clean eating
Replies
-
Pretty sure her comment about deficit was purely for weight loss, not about health in a context of you can eat anything at all and be healthy as long as you're in a deficit. You might as well say that means people will be fine starving if you're going to misinterpret it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Why would the word clean imply morality more than healthy? As I just said, disgust, both physical and moral, tend register in the brain in the same region. It isn't a coincidence people call it clean eating. It isn't far removed from the concepts that many societies have had of certain people as unclean and immoral.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I find it highly illustrative that people call it cleaning eating instead of healthy eating. It tends to show the very moralization that people are putting into food. When we talk about moral disgust, the term isn't a coincidence in feelings - the part of the brain that registers moral disgust tends to also be the area that actually registers physical disgust. So now foods are clean, or they are dirty - they are morally right, or they are degenerate.
And so, people are back to full circle - using the brain center that is evolved to think diseased food disgusting, to using that center to think about morality, to using that center to moralize and think about food.
Why do you assume moral disgust at the term "clean eating" but not "healthy eating"?
::laugh:: You are joking, right? I certainly hope no one thinks that! Back in the 70's when I first heard the term it meant 'clean' as in free of additives. Whole, natural. It had nothing to do with morals.
When someone says "I need to clean up my diet" I thought everyone knew they meant start eating more meals made from whole natural ingredients. My oh my, what has happened to the world?
Absolutely not a joke. I'm not saying the word choice is intentionally because the people themselves are aware of the moralizing at play - I certainly hope they're not. Yet it is about that. Are you serious in thinking there isn't a hint at all in cleaning eat about being better than other people?
Certainly some people feels superior for eating clean. As do some for eating healthy. Or for eating junk. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the posts bragging about the ice cream or pizza or candy eaten.
Diet superiority is felt by many for many reasons. I am seriously saying I don't think it's more common among those that say they eat clean than those that say they eat healthy. I think assuming that EVERYONE that uses the term is expressing insult or superiority has an air of superiority. Like maybe those that think clean eating is good are just little more stupid than those that KNOW it isn't.
I think it's incredibly common for people to express superiority for 'eating clean' or 'eating healthy', both IRL and on these forums. I've known people IRL who ate nothing but fruits and vegetables and yogurt, and talked about it all the time, as if that made them somehow better than everyone else who was eating 'regular' food. Yet most of those 'clean eaters' were still overweight. Point being that people get so hung up on the type of food and forget that it's the amount of food that makes the different. These arguments about 'clean' and 'healthy' and 'low carb' and 'paleo' and 'keto' and everything all get pretty old. When will people wake up and realize they really can eat whatever they want, whether that's nothing but veggies and fruit, or no carbs at all, or just nuts and seeds, as long as they eat in a calorie deficit? The hang ups are just ridiculous.
Not everyone believes that you can eat whatever you want and remain healthy. Personally, I think that would depend greatly on what you want to eat. At my age I've seen far too many people who have never been overweight with high BP, CVD, insulin resistance, diabetes and other diseases or risk factors to think that quantity is all that matters. I absolutely believe that diet quality is quite important.
Now, for people who are overweight, the general findings are that losing weight tends to trump quality of diet for improving health markers.
I agree with the last sentence for people who are very overweight/obese. Other than perhaps quitting smoking, getting down to a healthy weight is likely going to show the most improvement. But in the long run, even those who have lost the weight and maintained may find that not enough to keep those health markers down over time.
For those that are only a little overweight, I think exercise could have more of an impact on health than losing the few pounds needed to reach a healthy weight.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »When people say they are looking for other clean eaters with which to become friends or share info I don't see why it would be viewed as an insult any more than someone else asking for friends of a certain age or sex or who share a medical condition or follow low carb or low fat or IIFYM or paleo or any other method of eating.
Well, what do you think they are looking for? People interested in encouraging them in the eating of whole foods and vegetables and who are interested in nutrition and cooking? By asking for "clean eaters" they exclude a huge number of these folks (like me).
Or people who ONLY eat "clean" foods (even though virtually no one who self-defines as a "clean eater" really fits in that category -- for example, I've seen "clean eaters" justifying the eating of processed meat of the sort even I don't eat and others, like I said, have simply cut down on their fast food consumption, etc.)? If this, why? It really seems as if they think there's something superior about self-defining as a "clean eater," which is especially interesting since it seems to be a term more used by people quite new to changing their diets.It's common for people to like to share experiences with others with whom they feel they have something in common. Just as it's common for other people to like to meet others who are very different from them.
Why would "I like to call myself a clean eater" vs. "I don't like to call myself a clean eater" be a distinguishing characteristic if you both eat pretty similarly and have similar interests in food and nutrition? It's not, unless what you really want is to be able to feel better than non "clean eaters." That's why I think it's significant that this term is used rather than a more specific one.
If someone simply wants to talk to people interested in nutrition and eating healthy, "clean eater" is more narrow than what they are looking for.
Because different people use different terms. Simple as that.
Why wouldn't you want to use the term that communicates more effectively what you mean?
I think the answer has to be that there's something else you get from using the term or mean by using the term -- and that's where the "superiority" aspect comes in.
I thought of a good analogy: let's say someone who buys into some generally rightwing social issue political views decides to start referring to people who share those views as "real Americans." That would annoy me, not because I'm the least bit insecure about my status as a real American (or a patriotic American), but because it's intended as an insult and simply inaccurate -- those people are no more American than those who share my political/social views. I would ask "why not be more specific and use a term that really describes what you mean." The person might say "well, you get what I mean, and I like this one, and who are you to object to my use of language" (i.e., all the arguments you are making here). But I think it's apparent that the reason for using the term is to make a separate point -- that you are a better American than others who don't share your views, as well as to link up with others who want to look down on people with different views.
That is the same as with the use of "clean" rather than a more specific term.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Why would I eat a food that I don't eat? Where are these parties where only one food is served, and who is forcing me to eat food at the party? Why would I go to a sporting event or eating establishment during a night out, and order something that I don't eat? I'm not a clean eater, but that makes no sense no matter how you eat.
Also, do you have any studies to support your claim that all people who eat clean inevitably binge, or is that just hyperbole or an anecdotal assertion?
If you've only cut out one specific food, yea maybe you can go your whole life without ever eating it again, but the more restrictive the diet, the harder it is to avoid the restricted foods indefinitely. Studies have shown that rigid diets are associated with eating disorder, mood disturbances, and excessive concern with body size/shape
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
I wouldn't necessarily characterize clean eating as rigid. Less convenient than eating convenience foods, sure, but not so much rigid. Your studies didn't define rigid eating but I found this:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8130552_Rigid_and_flexible_control_of_eating_behavior_in_a_college_population
You wouldn't characterize clean eating as an "all or nothing" approach? I don't think there is a less flexible form of dieting than clean eating, at least none that I've come across. There is a reason most nutritionists debate "Clean Eating vs. Flexible Dieting" as the two main forms of dieting on two ends of the spectrum. Clean eating is not flexible at all, it is extremely rigid.
This makes me think they are using a very different definition of clean eating than just the standard 'natural and un/minimally processed'. Because simply avoiding overly processed and synthetic foods still allows for a very flexible diet.
That depends highly on your definition of a processed food, which is itself subjective.
Yes, I have read some posts that claim to think picking an apple is processing. But my definition wouldn't matter, that used in the study would.
There was no definition given for processed food in either of the studies I linked. Are you referring to a different study?
Without definition of terms any article or study is extremely subjective and therefore mostly meaningless.
A study about rigid dieting is not meaningless just because there's no definition of a processed foods. The fact that people are cutting foods out of their diet in the first place makes the diet rigid, not what they are cutting out.
I disagree. Without definitions the study tells us little. Is cutting foods what is meant by "rigid"? Is it all that is meant? What foods? How many foods? Do calories remain the same, or is there also severe calorie restriction?
Without knowing what is meant by "rigid" the study is as meaningless as the phrase "clean eating" without a definition.
Fair enough, in return I'd ask you why you think it can be beneficial to completely cut certain foods out of your diet?
I never said I think that, but for some people I imagine it probably is beneficial. Allergies, obviously. But, it could also be beneficial to cut trigger foods (foods that you just can't seem to stop eating once you start) from your diet. Even if you do eventually cave and binge on them, it's got to be better than doing it on a regular basis.
And then there are foods that you might cut simply because you don't think they are worth the calories. I stopped eating fast food years ago. In the past couple of decades I've had fast food maybe 2-3 times when traveling and it was all that was available. I can't even remember the last time I ate it.
Limiting foods from your diet, and removing foods from your diet are two different things. I think that largely removing foods from a diet because one thinks they are unhealthy is an unhealthy attitude to have. I can definitely agree with you that something needs to be done about trigger foods, but attempting to completely remove them from your diet is the wrong move. That doesn't address the main issue, but I guess people deal with things in their own way.
If I understand your post...
If I choose to eliminate a food instead of moderating the consumption of that food that I must have other issues that need to be dealt with?
Why is it the wrong move to eliminate a food if I so choose to?
Why do you believe that everyone has to moderate every food?
To be honest...I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently. I didn't eliminate them because I passed some judgment that they were "unclean" or even "unhealthy". I eliminated them because quite honestly they didn't fit what I wanted as an eating plan...one that I believe will work for me long term.
According to your post though this surely must indicate that I have issues that need to be dealt with.
Long story short...
What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
0 -
100%!Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Pretty sure her comment about deficit was purely for weight loss, not about health in a context of you can eat anything at all and be healthy as long as you're in a deficit. You might as well say that means people will be fine starving if you're going to misinterpret it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Why would the word clean imply morality more than healthy? As I just said, disgust, both physical and moral, tend register in the brain in the same region. It isn't a coincidence people call it clean eating. It isn't far removed from the concepts that many societies have had of certain people as unclean and immoral.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I find it highly illustrative that people call it cleaning eating instead of healthy eating. It tends to show the very moralization that people are putting into food. When we talk about moral disgust, the term isn't a coincidence in feelings - the part of the brain that registers moral disgust tends to also be the area that actually registers physical disgust. So now foods are clean, or they are dirty - they are morally right, or they are degenerate.
And so, people are back to full circle - using the brain center that is evolved to think diseased food disgusting, to using that center to think about morality, to using that center to moralize and think about food.
Why do you assume moral disgust at the term "clean eating" but not "healthy eating"?
::laugh:: You are joking, right? I certainly hope no one thinks that! Back in the 70's when I first heard the term it meant 'clean' as in free of additives. Whole, natural. It had nothing to do with morals.
When someone says "I need to clean up my diet" I thought everyone knew they meant start eating more meals made from whole natural ingredients. My oh my, what has happened to the world?
Absolutely not a joke. I'm not saying the word choice is intentionally because the people themselves are aware of the moralizing at play - I certainly hope they're not. Yet it is about that. Are you serious in thinking there isn't a hint at all in cleaning eat about being better than other people?
Certainly some people feels superior for eating clean. As do some for eating healthy. Or for eating junk. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the posts bragging about the ice cream or pizza or candy eaten.
Diet superiority is felt by many for many reasons. I am seriously saying I don't think it's more common among those that say they eat clean than those that say they eat healthy. I think assuming that EVERYONE that uses the term is expressing insult or superiority has an air of superiority. Like maybe those that think clean eating is good are just little more stupid than those that KNOW it isn't.
I think it's incredibly common for people to express superiority for 'eating clean' or 'eating healthy', both IRL and on these forums. I've known people IRL who ate nothing but fruits and vegetables and yogurt, and talked about it all the time, as if that made them somehow better than everyone else who was eating 'regular' food. Yet most of those 'clean eaters' were still overweight. Point being that people get so hung up on the type of food and forget that it's the amount of food that makes the different. These arguments about 'clean' and 'healthy' and 'low carb' and 'paleo' and 'keto' and everything all get pretty old. When will people wake up and realize they really can eat whatever they want, whether that's nothing but veggies and fruit, or no carbs at all, or just nuts and seeds, as long as they eat in a calorie deficit? The hang ups are just ridiculous.
Not everyone believes that you can eat whatever you want and remain healthy. Personally, I think that would depend greatly on what you want to eat. At my age I've seen far too many people who have never been overweight with high BP, CVD, insulin resistance, diabetes and other diseases or risk factors to think that quantity is all that matters. I absolutely believe that diet quality is quite important.
Now, for people who are overweight, the general findings are that losing weight tends to trump quality of diet for improving health markers.
I agree with the last sentence for people who are very overweight/obese. Other than perhaps quitting smoking, getting down to a healthy weight is likely going to show the most improvement. But in the long run, even those who have lost the weight and maintained may find that not enough to keep those health markers down over time.
For those that are only a little overweight, I think exercise could have more of an impact on health than losing the few pounds needed to reach a healthy weight.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »When people say they are looking for other clean eaters with which to become friends or share info I don't see why it would be viewed as an insult any more than someone else asking for friends of a certain age or sex or who share a medical condition or follow low carb or low fat or IIFYM or paleo or any other method of eating.
Well, what do you think they are looking for? People interested in encouraging them in the eating of whole foods and vegetables and who are interested in nutrition and cooking? By asking for "clean eaters" they exclude a huge number of these folks (like me).
Or people who ONLY eat "clean" foods (even though virtually no one who self-defines as a "clean eater" really fits in that category -- for example, I've seen "clean eaters" justifying the eating of processed meat of the sort even I don't eat and others, like I said, have simply cut down on their fast food consumption, etc.)? If this, why? It really seems as if they think there's something superior about self-defining as a "clean eater," which is especially interesting since it seems to be a term more used by people quite new to changing their diets.It's common for people to like to share experiences with others with whom they feel they have something in common. Just as it's common for other people to like to meet others who are very different from them.
Why would "I like to call myself a clean eater" vs. "I don't like to call myself a clean eater" be a distinguishing characteristic if you both eat pretty similarly and have similar interests in food and nutrition? It's not, unless what you really want is to be able to feel better than non "clean eaters." That's why I think it's significant that this term is used rather than a more specific one.
If someone simply wants to talk to people interested in nutrition and eating healthy, "clean eater" is more narrow than what they are looking for.
Because different people use different terms. Simple as that.
Why wouldn't you want to use the term that communicates more effectively what you mean?
I think the answer has to be that there's something else you get from using the term or mean by using the term -- and that's where the "superiority" aspect comes in.
I thought of a good analogy: let's say someone who buys into some generally rightwing social issue political views decides to start referring to people who share those views as "real Americans." That would annoy me, not because I'm the least bit insecure about my status as a real American (or a patriotic American), but because it's intended as an insult and simply inaccurate -- those people are no more American than those who share my political/social views. I would ask "why not be more specific and use a term that really describes what you mean." The person might say "well, you get what I mean, and I like this one, and who are you to object to my use of language" (i.e., all the arguments you are making here). But I think it's apparent that the reason for using the term is to make a separate point -- that you are a better American than others who don't share your views, as well as to link up with others who want to look down on people with different views.
That is the same as with the use of "clean" rather than a more specific term.
I had this really good analogy that I was going to respond to one of your posts...wrote about half of it and realize that it was turning in to one of those TL:DR type posts and I wasn't even finished.
In response to this post...
People use terms that have meaning to them...maybe it won't to others but for them and other like minded people it does.
People in general are always looking for ways to feel better about themselves...better about the choices that they make.
I also think that people want to belong...to be a part of a bigger group. People look for things that they can believe in. As people have migrated away from organized religion they have turned to other things that they can in a sense replace that with...people have this inner desire to believe in something. In the case here on MFP...it is their choices about food that fulfills that need. For some it has been their quest for fitness...there are certainly a varying degree of groups in that area too.
Before I joined the forum discussions on MFP I was part of a religious forum for about six years (no...not religious but I enjoy discussing different opinions). The similarities between that forum and a diet/food/fitness forum was shocking to me.
Different types of eating plans are very much like different denominations in religion...each one feeling as if they hold the key to "heaven".
I get it...I abhor elitism no matter where it comes from. I also abhor the mentality that "I am right and you are wrong".
My mantra for surviving a religious forum for six years...
If I want people to respect my beliefs...then I must be willing to respect theirs. I didn't always...actually quite frequently...didn't get the same respect in return but I can't be responsible for how others choose to act.
LOL I got referred to quite often by some rather unflattering terms! One Christian referred to me as...Satan's Daughter! LOL That was one of the kinder things said to me...but oh well.
0 -
Begging the question. The whole point is the labeling doesn't cause people to make healthier decisions. It increases the chances of people binge eating. It increases the chances of diet failure. It is just covering a bad relationship with food until there is breaking point.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I just love how sensitive some people are to how their diet choice is perceived! It's pure butthurt!
I choose low carb because it's a tool that works for me and suits my food choices so for me is more sustainable than moderation!
But when someone tells me they are eating clean, or eating in moderation, or veggie or vegan, I just think good on ya! Not for one moment do I have insecurity in my own diet choice to think that someone else thinks their choice is more superior or if they do think that, so what????
If the term clean eating is helping people make healthier choices in the food they eat - that's a good thing isn't it?
Yea, this has basically already been addressed, no problem with people choosing vegan, veggie, keto, low carb, whatever. The problem is labeling a diet as clean, or foods as clean because it implies all other foods not included in their diet are unclean or dirty, and that is just ignorant and factually inaccurate on it's face. Many people don't realize how important context is in a diet. Without a context, foods cannot be judged.
What does it matter? If labeling foods in this way helps people make better and healthier decisions to maybe what they were previously eating how is that a problem?
If watching what they eat and eating less 'junk food' possibly gets them eating less calories or focuses them more on there micro nutritional intake - good on em!
Maybe if we were all happy with our food choices, we would be less sensitive to peoples analysis of them!
Most people are on MFP because they have had an unhealthy relationship with food!
Maybe people labeling food to allow them to make better and healthier decisions is no less of a tool than everything else (including weighing food and counting calories or restricting calorie intake of foods they really like - AKA moderation, or restricting food groups - AKA low carb, low fat, vegetarian or vegan).
I seriously think the people eating clean diets aren't the ones with the unhealthy relationship with food, after all they are happily getting on with their diets; as opposed to being on public forum 'like we are' feeling other people are knocking our choice of diet and then trying to make ourselves feel better about our choice by knocking others as opposed to helping them.
Although to be honest this thread has been a divisive thread against clean eating since the fourth sentence of the OP's opening gambit.
I would be interested in knowing what you think people who choose to cut out heavily processed foods are missing out on that make their diets 'unhealthy'????
It can't be just binge eating, that's what got a lot of us here. I binge the most when I try counting calories and include sweets and crisps into my daily diet. For me moderation is unsustainable and very non-enjoyable!!0 -
Typically, yes, though it would depend on the specific marker, and the type of exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Pretty sure her comment about deficit was purely for weight loss, not about health in a context of you can eat anything at all and be healthy as long as you're in a deficit. You might as well say that means people will be fine starving if you're going to misinterpret it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Why would the word clean imply morality more than healthy? As I just said, disgust, both physical and moral, tend register in the brain in the same region. It isn't a coincidence people call it clean eating. It isn't far removed from the concepts that many societies have had of certain people as unclean and immoral.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I find it highly illustrative that people call it cleaning eating instead of healthy eating. It tends to show the very moralization that people are putting into food. When we talk about moral disgust, the term isn't a coincidence in feelings - the part of the brain that registers moral disgust tends to also be the area that actually registers physical disgust. So now foods are clean, or they are dirty - they are morally right, or they are degenerate.
And so, people are back to full circle - using the brain center that is evolved to think diseased food disgusting, to using that center to think about morality, to using that center to moralize and think about food.
Why do you assume moral disgust at the term "clean eating" but not "healthy eating"?
::laugh:: You are joking, right? I certainly hope no one thinks that! Back in the 70's when I first heard the term it meant 'clean' as in free of additives. Whole, natural. It had nothing to do with morals.
When someone says "I need to clean up my diet" I thought everyone knew they meant start eating more meals made from whole natural ingredients. My oh my, what has happened to the world?
Absolutely not a joke. I'm not saying the word choice is intentionally because the people themselves are aware of the moralizing at play - I certainly hope they're not. Yet it is about that. Are you serious in thinking there isn't a hint at all in cleaning eat about being better than other people?
Certainly some people feels superior for eating clean. As do some for eating healthy. Or for eating junk. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the posts bragging about the ice cream or pizza or candy eaten.
Diet superiority is felt by many for many reasons. I am seriously saying I don't think it's more common among those that say they eat clean than those that say they eat healthy. I think assuming that EVERYONE that uses the term is expressing insult or superiority has an air of superiority. Like maybe those that think clean eating is good are just little more stupid than those that KNOW it isn't.
I think it's incredibly common for people to express superiority for 'eating clean' or 'eating healthy', both IRL and on these forums. I've known people IRL who ate nothing but fruits and vegetables and yogurt, and talked about it all the time, as if that made them somehow better than everyone else who was eating 'regular' food. Yet most of those 'clean eaters' were still overweight. Point being that people get so hung up on the type of food and forget that it's the amount of food that makes the different. These arguments about 'clean' and 'healthy' and 'low carb' and 'paleo' and 'keto' and everything all get pretty old. When will people wake up and realize they really can eat whatever they want, whether that's nothing but veggies and fruit, or no carbs at all, or just nuts and seeds, as long as they eat in a calorie deficit? The hang ups are just ridiculous.
Not everyone believes that you can eat whatever you want and remain healthy. Personally, I think that would depend greatly on what you want to eat. At my age I've seen far too many people who have never been overweight with high BP, CVD, insulin resistance, diabetes and other diseases or risk factors to think that quantity is all that matters. I absolutely believe that diet quality is quite important.
Now, for people who are overweight, the general findings are that losing weight tends to trump quality of diet for improving health markers.
I agree with the last sentence for people who are very overweight/obese. Other than perhaps quitting smoking, getting down to a healthy weight is likely going to show the most improvement. But in the long run, even those who have lost the weight and maintained may find that not enough to keep those health markers down over time.
For those that are only a little overweight, I think exercise could have more of an impact on health than losing the few pounds needed to reach a healthy weight.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »When people say they are looking for other clean eaters with which to become friends or share info I don't see why it would be viewed as an insult any more than someone else asking for friends of a certain age or sex or who share a medical condition or follow low carb or low fat or IIFYM or paleo or any other method of eating.
Well, what do you think they are looking for? People interested in encouraging them in the eating of whole foods and vegetables and who are interested in nutrition and cooking? By asking for "clean eaters" they exclude a huge number of these folks (like me).
Or people who ONLY eat "clean" foods (even though virtually no one who self-defines as a "clean eater" really fits in that category -- for example, I've seen "clean eaters" justifying the eating of processed meat of the sort even I don't eat and others, like I said, have simply cut down on their fast food consumption, etc.)? If this, why? It really seems as if they think there's something superior about self-defining as a "clean eater," which is especially interesting since it seems to be a term more used by people quite new to changing their diets.It's common for people to like to share experiences with others with whom they feel they have something in common. Just as it's common for other people to like to meet others who are very different from them.
Why would "I like to call myself a clean eater" vs. "I don't like to call myself a clean eater" be a distinguishing characteristic if you both eat pretty similarly and have similar interests in food and nutrition? It's not, unless what you really want is to be able to feel better than non "clean eaters." That's why I think it's significant that this term is used rather than a more specific one.
If someone simply wants to talk to people interested in nutrition and eating healthy, "clean eater" is more narrow than what they are looking for.
Because different people use different terms. Simple as that.
Why wouldn't you want to use the term that communicates more effectively what you mean?
I think the answer has to be that there's something else you get from using the term or mean by using the term -- and that's where the "superiority" aspect comes in.
I thought of a good analogy: let's say someone who buys into some generally rightwing social issue political views decides to start referring to people who share those views as "real Americans." That would annoy me, not because I'm the least bit insecure about my status as a real American (or a patriotic American), but because it's intended as an insult and simply inaccurate -- those people are no more American than those who share my political/social views. I would ask "why not be more specific and use a term that really describes what you mean." The person might say "well, you get what I mean, and I like this one, and who are you to object to my use of language" (i.e., all the arguments you are making here). But I think it's apparent that the reason for using the term is to make a separate point -- that you are a better American than others who don't share your views, as well as to link up with others who want to look down on people with different views.
That is the same as with the use of "clean" rather than a more specific term.
I had this really good analogy that I was going to respond to one of your posts...wrote about half of it and realize that it was turning in to one of those TL:DR type posts and I wasn't even finished.
I would have been interested in reading it. Feel free to email me if it feels too long to post here. Clearly I have no issues with longwinded responses! ;-)
I am curious what you think about this analogy, though, because it feels perfect to me and relates to why my initial thought when someone chooses the term "clean eater" for themselves is that they seem like an ***h*le, a jerk, not a nice person.
I am probably now going to associate them in my mind with Trump, which will at least amuse me.People in general are always looking for ways to feel better about themselves...better about the choices that they make.
I feel very judgmental about people who do this by putting themselves up as better than others or especially by trying to claim that others have qualities they do not. For example, someone who feels better about their eating choices or gets motivated by telling themselves they are better than others and that others are eating gross foods and only Twinkies and don't care about health or that those who make different food decisions will be fat or are rotting inside and will die soon. We've seen this kind of rhetoric quite often here from self-proclaimed "clean eaters," and if that's what motivates someone, I think it makes that person a bad person.I also think that people want to belong...to be a part of a bigger group. People look for things that they can believe in. As people have migrated away from organized religion they have turned to other things that they can in a sense replace that with...people have this inner desire to believe in something. In the case here on MFP...it is their choices about food that fulfills that need. For some it has been their quest for fitness...there are certainly a varying degree of groups in that area too.
This is likely true--similar analysis to Diet Cults (although I think it's odd for food to play that big a role, to self define as a "clean eater" as an essential thing about you to the extent that religion can be). But whatever. It is interesting that the group is of people who self-define that way and not people who actually share the interests in cooking or nutrition -- a much broader group.Before I joined the forum discussions on MFP I was part of a religious forum for about six years (no...not religious but I enjoy discussing different opinions). The similarities between that forum and a diet/food/fitness forum was shocking to me.
I've posted at a couple of religious forums too -- I find religious discussion fascinating -- and I see the connection.LOL I got referred to quite often by some rather unflattering terms! One Christian referred to me as...Satan's Daughter! LOL That was one of the kinder things said to me...but oh well.
I was often told I was not a real Christian. 'Sokay, I think that's funny (just like I think it's funny when I'm told I must eat Twinkies or McDonald's mostly or don't care about nutrition). In those cases too I thought it was important to try and logically address the claims when they were (IMO) off-base, though. But religion at a certain level people simply must agree to disagree -- if someone says "a real Christian is someone who reads the Bible literally, only," I can point out why I think that's wrong, I can point out that I don't think the person actually does that (and it's not possible), so on, but ultimately it's just a matter of belief. But when someone says one can only be healthy by eating "clean" we can discuss the actual science. The person still might not be convinced (which is fine), but there are claims that are true and ones that are false.0 -
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. This thread already has links to how diets that don't allow foods are pretty bad.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Begging the question. The whole point is the labeling doesn't cause people to make healthier decisions. It increases the chances of people binge eating. It increases the chances of diet failure. It is just covering a bad relationship with food until there is breaking point.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I just love how sensitive some people are to how their diet choice is perceived! It's pure butthurt!
I choose low carb because it's a tool that works for me and suits my food choices so for me is more sustainable than moderation!
But when someone tells me they are eating clean, or eating in moderation, or veggie or vegan, I just think good on ya! Not for one moment do I have insecurity in my own diet choice to think that someone else thinks their choice is more superior or if they do think that, so what????
If the term clean eating is helping people make healthier choices in the food they eat - that's a good thing isn't it?
Yea, this has basically already been addressed, no problem with people choosing vegan, veggie, keto, low carb, whatever. The problem is labeling a diet as clean, or foods as clean because it implies all other foods not included in their diet are unclean or dirty, and that is just ignorant and factually inaccurate on it's face. Many people don't realize how important context is in a diet. Without a context, foods cannot be judged.
What does it matter? If labeling foods in this way helps people make better and healthier decisions to maybe what they were previously eating how is that a problem?
If watching what they eat and eating less 'junk food' possibly gets them eating less calories or focuses them more on there micro nutritional intake - good on em!
Maybe if we were all happy with our food choices, we would be less sensitive to peoples analysis of them!
Most people are on MFP because they have had an unhealthy relationship with food!
Maybe people labeling food to allow them to make better and healthier decisions is no less of a tool than everything else (including weighing food and counting calories or restricting calorie intake of foods they really like - AKA moderation, or restricting food groups - AKA low carb, low fat, vegetarian or vegan).
I seriously think the people eating clean diets aren't the ones with the unhealthy relationship with food, after all they are happily getting on with their diets; as opposed to being on public forum 'like we are' feeling other people are knocking our choice of diet and then trying to make ourselves feel better about our choice by knocking others as opposed to helping them.
Although to be honest this thread has been a divisive thread against clean eating since the fourth sentence of the OP's opening gambit.
I would be interested in knowing what you think people who choose to cut out heavily processed foods are missing out on that make their diets 'unhealthy'????
It can't be just binge eating, that's what got a lot of us here. I binge the most when I try counting calories and include sweets and crisps into my daily diet. For me moderation is unsustainable and very non-enjoyable!!
Though if you seriously think the clean eating works and being on a forum in for a CICO diet is keeping you from life, I guess I have to ask, why are you here?
As for what are they missing that is unhealthy is a leading question that precludes some answers to the real question, "what can be unhealthy about clean eating?" The difference in question allows for the fact there is nothing in clean eating that can guarantee weight loss. The most unhealthy food can be the one that you tell yourself is healthy and overeat on. 5000 calories a day of broccoli has more health issues that 2000 calories of pizza. The other thing they're potentially missing out on is mental health. Moralizing food and setting it up for binging behavior is a good way to give yourself stress. Now you're not just the guy who's eating McDonald's (which can be fine), you're the guy eating 10 burgers at once because you have to abandon the food when you get back to clean eating, and you're the guy who thinks he's a bad person for eating those 10 burgers - you're not longer clean.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »When people say they are looking for other clean eaters with which to become friends or share info I don't see why it would be viewed as an insult any more than someone else asking for friends of a certain age or sex or who share a medical condition or follow low carb or low fat or IIFYM or paleo or any other method of eating.
Well, what do you think they are looking for? People interested in encouraging them in the eating of whole foods and vegetables and who are interested in nutrition and cooking? By asking for "clean eaters" they exclude a huge number of these folks (like me).
Or people who ONLY eat "clean" foods (even though virtually no one who self-defines as a "clean eater" really fits in that category -- for example, I've seen "clean eaters" justifying the eating of processed meat of the sort even I don't eat and others, like I said, have simply cut down on their fast food consumption, etc.)? If this, why? It really seems as if they think there's something superior about self-defining as a "clean eater," which is especially interesting since it seems to be a term more used by people quite new to changing their diets.It's common for people to like to share experiences with others with whom they feel they have something in common. Just as it's common for other people to like to meet others who are very different from them.
Why would "I like to call myself a clean eater" vs. "I don't like to call myself a clean eater" be a distinguishing characteristic if you both eat pretty similarly and have similar interests in food and nutrition? It's not, unless what you really want is to be able to feel better than non "clean eaters." That's why I think it's significant that this term is used rather than a more specific one.
If someone simply wants to talk to people interested in nutrition and eating healthy, "clean eater" is more narrow than what they are looking for.
Because different people use different terms. Simple as that.
Why wouldn't you want to use the term that communicates more effectively what you mean?
I think the answer has to be that there's something else you get from using the term or mean by using the term -- and that's where the "superiority" aspect comes in.
I thought of a good analogy: let's say someone who buys into some generally rightwing social issue political views decides to start referring to people who share those views as "real Americans." That would annoy me, not because I'm the least bit insecure about my status as a real American (or a patriotic American), but because it's intended as an insult and simply inaccurate -- those people are no more American than those who share my political/social views. I would ask "why not be more specific and use a term that really describes what you mean." The person might say "well, you get what I mean, and I like this one, and who are you to object to my use of language" (i.e., all the arguments you are making here). But I think it's apparent that the reason for using the term is to make a separate point -- that you are a better American than others who don't share your views, as well as to link up with others who want to look down on people with different views.
That is the same as with the use of "clean" rather than a more specific term.
Because what you view as "communicates more effectively" isn't the same as what everyone views. Again, people are different.
I get that you want everyone to use terms that you understand and approve, but that's just not the way the world works.0 -
Oh, I have no illusions about the world or that people will change the terms they use. That's why I've self-mockingly said I'm tilting at windmills.
I'm just saying that it's fair game to point out why people choose not to use the term and don't like it, also. The jerks here are those claiming superiority, not those pointing out that that's not a nice thing to do and that it's not actually based on anything real.
Also, now that I can think of clean eaters as analogous to Trump and his fans I will enjoy these threads even more!0 -
Your post could just as easily be truncated to I disagree.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »When people say they are looking for other clean eaters with which to become friends or share info I don't see why it would be viewed as an insult any more than someone else asking for friends of a certain age or sex or who share a medical condition or follow low carb or low fat or IIFYM or paleo or any other method of eating.
Well, what do you think they are looking for? People interested in encouraging them in the eating of whole foods and vegetables and who are interested in nutrition and cooking? By asking for "clean eaters" they exclude a huge number of these folks (like me).
Or people who ONLY eat "clean" foods (even though virtually no one who self-defines as a "clean eater" really fits in that category -- for example, I've seen "clean eaters" justifying the eating of processed meat of the sort even I don't eat and others, like I said, have simply cut down on their fast food consumption, etc.)? If this, why? It really seems as if they think there's something superior about self-defining as a "clean eater," which is especially interesting since it seems to be a term more used by people quite new to changing their diets.It's common for people to like to share experiences with others with whom they feel they have something in common. Just as it's common for other people to like to meet others who are very different from them.
Why would "I like to call myself a clean eater" vs. "I don't like to call myself a clean eater" be a distinguishing characteristic if you both eat pretty similarly and have similar interests in food and nutrition? It's not, unless what you really want is to be able to feel better than non "clean eaters." That's why I think it's significant that this term is used rather than a more specific one.
If someone simply wants to talk to people interested in nutrition and eating healthy, "clean eater" is more narrow than what they are looking for.
Because different people use different terms. Simple as that.
Why wouldn't you want to use the term that communicates more effectively what you mean?
I think the answer has to be that there's something else you get from using the term or mean by using the term -- and that's where the "superiority" aspect comes in.
I thought of a good analogy: let's say someone who buys into some generally rightwing social issue political views decides to start referring to people who share those views as "real Americans." That would annoy me, not because I'm the least bit insecure about my status as a real American (or a patriotic American), but because it's intended as an insult and simply inaccurate -- those people are no more American than those who share my political/social views. I would ask "why not be more specific and use a term that really describes what you mean." The person might say "well, you get what I mean, and I like this one, and who are you to object to my use of language" (i.e., all the arguments you are making here). But I think it's apparent that the reason for using the term is to make a separate point -- that you are a better American than others who don't share your views, as well as to link up with others who want to look down on people with different views.
That is the same as with the use of "clean" rather than a more specific term.
Because what you view as "communicates more effectively" isn't the same as what everyone views. Again, people are different.
I get that you want everyone to use terms that you understand and approve, but that's just not the way the world works.
Lemur actually presented some pretty good reasons and examples for why it is poor communication. Clean is nebulous and can be interpreted differently by different people, while eating based on forks over knives is rather specific. It isn't about wanting to use terms she can follow, it is about terms actually describing things in unambiguous ways.0 -
@Lemurcat12 As far as your analogy goes...
I am a recent transplant to Texas...most...if not all Texas born Texans believe that they are a country unto themselves! Texas is the only state in the Union. When I first moved here I just kept thinking...you do realize that there are other states don't you??? Here in Texas if you don't drive a big truck then you must be one of those transplants...in other words...UNAMERICAN! LOL
So yes...technically speaking your analogy could fit. My problem is that when we put a label on other labels aren't we in sense doing the same. I just don't think that all "clean eaters" are passing judgment on those that eat differently. Nor do I think that they feel as if they are superior. I think that they found a "cause" that helps them adhere to a way of eating.
Just as...
In the religious forum that I belonged to not all Christians tried to make me feel less than. There were some that I actually respected and admired for their beliefs. It was difficult at times to not label the entire group however and it was something that I had to be aware of.
Would I be offended if someone called me "Un-American"...possibly. I think however that primarily I would feel rather sad that someone has to make someone else feel less than in order to make their self feel better.
My fear...this thread will get closed because of two long-winded posters that despite not totally agreeing with each other are trying to have a civil conversation. Do they allow that on MFP...or is it against the TOS?
0 -
Ive debated with ppl on here numerous times about clean eating vs IIFYM. At the end of the day i believe that we should obtain our daily calorie limit and macros from the 'healthiest' sources of produce we can. What i call getting the most bang for ya buck. What is better for your heart and overall wellness, obtaining your calories from skinless chicken, tuna, salads, spinach, beets, turkey, broccoli; or cake, pizza, cheese burgers, chocolate etc? .... And i dont believe in cheat meals and all that. You dont need cheat meals, you want cheat meals. your body would rather have something 'healthier'. But if ppl make gains doing it their way and they are happy then they should continue with what ever is working for them 0
-
So yes...technically speaking your analogy could fit. My problem is that when we put a label on other labels aren't we in sense doing the same. I just don't think that all "clean eaters" are passing judgment on those that eat differently. Nor do I think that they feel as if they are superior. I think that they found a "cause" that helps them adhere to a way of eating.
Hmm. I will admit that I get hard-nosed about this in the context of internet discussions and when the reasons people dislike the term get spelled out and discussed and those attached to the term are just completely dismissive and just keep asserting that they care about health (as if we did not) without addressing any of the points made in an honest way, I will draw negative conclusions (including that they are unable to respond to the points).
I don't draw negative conclusions about everyone who uses the term in passing, everyone who decides it might be fun to hang out in the clean eating group (I suspect I'd enjoy hanging out there, but I could not call myself a "clean eater," ugh), and the like. When I run into someone who uses the term I don't call them on it. Nor, contrary to the accusations that always get thrown, do I think I'm mean in responding to people who use the term here.
But in many cases it does seem clearly an effort to look down on others or claim superiority, with no legitimate reason to do so, and in those cases I do think those conclusions are fair. What bugs me about these discussions is that some seem to think that expressing a view on the term "clean" is mean and somehow not a legitimate thing to discuss. That we shouldn't call people on claims that "processed foods" are all "bad" or the like (or point out that when they eat a store-bought hot dog, sorry, that's processed). This seems like they are assumed to be delicate eggshells and that for some reason our feelings when they say we don't care about health or must be telling people to eat only McD's doesn't matter to the same extent. I never get that.In the religious forum that I belonged to not all Christians tried to make me feel less than. There were some that I actually respected and admired for their beliefs. It was difficult at times to not label the entire group however and it was something that I had to be aware of.
I agree. I'd say, though, that choosing the label there has many likely reasons unrelated to claim superiority, so I do see it as quite distinct. (I would, though.)Would I be offended if someone called me "Un-American"...possibly. I think however that primarily I would feel rather sad that someone has to make someone else feel less than in order to make their self feel better.
I think it's so stupid that I wouldn't actually be offended (similar to the "you say we should only eat McD's" thing), and I'd probably laugh at them, but I am not as good a person as you as I wouldn't feel sad for them, I'd think they were being a jerk and like I said before be kind of judgmental.0 -
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. This thread already has links to how diets that don't allow foods are pretty bad.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Begging the question. The whole point is the labeling doesn't cause people to make healthier decisions. It increases the chances of people binge eating. It increases the chances of diet failure. It is just covering a bad relationship with food until there is breaking point.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I just love how sensitive some people are to how their diet choice is perceived! It's pure butthurt!
I choose low carb because it's a tool that works for me and suits my food choices so for me is more sustainable than moderation!
But when someone tells me they are eating clean, or eating in moderation, or veggie or vegan, I just think good on ya! Not for one moment do I have insecurity in my own diet choice to think that someone else thinks their choice is more superior or if they do think that, so what????
If the term clean eating is helping people make healthier choices in the food they eat - that's a good thing isn't it?
Yea, this has basically already been addressed, no problem with people choosing vegan, veggie, keto, low carb, whatever. The problem is labeling a diet as clean, or foods as clean because it implies all other foods not included in their diet are unclean or dirty, and that is just ignorant and factually inaccurate on it's face. Many people don't realize how important context is in a diet. Without a context, foods cannot be judged.
What does it matter? If labeling foods in this way helps people make better and healthier decisions to maybe what they were previously eating how is that a problem?
If watching what they eat and eating less 'junk food' possibly gets them eating less calories or focuses them more on there micro nutritional intake - good on em!
Maybe if we were all happy with our food choices, we would be less sensitive to peoples analysis of them!
Most people are on MFP because they have had an unhealthy relationship with food!
Maybe people labeling food to allow them to make better and healthier decisions is no less of a tool than everything else (including weighing food and counting calories or restricting calorie intake of foods they really like - AKA moderation, or restricting food groups - AKA low carb, low fat, vegetarian or vegan).
I seriously think the people eating clean diets aren't the ones with the unhealthy relationship with food, after all they are happily getting on with their diets; as opposed to being on public forum 'like we are' feeling other people are knocking our choice of diet and then trying to make ourselves feel better about our choice by knocking others as opposed to helping them.
Although to be honest this thread has been a divisive thread against clean eating since the fourth sentence of the OP's opening gambit.
I would be interested in knowing what you think people who choose to cut out heavily processed foods are missing out on that make their diets 'unhealthy'????
It can't be just binge eating, that's what got a lot of us here. I binge the most when I try counting calories and include sweets and crisps into my daily diet. For me moderation is unsustainable and very non-enjoyable!!
Though if you seriously think the clean eating works and being on a forum in for a CICO diet is keeping you from life, I guess I have to ask, why are you here?
As for what are they missing that is unhealthy is a leading question that precludes some answers to the real question, "what can be unhealthy about clean eating?" The difference in question allows for the fact there is nothing in clean eating that can guarantee weight loss. The most unhealthy food can be the one that you tell yourself is healthy and overeat on. 5000 calories a day of broccoli has more health issues that 2000 calories of pizza. The other thing they're potentially missing out on is mental health. Moralizing food and setting it up for binging behavior is a good way to give yourself stress. Now you're not just the guy who's eating McDonald's (which can be fine), you're the guy eating 10 burgers at once because you have to abandon the food when you get back to clean eating, and you're the guy who thinks he's a bad person for eating those 10 burgers - you're not longer clean.
Clean eating is a life style choice - it has nothing to do with weight loss (calorie deficit decides weight loss or not). I'm sure there are plenty of weight lifters bulking on clean diets or plenty of people who have achieved their ideal body composition maintaining on clean diets.
As to CICO forum - no this is a food, nutrition and fitness forum. CICO happens to be one facet of it.
As to why I'm here, I love talking to people like you (hence my 4,000 plus posts).
So finding a coping mechanism with food and being able to compartmentalize it is a mental health issue - really?? I think its a very useful tool, and no more of a strain on mental health than being fixated on weighting every morsel of food you eat or worrying about hitting the exact number of calories for the day, or putting down that last bit of cake (when you are still hungry and still want it), because it just doesn't fit your macros!!
And 10 burgers, 5000 calories of broccoli (anecdotal much???)!!
But my original question still stands - I would be interested in knowing what you think people who choose to cut out heavily processed foods are missing out on that make their diets 'unhealthy'???? Surely the answer is not McDonald's?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. This thread already has links to how diets that don't allow foods are pretty bad.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Begging the question. The whole point is the labeling doesn't cause people to make healthier decisions. It increases the chances of people binge eating. It increases the chances of diet failure. It is just covering a bad relationship with food until there is breaking point.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I just love how sensitive some people are to how their diet choice is perceived! It's pure butthurt!
I choose low carb because it's a tool that works for me and suits my food choices so for me is more sustainable than moderation!
But when someone tells me they are eating clean, or eating in moderation, or veggie or vegan, I just think good on ya! Not for one moment do I have insecurity in my own diet choice to think that someone else thinks their choice is more superior or if they do think that, so what????
If the term clean eating is helping people make healthier choices in the food they eat - that's a good thing isn't it?
Yea, this has basically already been addressed, no problem with people choosing vegan, veggie, keto, low carb, whatever. The problem is labeling a diet as clean, or foods as clean because it implies all other foods not included in their diet are unclean or dirty, and that is just ignorant and factually inaccurate on it's face. Many people don't realize how important context is in a diet. Without a context, foods cannot be judged.
What does it matter? If labeling foods in this way helps people make better and healthier decisions to maybe what they were previously eating how is that a problem?
If watching what they eat and eating less 'junk food' possibly gets them eating less calories or focuses them more on there micro nutritional intake - good on em!
Maybe if we were all happy with our food choices, we would be less sensitive to peoples analysis of them!
Most people are on MFP because they have had an unhealthy relationship with food!
Maybe people labeling food to allow them to make better and healthier decisions is no less of a tool than everything else (including weighing food and counting calories or restricting calorie intake of foods they really like - AKA moderation, or restricting food groups - AKA low carb, low fat, vegetarian or vegan).
I seriously think the people eating clean diets aren't the ones with the unhealthy relationship with food, after all they are happily getting on with their diets; as opposed to being on public forum 'like we are' feeling other people are knocking our choice of diet and then trying to make ourselves feel better about our choice by knocking others as opposed to helping them.
Although to be honest this thread has been a divisive thread against clean eating since the fourth sentence of the OP's opening gambit.
I would be interested in knowing what you think people who choose to cut out heavily processed foods are missing out on that make their diets 'unhealthy'????
It can't be just binge eating, that's what got a lot of us here. I binge the most when I try counting calories and include sweets and crisps into my daily diet. For me moderation is unsustainable and very non-enjoyable!!
Though if you seriously think the clean eating works and being on a forum in for a CICO diet is keeping you from life, I guess I have to ask, why are you here?
As for what are they missing that is unhealthy is a leading question that precludes some answers to the real question, "what can be unhealthy about clean eating?" The difference in question allows for the fact there is nothing in clean eating that can guarantee weight loss. The most unhealthy food can be the one that you tell yourself is healthy and overeat on. 5000 calories a day of broccoli has more health issues that 2000 calories of pizza. The other thing they're potentially missing out on is mental health. Moralizing food and setting it up for binging behavior is a good way to give yourself stress. Now you're not just the guy who's eating McDonald's (which can be fine), you're the guy eating 10 burgers at once because you have to abandon the food when you get back to clean eating, and you're the guy who thinks he's a bad person for eating those 10 burgers - you're not longer clean.
Clean eating is a life style choice - it has nothing to do with weight loss (calorie deficit decides weight loss or not). I'm sure there are plenty of weight lifters bulking on clean diets or plenty of people who have achieved their ideal body composition maintaining on clean diets.
As to CICO forum - no this is a food, nutrition and fitness forum. CICO happens to be one facet of it.
As to why I'm here, I love talking to people like you (hence my 4,000 plus posts).
So finding a coping mechanism with food and being able to compartmentalize it is a mental health issue - really?? I think its a very useful tool, and no more of a strain on mental health than being fixated on weighting every morsel of food you eat or worrying about hitting the exact number of calories for the day, or putting down that last bit of cake (when you are still hungry and still want it), because it just doesn't fit your macros!!
And 10 burgers, 5000 calories of broccoli (anecdotal much???)!!
But my original question still stands - I would be interested in knowing what you think people who choose to cut out heavily processed foods are missing out on that make their diets 'unhealthy'???? Surely the answer is not McDonald's?
You can rebrand clean eating however you want. Call it lifestyle instead of a diet.
MFP is a tool that tracks calories. You're the one saying people out there are clean eating and happily avoiding forums arguing diets, but you're here. There are plenty of other fora out there.
I thought clean eating was a lifestyle, now it is a coping mechanism? You've already got links from earlier about why it tends to be unhealthy. It lays out fairly well the issues that happen with it.
You're mixing two things together and calling them anecdotes. As the research on it has already been linked, the binging isn't an anecdote (I'd also need to be claiming a particular person for it to be an anecdote) it is an example illustrative scenario. 5000 calories of broccoli versus 2,000 calories of pizza is illustrating eating a clean food versus eating what is usually not considered a clean food, and yet which one is healthier?
I answered your question and explained why it was leading. That you ignored the answers and repeated it doesn't change change anything. And yes, missing out on McDonald's can be unhealthy too if avoiding it is putting stress on a person and making them moralize their food choices with labels like clean.0 -
Your post could just as easily be truncated to I disagree.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »When people say they are looking for other clean eaters with which to become friends or share info I don't see why it would be viewed as an insult any more than someone else asking for friends of a certain age or sex or who share a medical condition or follow low carb or low fat or IIFYM or paleo or any other method of eating.
Well, what do you think they are looking for? People interested in encouraging them in the eating of whole foods and vegetables and who are interested in nutrition and cooking? By asking for "clean eaters" they exclude a huge number of these folks (like me).
Or people who ONLY eat "clean" foods (even though virtually no one who self-defines as a "clean eater" really fits in that category -- for example, I've seen "clean eaters" justifying the eating of processed meat of the sort even I don't eat and others, like I said, have simply cut down on their fast food consumption, etc.)? If this, why? It really seems as if they think there's something superior about self-defining as a "clean eater," which is especially interesting since it seems to be a term more used by people quite new to changing their diets.It's common for people to like to share experiences with others with whom they feel they have something in common. Just as it's common for other people to like to meet others who are very different from them.
Why would "I like to call myself a clean eater" vs. "I don't like to call myself a clean eater" be a distinguishing characteristic if you both eat pretty similarly and have similar interests in food and nutrition? It's not, unless what you really want is to be able to feel better than non "clean eaters." That's why I think it's significant that this term is used rather than a more specific one.
If someone simply wants to talk to people interested in nutrition and eating healthy, "clean eater" is more narrow than what they are looking for.
Because different people use different terms. Simple as that.
Why wouldn't you want to use the term that communicates more effectively what you mean?
I think the answer has to be that there's something else you get from using the term or mean by using the term -- and that's where the "superiority" aspect comes in.
I thought of a good analogy: let's say someone who buys into some generally rightwing social issue political views decides to start referring to people who share those views as "real Americans." That would annoy me, not because I'm the least bit insecure about my status as a real American (or a patriotic American), but because it's intended as an insult and simply inaccurate -- those people are no more American than those who share my political/social views. I would ask "why not be more specific and use a term that really describes what you mean." The person might say "well, you get what I mean, and I like this one, and who are you to object to my use of language" (i.e., all the arguments you are making here). But I think it's apparent that the reason for using the term is to make a separate point -- that you are a better American than others who don't share your views, as well as to link up with others who want to look down on people with different views.
That is the same as with the use of "clean" rather than a more specific term.
Because what you view as "communicates more effectively" isn't the same as what everyone views. Again, people are different.
I get that you want everyone to use terms that you understand and approve, but that's just not the way the world works.
Lemur actually presented some pretty good reasons and examples for why it is poor communication. Clean is nebulous and can be interpreted differently by different people, while eating based on forks over knives is rather specific. It isn't about wanting to use terms she can follow, it is about terms actually describing things in unambiguous ways.
Except that I wasn't disgreeing, I was answering a question she asked. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are many terms used on MFP that are nebulous.0 -
@lemurcat Please don't think my opinion has anything to do with me being a nice person. I would hate for anyone to the read the posts that I write and then...delete.
To let you in on my pet peeve...
When someone starts a thread about sugar or clean and then you get this person running in and screaming...
It's all in your head.
Get some self-control.
I eat ice cream every day and have lost 121lbs.
Starts posting the ice cream gifs.
In my opinion...that is belittling the original poster that came seeking help. The OP usually slinks off never to be seen again and I would think feel like a fool.
Oh and just so that you don't think that I am too nice...
I avoid Whole Foods because of some of the clean eaters. When they will knock you down so that they can grab the shiniest zucchini...they have gone too far!
On an aside...
I researched the definition of clean...yea I know...I need a life. One definition of clean was...free from contaminants. Would that better fit "clean eating" say from "non-processed"?
Also for others that might read...I am not what I would classify as a "clean eater". I eat ice cream and some processed. I also eat fast food/convenience food about once a week.0 -
Indeed...
Your post could just as easily be truncated to I disagree.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »When people say they are looking for other clean eaters with which to become friends or share info I don't see why it would be viewed as an insult any more than someone else asking for friends of a certain age or sex or who share a medical condition or follow low carb or low fat or IIFYM or paleo or any other method of eating.
Well, what do you think they are looking for? People interested in encouraging them in the eating of whole foods and vegetables and who are interested in nutrition and cooking? By asking for "clean eaters" they exclude a huge number of these folks (like me).
Or people who ONLY eat "clean" foods (even though virtually no one who self-defines as a "clean eater" really fits in that category -- for example, I've seen "clean eaters" justifying the eating of processed meat of the sort even I don't eat and others, like I said, have simply cut down on their fast food consumption, etc.)? If this, why? It really seems as if they think there's something superior about self-defining as a "clean eater," which is especially interesting since it seems to be a term more used by people quite new to changing their diets.It's common for people to like to share experiences with others with whom they feel they have something in common. Just as it's common for other people to like to meet others who are very different from them.
Why would "I like to call myself a clean eater" vs. "I don't like to call myself a clean eater" be a distinguishing characteristic if you both eat pretty similarly and have similar interests in food and nutrition? It's not, unless what you really want is to be able to feel better than non "clean eaters." That's why I think it's significant that this term is used rather than a more specific one.
If someone simply wants to talk to people interested in nutrition and eating healthy, "clean eater" is more narrow than what they are looking for.
Because different people use different terms. Simple as that.
Why wouldn't you want to use the term that communicates more effectively what you mean?
I think the answer has to be that there's something else you get from using the term or mean by using the term -- and that's where the "superiority" aspect comes in.
I thought of a good analogy: let's say someone who buys into some generally rightwing social issue political views decides to start referring to people who share those views as "real Americans." That would annoy me, not because I'm the least bit insecure about my status as a real American (or a patriotic American), but because it's intended as an insult and simply inaccurate -- those people are no more American than those who share my political/social views. I would ask "why not be more specific and use a term that really describes what you mean." The person might say "well, you get what I mean, and I like this one, and who are you to object to my use of language" (i.e., all the arguments you are making here). But I think it's apparent that the reason for using the term is to make a separate point -- that you are a better American than others who don't share your views, as well as to link up with others who want to look down on people with different views.
That is the same as with the use of "clean" rather than a more specific term.
Because what you view as "communicates more effectively" isn't the same as what everyone views. Again, people are different.
I get that you want everyone to use terms that you understand and approve, but that's just not the way the world works.
Lemur actually presented some pretty good reasons and examples for why it is poor communication. Clean is nebulous and can be interpreted differently by different people, while eating based on forks over knives is rather specific. It isn't about wanting to use terms she can follow, it is about terms actually describing things in unambiguous ways.
0 -
I researched the definition of clean...yea I know...I need a life. One definition of clean was...free from contaminants. Would that better fit "clean eating" say from "non-processed"?
See, this definition - free from contaminants - is more in line with what I've always known "clean eating" to mean. Processing wasn't so much a factor as additives. An apple is clean, even if you chop it and cook it. Even if you add natural sugar to it and cook it. But a can of cooked apples with added perservatives would not be clean. It's been "contaminated" by the additives.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I just love how sensitive some people are to how their diet choice is perceived! It's pure butthurt!
I choose low carb because it's a tool that works for me and suits my food choices so for me is more sustainable than moderation!
But when someone tells me they are eating clean, or eating in moderation, or veggie or vegan, I just think good on ya! Not for one moment do I have insecurity in my own diet choice to think that someone else thinks their choice is more superior or if they do think that, so what????
If the term clean eating is helping people make healthier choices in the food they eat - that's a good thing isn't it?
Yea, this has basically already been addressed, no problem with people choosing vegan, veggie, keto, low carb, whatever. The problem is labeling a diet as clean, or foods as clean because it implies all other foods not included in their diet are unclean or dirty, and that is just ignorant and factually inaccurate on it's face. Many people don't realize how important context is in a diet. Without a context, foods cannot be judged.
What does it matter? If labeling foods in this way helps people make better and healthier decisions to maybe what they were previously eating how is that a problem?
If watching what they eat and eating less 'junk food' possibly gets them eating less calories or focuses them more on there micro nutritional intake - good on em!
Maybe if we were all happy with our food choices, we would be less sensitive to peoples analysis of them!
What does it matter? Because it's factually incorrect. If you're trying to argue that walking around spewing factually incorrect things is totally fine, then I honestly don't know how to respond to you. Clean is a concrete term and has a definition: "free from dirt, marks, or stains". If you refer to a type of eating as clean eating, that would mean that you only eat food that isn't dirty, has marks, or is stained. I'm all for that type of eating and I do it every day.
The problem with labeling foods as clean and dirty is, first it's just factually inaccurate. Second, when you label foods as dirty, by extension how can you not look down upon, or feel a false sense of pity for people willing to eat the food you've labeled as dirty? I don't see how you can't, and I've seen examples of that countless times with the attitude of superiority from clean eaters. I've even had a clean eater ask me how I can eat certain foods and still respect myself and my body. It's unreal honestly.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I just love how sensitive some people are to how their diet choice is perceived! It's pure butthurt!
I choose low carb because it's a tool that works for me and suits my food choices so for me is more sustainable than moderation!
But when someone tells me they are eating clean, or eating in moderation, or veggie or vegan, I just think good on ya! Not for one moment do I have insecurity in my own diet choice to think that someone else thinks their choice is more superior or if they do think that, so what????
If the term clean eating is helping people make healthier choices in the food they eat - that's a good thing isn't it?
Yea, this has basically already been addressed, no problem with people choosing vegan, veggie, keto, low carb, whatever. The problem is labeling a diet as clean, or foods as clean because it implies all other foods not included in their diet are unclean or dirty, and that is just ignorant and factually inaccurate on it's face. Many people don't realize how important context is in a diet. Without a context, foods cannot be judged.
What does it matter? If labeling foods in this way helps people make better and healthier decisions to maybe what they were previously eating how is that a problem?
If watching what they eat and eating less 'junk food' possibly gets them eating less calories or focuses them more on there micro nutritional intake - good on em!
Maybe if we were all happy with our food choices, we would be less sensitive to peoples analysis of them!
What does it matter? Because it's factually incorrect. If you're trying to argue that walking around spewing factually incorrect things is totally fine, then I honestly don't know how to respond to you. Clean is a concrete term and has a definition: "free from dirt, marks, or stains". If you refer to a type of eating as clean eating, that would mean that you only eat food that isn't dirty, has marks, or is stained. I'm all for that type of eating and I do it every day.
The problem with labeling foods as clean and dirty is, first it's just factually inaccurate. Second, when you label foods as dirty, by extension how can you not look down upon, or feel a false sense of pity for people willing to eat the food you've labeled as dirty? I don't see how you can't, and I've seen examples of that countless times with the attitude of superiority from clean eaters. I've even had a clean eater ask me how I can eat certain foods and still respect myself and my body. It's unreal honestly.
But again, I don't think many people who label their diet "clean" label other diets or food "dirty". That is most often an extrapolation by those who don't like the term "clean eating".0 -
Here in the states the FDA sets those levels. The amount of fecal contamination, mouse hair, bug parts that is allowable in food keeping our food clean and safe.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I researched the definition of clean...yea I know...I need a life. One definition of clean was...free from contaminants. Would that better fit "clean eating" say from "non-processed"?
See, this definition - free from contaminants - is more in line with what I've always known "clean eating" to mean. Processing wasn't so much a factor as additives. An apple is clean, even if you chop it and cook it. Even if you add natural sugar to it and cook it. But a can of cooked apples with added perservatives would not be clean. It's been "contaminated" by the additives.
Would added preservatives be an actual contaminant?
Contaminant
"Something that makes a place or a substance (such as water, air, or food) no longer suitable for use : something that contaminates a place or substance"
Maybe (depending on the person) it could be considered not preferable, but contaminated?
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Why would I eat a food that I don't eat? Where are these parties where only one food is served, and who is forcing me to eat food at the party? Why would I go to a sporting event or eating establishment during a night out, and order something that I don't eat? I'm not a clean eater, but that makes no sense no matter how you eat.
Also, do you have any studies to support your claim that all people who eat clean inevitably binge, or is that just hyperbole or an anecdotal assertion?
If you've only cut out one specific food, yea maybe you can go your whole life without ever eating it again, but the more restrictive the diet, the harder it is to avoid the restricted foods indefinitely. Studies have shown that rigid diets are associated with eating disorder, mood disturbances, and excessive concern with body size/shape
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
I wouldn't necessarily characterize clean eating as rigid. Less convenient than eating convenience foods, sure, but not so much rigid. Your studies didn't define rigid eating but I found this:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8130552_Rigid_and_flexible_control_of_eating_behavior_in_a_college_population
You wouldn't characterize clean eating as an "all or nothing" approach? I don't think there is a less flexible form of dieting than clean eating, at least none that I've come across. There is a reason most nutritionists debate "Clean Eating vs. Flexible Dieting" as the two main forms of dieting on two ends of the spectrum. Clean eating is not flexible at all, it is extremely rigid.
This makes me think they are using a very different definition of clean eating than just the standard 'natural and un/minimally processed'. Because simply avoiding overly processed and synthetic foods still allows for a very flexible diet.
That depends highly on your definition of a processed food, which is itself subjective.
Yes, I have read some posts that claim to think picking an apple is processing. But my definition wouldn't matter, that used in the study would.
There was no definition given for processed food in either of the studies I linked. Are you referring to a different study?
Without definition of terms any article or study is extremely subjective and therefore mostly meaningless.
A study about rigid dieting is not meaningless just because there's no definition of a processed foods. The fact that people are cutting foods out of their diet in the first place makes the diet rigid, not what they are cutting out.
I disagree. Without definitions the study tells us little. Is cutting foods what is meant by "rigid"? Is it all that is meant? What foods? How many foods? Do calories remain the same, or is there also severe calorie restriction?
Without knowing what is meant by "rigid" the study is as meaningless as the phrase "clean eating" without a definition.
Fair enough, in return I'd ask you why you think it can be beneficial to completely cut certain foods out of your diet?
I never said I think that, but for some people I imagine it probably is beneficial. Allergies, obviously. But, it could also be beneficial to cut trigger foods (foods that you just can't seem to stop eating once you start) from your diet. Even if you do eventually cave and binge on them, it's got to be better than doing it on a regular basis.
And then there are foods that you might cut simply because you don't think they are worth the calories. I stopped eating fast food years ago. In the past couple of decades I've had fast food maybe 2-3 times when traveling and it was all that was available. I can't even remember the last time I ate it.
Limiting foods from your diet, and removing foods from your diet are two different things. I think that largely removing foods from a diet because one thinks they are unhealthy is an unhealthy attitude to have. I can definitely agree with you that something needs to be done about trigger foods, but attempting to completely remove them from your diet is the wrong move. That doesn't address the main issue, but I guess people deal with things in their own way.
If I understand your post...
If I choose to eliminate a food instead of moderating the consumption of that food that I must have other issues that need to be dealt with?
Why is it the wrong move to eliminate a food if I so choose to?
Why do you believe that everyone has to moderate every food?
To be honest...I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently. I didn't eliminate them because I passed some judgment that they were "unclean" or even "unhealthy". I eliminated them because quite honestly they didn't fit what I wanted as an eating plan...one that I believe will work for me long term.
According to your post though this surely must indicate that I have issues that need to be dealt with.
Long story short...
What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
So at the minimum there's a straw man fallacy in your argument, maybe even a non sequitur.
Apparently you don't understand my post.
I said that largely eliminating foods from your diet on a permanent basis is unhealthy. Temporary limiting foods can be a useful tool, especially while cutting on a small calorie intake. There are plenty of examples of foods that I severely limit in my diet but don't eliminate, and by severely limit, I mean I'll eat it once every two or three months because it's a delicious, large, calorie dense treat, but there's no need to completely eliminate it from my diet on a permanent basis for the rest of my life.
Why do I believe that everyone has to moderate every food? I never said that, you implied that, and that's a misrepresentation.
So there are foods that you believe will never fit in your eating plan again for the rest of your life? That sounds like a rigid eating plan, and sounds rather sad to be honest.What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
Oh wait, there's one more! This is a false dichotomy. That's 3 logical fallacies in one post, that's pretty impressive. No that's not what I said at all, already explained it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I just love how sensitive some people are to how their diet choice is perceived! It's pure butthurt!
I choose low carb because it's a tool that works for me and suits my food choices so for me is more sustainable than moderation!
But when someone tells me they are eating clean, or eating in moderation, or veggie or vegan, I just think good on ya! Not for one moment do I have insecurity in my own diet choice to think that someone else thinks their choice is more superior or if they do think that, so what????
If the term clean eating is helping people make healthier choices in the food they eat - that's a good thing isn't it?
Yea, this has basically already been addressed, no problem with people choosing vegan, veggie, keto, low carb, whatever. The problem is labeling a diet as clean, or foods as clean because it implies all other foods not included in their diet are unclean or dirty, and that is just ignorant and factually inaccurate on it's face. Many people don't realize how important context is in a diet. Without a context, foods cannot be judged.
What does it matter? If labeling foods in this way helps people make better and healthier decisions to maybe what they were previously eating how is that a problem?
If watching what they eat and eating less 'junk food' possibly gets them eating less calories or focuses them more on there micro nutritional intake - good on em!
Maybe if we were all happy with our food choices, we would be less sensitive to peoples analysis of them!
What does it matter? Because it's factually incorrect. If you're trying to argue that walking around spewing factually incorrect things is totally fine, then I honestly don't know how to respond to you. Clean is a concrete term and has a definition: "free from dirt, marks, or stains". If you refer to a type of eating as clean eating, that would mean that you only eat food that isn't dirty, has marks, or is stained. I'm all for that type of eating and I do it every day.
The problem with labeling foods as clean and dirty is, first it's just factually inaccurate. Second, when you label foods as dirty, by extension how can you not look down upon, or feel a false sense of pity for people willing to eat the food you've labeled as dirty? I don't see how you can't, and I've seen examples of that countless times with the attitude of superiority from clean eaters. I've even had a clean eater ask me how I can eat certain foods and still respect myself and my body. It's unreal honestly.
But again, I don't think many people who label their diet "clean" label other diets or food "dirty". That is most often an extrapolation by those who don't like the term "clean eating".
Can something be not clean but also not dirty?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I researched the definition of clean...yea I know...I need a life. One definition of clean was...free from contaminants. Would that better fit "clean eating" say from "non-processed"?
See, this definition - free from contaminants - is more in line with what I've always known "clean eating" to mean. Processing wasn't so much a factor as additives. An apple is clean, even if you chop it and cook it. Even if you add natural sugar to it and cook it. But a can of cooked apples with added perservatives would not be clean. It's been "contaminated" by the additives.
While I don't consider additives to be contaminants (and thus am not a "clean eater" by that definition either), I do find that kind of definition/usage more sensible than the one that kind of means "healthy" according to some, kind of means "no processed foods" according to others.
It still wouldn't have a thing to do with losing weight, but I'd probably not feel compelled to respond if that's how it normally got used, as it would have a purpose for existing as a term.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Sure it can work, but the question is for how long? The more foods and food groups you cut out of your diet because they've been arbitrarily labeled "dirty", the more difficult it is to adhere to your diet. When you inevitably find yourself in a situation where you eat one of those foods again (a friend's party, sporting event, night out, etc.) and you have one bite of your now forbidden food, you're going to binge on that food, and that is extremely unhealthy, and can develop into an eating disorder. Some clean eaters go a month without binges, some can go 6 months or even a year without binges, but in the end they all binge, it's only a matter of when. Don't become an orthorexic, create a healthy, sustainable diet that focuses on hitting healthy calorie and macronutrient goals, and not demonizing food groups.
Why would I eat a food that I don't eat? Where are these parties where only one food is served, and who is forcing me to eat food at the party? Why would I go to a sporting event or eating establishment during a night out, and order something that I don't eat? I'm not a clean eater, but that makes no sense no matter how you eat.
Also, do you have any studies to support your claim that all people who eat clean inevitably binge, or is that just hyperbole or an anecdotal assertion?
If you've only cut out one specific food, yea maybe you can go your whole life without ever eating it again, but the more restrictive the diet, the harder it is to avoid the restricted foods indefinitely. Studies have shown that rigid diets are associated with eating disorder, mood disturbances, and excessive concern with body size/shape
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
I wouldn't necessarily characterize clean eating as rigid. Less convenient than eating convenience foods, sure, but not so much rigid. Your studies didn't define rigid eating but I found this:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8130552_Rigid_and_flexible_control_of_eating_behavior_in_a_college_population
You wouldn't characterize clean eating as an "all or nothing" approach? I don't think there is a less flexible form of dieting than clean eating, at least none that I've come across. There is a reason most nutritionists debate "Clean Eating vs. Flexible Dieting" as the two main forms of dieting on two ends of the spectrum. Clean eating is not flexible at all, it is extremely rigid.
This makes me think they are using a very different definition of clean eating than just the standard 'natural and un/minimally processed'. Because simply avoiding overly processed and synthetic foods still allows for a very flexible diet.
That depends highly on your definition of a processed food, which is itself subjective.
Yes, I have read some posts that claim to think picking an apple is processing. But my definition wouldn't matter, that used in the study would.
There was no definition given for processed food in either of the studies I linked. Are you referring to a different study?
Without definition of terms any article or study is extremely subjective and therefore mostly meaningless.
A study about rigid dieting is not meaningless just because there's no definition of a processed foods. The fact that people are cutting foods out of their diet in the first place makes the diet rigid, not what they are cutting out.
I disagree. Without definitions the study tells us little. Is cutting foods what is meant by "rigid"? Is it all that is meant? What foods? How many foods? Do calories remain the same, or is there also severe calorie restriction?
Without knowing what is meant by "rigid" the study is as meaningless as the phrase "clean eating" without a definition.
Fair enough, in return I'd ask you why you think it can be beneficial to completely cut certain foods out of your diet?
I never said I think that, but for some people I imagine it probably is beneficial. Allergies, obviously. But, it could also be beneficial to cut trigger foods (foods that you just can't seem to stop eating once you start) from your diet. Even if you do eventually cave and binge on them, it's got to be better than doing it on a regular basis.
And then there are foods that you might cut simply because you don't think they are worth the calories. I stopped eating fast food years ago. In the past couple of decades I've had fast food maybe 2-3 times when traveling and it was all that was available. I can't even remember the last time I ate it.
Limiting foods from your diet, and removing foods from your diet are two different things. I think that largely removing foods from a diet because one thinks they are unhealthy is an unhealthy attitude to have. I can definitely agree with you that something needs to be done about trigger foods, but attempting to completely remove them from your diet is the wrong move. That doesn't address the main issue, but I guess people deal with things in their own way.
If I understand your post...
If I choose to eliminate a food instead of moderating the consumption of that food that I must have other issues that need to be dealt with?
Why is it the wrong move to eliminate a food if I so choose to?
Why do you believe that everyone has to moderate every food?
To be honest...I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently. I didn't eliminate them because I passed some judgment that they were "unclean" or even "unhealthy". I eliminated them because quite honestly they didn't fit what I wanted as an eating plan...one that I believe will work for me long term.
According to your post though this surely must indicate that I have issues that need to be dealt with.
Long story short...
What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
So at the minimum there's a straw man fallacy in your argument, maybe even a non sequitur.
Apparently you don't understand my post.
I said that largely eliminating foods from your diet on a permanent basis is unhealthy. Temporary limiting foods can be a useful tool, especially while cutting on a small calorie intake. There are plenty of examples of foods that I severely limit in my diet but don't eliminate, and by severely limit, I mean I'll eat it once every two or three months because it's a delicious, large, calorie dense treat, but there's no need to completely eliminate it from my diet on a permanent basis for the rest of my life.
Why do I believe that everyone has to moderate every food? I never said that, you implied that, and that's a misrepresentation.
So there are foods that you believe will never fit in your eating plan again for the rest of your life? That sounds like a rigid eating plan, and sounds rather sad to be honest.What I got from your post was that those people that choose to moderate all foods are somehow superior to those that have eliminated some foods. Isn't this the same thing as what you are accusing "clean eaters" as doing...your diet is better than theirs?
Oh wait, there's one more! This is a false dichotomy. That's 3 logical fallacies in one post, that's pretty impressive. No that's not what I said at all, already explained it.
First line of my post...
If I understand your post...
A simple "no you didn't understand what I was saying" or "no that is not what I meant at all".
Next thing that I said in my post...
I have eliminated foods at least for now...maybe permanently.
Notice the bold...never said anything about believing that I would never fit them back in.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »But again, I don't think many people who label their diet "clean" label other diets or food "dirty". That is most often an extrapolation by those who don't like the term "clean eating".
So when the "clean eater" says, "I just don't want to put that "CRAP" in MY body!" I (the non "clean eater") am extrapolating the implication that, I do in fact want to put "CRAP" in MY body?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions