurement btw, I weighed 184, BF 7.9%

So in 20 days of my off season, where I've gone from eatting very high protein ie egg whites, chicken and fish to last 3 weeks of higher carbs/fat i.e pesto, sausage and beer..I've gained 2.5% BF. Again, same weight.

Possibly some of that is additional fluids...but for me..it's pretty obvious.

Calories the same. Weight training the same? Did you remove most carbs leading up to your contest? Seems kinda obvious to me too.

Exactly. Cashews are deadly if they're not processed. You literally cannot eat raw cashews without dying. Are they unclean?

And what if you make a fruit pie sweetened with honey? Does that make it clean?

I think there needs to be a distinction made here- the type of processing with cashews is steaming. IMO that is still clean, especially if they are organic/pesticide free.

Sweetening a fruit pie with honey does not make it clean, necessarily. But sweetening with white sugar does make it unclean. (to me!) Sugarcane is subject to harsh chemical processing which removes all of the natural enzymes, molasses, and fiber of the plant to turn it into what we know of as sugar. To me, why eat that when I can substitute something closer to it's natural state like maple syrup or raw honey? Again, that's just my take on it. Not saying I never have it, but I think today I had 2 teaspoons because I'm out of maple syrup.

Someone mentioned yogurt. There are a lot of varieties of yogurt. Some have additives, colors, flavors, etc. Also- dairy unless organic is probably unclean as it can contain antibiotics, hormones, and fed GMOs, and often comes from animals who are sick from the conditions where they are raise. I prefer not to ingest those things. (I also prefer not to support that system on a moral level when it is within my means.) So to me, it is very likely unclean. However, organic plain yogurt, especially if it's full fat, I feel good about.

One thing I learned through this thread though, is that there is not a generally agreed upon definition of clean eating. That doesn't mean it has to be villainized though, as it often does on some of these threads. :flowerforyou:

I will continue eating as "clean" as possible regardless of what the studies say, because I just don't want to eat pesticides and hormones. Hippy dippy or not, I have ethical problems with the big business disregard for health, environment, etc just to make a buck, but that's for another thread...

And thanks to everyone who has posted actual information and links on the subject. I find this topic very interesting and am enjoying learning even more!

Thank you for your thoughtful response. It sounds as though you've put a great deal of thought into this subject. I was hoping that you'd perhaps be able to point to some science to back up the claims of improved health through clean eating, but I think at this point that no such science exists. Still, I can certainly respect making dietary choices based on ethics and personal preference, without making the "hippy dippy" claims.

I am actually here to see the science, lol. Like I said, I would eat this way regardless, but I would love to be validated through science ...or at least know if I'm not.

HI,

I recommend you watch the documentary 'Knives vs. Forks', the documentary presents scientific evidence and quotes scientific studies done around the world. Good luck.

Maru

Using the pumpkin example I dare say the main difference is that if you buy a can of pumpkin the can itself is lined with a plastic that contains BPA. Also, for many people that are into clean eating, it is very important to know how the food is cooked and the one way of making absolutely sure you know is to make your own.

In terms of what is a clean diet basically it is a diet that eliminates processed foods, in other words, you eat mostly fresh vegetables, fruit, whole grains and high quality lean protein. Also, meats are better if the animals are fed their natural diet (no feed lots or gross chicken feed).

I recommend you watch the documentary 'Knives vs. Forks', the documentary presents scientific evidence and quotes scientific studies done around the world. Good luck.

That piece of propaganda is a travesty of logic and makes a mockery of science.

I am sure these people ate "clean" all there lives and these picture are just flukes. I wonder if those cakes are clean, non-processed,sugar-free, gluten-free, flour-free etc.

Haven't read all the responses but although the cake was white chocolate, it does appear that the Ms. #116 does (or did, sorry) eat pretty "clean"

http://www.ndtv.com/article/offbeat/world-s-oldest-person-kind-of-happy-to-turn-116-491949

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet

Yes! There's lots of research out there!

http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

This blog is wonderful, and his article here looks at a lot of studies that support the idea that not all calories are created equal. A carb calorie and a fat calorie interact very differently in the body. Too many carbs will make you hungry and fat much more easily than less carbs and more fat!

From my research (and experience), basically I've learned nutrient-dense, low carb food is the way to go!