Guys, stop with the orthorexia already!

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

This interesting article discusses the growing epidemic of orthorexia, an obsession with the virtue of your food, rather than how much or little you eat. This can be obsessive thinking about gluten-free, clean, low-fat, local, juice-fasting, cleansing, or any other healthiest-diet-flavor-of-the-month.

It is often characterized by a fixation on foods that are "unhealthy." Like the guy who mentions evil Twinkies in every post.

One issue I have with bashing the 'clean-eating' folk in particular is, despite the fact that I am certainly not going to attempt a lifetime without touching a processed item again, but just because the calories are the same in two foods doesn't mean they're of equal value. If you chugged 2000 calories of alcohol, you may not put on weight but your liver will give out on you.

I just don't see how junk food (i.e. food that is made in factories with excess sugar, fat, oil, sweeteners, additives and chemicals) is not ' unhealthy'?

sophzhr wrote: »

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

This interesting article discusses the growing epidemic of orthorexia, an obsession with the virtue of your food, rather than how much or little you eat. This can be obsessive thinking about gluten-free, clean, low-fat, local, juice-fasting, cleansing, or any other healthiest-diet-flavor-of-the-month.

It is often characterized by a fixation on foods that are "unhealthy." Like the guy who mentions evil Twinkies in every post.

One issue I have with bashing the 'clean-eating' folk in particular is, despite the fact that I am certainly not going to attempt a lifetime without touching a processed item again, but just because the calories are the same in two foods doesn't mean they're of equal value. If you chugged 2000 calories of alcohol, you may not put on weight but your liver will give out on you.

I just don't see how junk food (i.e. food that is made in factories with excess sugar, fat, oil, sweeteners, additives and chemicals) is not ' unhealthy'?

Well, to be serious for a moment, part of it is about the obsession. There are some posters who respond to posts that say, basically, that there's nothing unhealthy about including some chocolate or ice cream in an overall balanced, nutritious diet with weird comments about how everyone at MFP claims it's great to eat Twinkies 100% of the time, although occasionally it's fast food or pop tarts or Cherry Coke or some other exemplar of "junk." That one can't think of eating "junk" without assuming you eat nothing but that, and in fact assuming that someone not eating "clean" will of course be eating nothing but "junk" seems psychologically messed up to me, although it's possibly just someone with very poor argument skills and a lack of logic.

As for the term "junk food," it doesn't bother me at all, but there are at least two possible problems with it: (a) Lots of people want to make the (valid) point that no foods (or only very rare foods) are healthy or unhealthy on their own, it depends on context. Thus, while it's certainly possible to look at a diet and see if it's healthy or unhealthy (and everyone would say that 100% Cherry Coke is unhealthy, I imagine), claiming that a particular food is unhealthy assumes that eating it makes you less healthy and there's no place where it might be helpful, both false. For example, something like Gu isn't really full of nutrients, but there's obviously a time (during an endurance event) when it might contribute a lot to someone's diet. Arguably, any quick sources of energy (i.e., simple and processed carbs, everyone's favorite scapegoats) could act in the same way post workout, and be good choices, even better for the particular needs than a piece of broccoli. Beyond that, in that including some of these foods in moderation in the diet doesn't make you less physically healthy, and can be psychologically healthy or positives, that's another reason to avoid the "bad food" label. (To me junk food doesn't equal "bad food," which is why the term doesn't bother me.)

My (b) is that junk food doesn't actually have a clear definition. I'd assume it means food that is generally low nutrient and high calorie, but as a result I'd include any sweets I bake or which a friend/relative offers to me (with the exception of ice cream I prefer home-baked items as my sweets of choice). Thus, I'm not sure what being made in a factory has to do with it, or additives, etc. The essence of the objection is flour, sugar, and butter, and in particular their presence in "excess," but whether they are in excess or not seems to have to do with my overall diet again, not the specific item. A cookie has lots of calories from butter, but so can fish if you prepare it that way.

Even if you say, oh, I only mean store-bought cookies, not home-baked cookies (which clean eaters do basically never), you'd have to show that the particular ingredients in a particular cookie are bad for you beyond the calories if eaten in excess, and yet there's rarely even an effort to do that (beyond the occasional baking soda fail). Instead, we hear about calories and processed sugar and processed flour, all of which are also in the homemade cookie.

Finally, related to this point, "clean" eaters like to claim "processed" foods as unhealthy and unprocessed as healthy, but as I like to point out although my way of eating is focused on whole foods (seems to be common around here, despite the 100% Twinkies straw man), I do include some processed foods (well, everything is processed, so let's say packaged). These include smoked salmon, frozen fish, and greek yogurt, as well as the occasional package of user-friendly spinach or baby carrots, etc. Also dried beans, and I could go on. I don't accept the claim that these are less good for me because "processed." I include them because I not only like them, but think they are good for me. Thus, freaking out about the evils of processing does seem to me at least not a very sensible way of looking at this, and focusing on individual items vs. overall diet seems ignorant of nutrition. (And so often seems a substitute for the work of actually eating an overall balanced diet--the idea is that if I don't eat "processed sugar" it's okay that I hate and don't eat veggies, which of course is a foolish bad idea.)

What I find about the clean eating/no sugar/no wheat programmes is that they are totally against processed food until it comes to the author's supplement or protein shake which is ok ( and usually costs an arm and a leg)

sophzhr wrote: »

SnuggleSmacks wrote: »

This interesting article discusses the growing epidemic of orthorexia, an obsession with the virtue of your food, rather than how much or little you eat. This can be obsessive thinking about gluten-free, clean, low-fat, local, juice-fasting, cleansing, or any other healthiest-diet-flavor-of-the-month.

It is often characterized by a fixation on foods that are "unhealthy." Like the guy who mentions evil Twinkies in every post.

One issue I have with bashing the 'clean-eating' folk in particular is, despite the fact that I am certainly not going to attempt a lifetime without touching a processed item again, but just because the calories are the same in two foods doesn't mean they're of equal value. If you chugged 2000 calories of alcohol, you may not put on weight but your liver will give out on you.

I just don't see how junk food (i.e. food that is made in factories with excess sugar, fat, oil, sweeteners, additives and chemicals) is not ' unhealthy'?

If you ate 2000 calories of broccoli you'd have a bad time as well.

The point is that a diet is the sum of it's parts, not any one item.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

My main issue with "clean eaters" is simply that I HATE the term "clean" used for food. It sounds super sanctimonious and seems intended as an insult to others, and plus has weirdly religious or addiction-related connotations.

Beyond that, as you say I suspect that most "clean eaters" eat no better than I do (since I try to eat healthy myself, as I assume most in these conversations do), so the need to act as if they eat better than everyone else is a little grating. Especially when they claim not to eat "processed" foods but clearly do.

Yes, there was a thread a week or two ago where the OP claimed not to have eaten any processed food or a single gram of added sugar during his weight loss. A quick look at his diary revealed protein powder with added sugar and Chipotle on the day he published the thread.

I think that most "clean" eaters probably eat about like I do, especially if they follow the 80/20 or 90/10 rule. And yet it's been implied to me (and outright stated more than once) that I'll be cancer riddled by the time I reach my 50s because of all the "crap" I eat.

benjaminhkohl wrote: »

I am definitely sick of everything getting slapped with "gluten free" labels now. Very few people have a gluten intolerance anyway. But I can't help but laugh when I see a carbonated energy drink labeled "gluten free". It's basically just the "low fat!" / "no carbs!" of this decade.

This drives me BONKERS!!!! If I'm deciding between two brands, and one says "gluten free" I'll buy the other one because I find it so IRRITATING! Gluten gets such a bad rap!

I think for those people that need to monitor certain types of food intake for genuine, diagnosed health reasons it's a great path.

But for the average person just looking to lose weight and keep it off, I think it's no different than signing up for a program that requires you to take their custom supplements and eat their pre-packed foods.

What will you do when a) you can't afford to keep doing that or b) reach your goal and decide you want the foods you gave up?

I have no medical condition that says I must eat gluten free, so I consume gluten, same with fats, proteins and everything else. I consume everything I want in moderation. The end results?

I still managed to lose 101 pounds in 2014. I never felt that I was sacrificing anything other than volume of food consumed and the overwhelming urge to sit around all day and do nothing.

I didn't suffer from any quirky digestive issues while I was reducing my weight and when I reached my goal my lifestyle and way of eating simply continued. It was truly a lifestyle change for me. It wasn't a diet. It wasn't a trend. And I didn't suddenly have to adjust to eating and cooking in a different fashion because I'd reached the end of a journey.

Like so many others, I always searched for the easy solution. That magical thing that would let me eat whatever I wanted, do as little as I wanted and have the perfect figure. THAT doesn't exist. And once I came to that shocking realization and learned about foods and how to balance them, manage my cravings for them and not feel cheated I had a lot of fun losing the weight, getting fit, and feeling great.

It's really fun to tell people, if you're very food intolerant like I am, that you can't eat gluten, dairy, corn syrup, beef, pork, legumes, and many others. Even some family members think it's a weird diet thing. It's not, just some crazy things wrong with my GI tract, but it sure drives me crazy when I hear people with nothing wrong with them choosing not to eat foods they could eat for no good reason.