clean eating
Options
Replies
-
That poster doesn't need a reason. Their diet doesn't have to be justified and it's okay if you don't like their diet.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.
Exactly, you said "maybe permanently. There's no reason to ever permanently eliminate foods from your diet that you enjoy, sure you can severely limit them, but there's no reason to eliminate them. When you say "maybe permanently" that means there's a possibility that you will never fit them back in, so you did say that.
If someone wants to eliminate Oreos for now - or for life - that's okay!
Neither your blessing or your permission is required.
True, but eliminating something because you want to and eliminating something because you think you have to are 2 different things...
If they are trying to get into a calorie deficit they are doing it because they have to - whether that be cutting a food out of their diet or limiting the portion size of their favourite foods.
If they want to reduce calories they have to make sacrifices.
0 -
I'm sorry but that is so sad. Why not just have it once in a while if you enjoy it? Life is too short to forgo the things we enjoy. We just can't eat as much of them as we would like to...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No reason? Personal choice isn't good enough?
No reason to eliminate foods you enjoy. You would not eliminate a food you enjoy because of personal choice...
Yes I would. I enjoy cheesecake. I haven't had it in years, probably decades. It's so high calorie that when presented with the opportunity, I choose not to eat it. I mean, it's just food. It's not like I'm eliminating a friend from my life.
Maybe I will someday, maybe not. My life is quite happy without it so no need to feel sad for me.
But if ever I am about to pass out from hunger and cheesecake is all that is available, rest assured that I will eat the cheesecake.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »If they are trying to get into a calorie deficit they are doing it because they have to - whether that be cutting a food out of their diet or limiting the portion size of their favourite foods.
If they want to reduce calories they have to make sacrifices.
Absolutely true. But that is a temporary circumstance. I go through the same thing when I am cutting. Once I get down to my weight and no longer require the deficit I can go back to including my favorite foods again. We're talking about (if I am understanding correctly) permanently eliminating foods you love...
0 -
Agreed. I've seen many people say that they never learned about healthy eating or calorie counting in school. I don't know how they got through school without it because it's covered over and over again, but I believe them that they never learned it and think it's great to point it out for people who don't know.
That poster doesn't need a reason. Their diet doesn't have to be justified and it's okay if you don't like their diet.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.
Exactly, you said "maybe permanently. There's no reason to ever permanently eliminate foods from your diet that you enjoy, sure you can severely limit them, but there's no reason to eliminate them. When you say "maybe permanently" that means there's a possibility that you will never fit them back in, so you did say that.
If someone wants to eliminate Oreos for now - or for life - that's okay!
Neither your blessing or your permission is required.
True, but eliminating something because you want to and eliminating something because you think you have to are 2 different things...
It ends there, though. If someone wants to cut Twinkies or eat only Twinkies, that's their business.
0 -
Or the urine to avoid life threatening dehydration... Lol!Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'm sorry but that is so sad. Why not just have it once in a while if you enjoy it? Life is too short to forgo the things we enjoy. We just can't eat as much of them as we would like to...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No reason? Personal choice isn't good enough?
No reason to eliminate foods you enjoy. You would not eliminate a food you enjoy because of personal choice...
Yes I would. I enjoy cheesecake. I haven't had it in years, probably decades. It's so high calorie that when presented with the opportunity, I choose not to eat it. I mean, it's just food. It's not like I'm eliminating a friend from my life.
Maybe I will someday, maybe not. My life is quite happy without it so no need to feel sad for me.
But if ever I am about to pass out from hunger and cheesecake is all that is available, rest assured that I will eat the cheesecake.
0 -
Agreed...
Agreed. I've seen many people say that they never learned about healthy eating or calorie counting in school. I don't know how they got through school without it because it's covered over and over again, but it believe them that they never learned it and think it's great to point it out for people who don't know.
That poster doesn't need a reason. Their diet doesn't have to be justified and it's okay if you don't like their diet.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.
Exactly, you said "maybe permanently. There's no reason to ever permanently eliminate foods from your diet that you enjoy, sure you can severely limit them, but there's no reason to eliminate them. When you say "maybe permanently" that means there's a possibility that you will never fit them back in, so you did say that.
If someone wants to eliminate Oreos for now - or for life - that's okay!
Neither your blessing or your permission is required.
True, but eliminating something because you want to and eliminating something because you think you have to are 2 different things...
It ends there, though. If someone wants to cut Twinkies or eat only Twinkies, that's their business.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No reason? Personal choice isn't good enough?
No reason to eliminate foods you enjoy. You would not eliminate a food you enjoy because of personal choice...
Really?
When I drank beer...I enjoyed it. I haven't had one in probably 10 years. I don't miss it. I will probably not ever drink beer again.
I love Bloody Marys...haven't had one in almost 4 years. At some point I will probably have another...maybe...I don't know.
In the above two cases...it was a personal choice.
If you don't want to or can't eliminate foods that you enjoy then don't. That IMO is your personal choice and there isn't any need to. That doesn't mean that others can't make that personal choice.
0 -
I agree with many other posts that tree isn't really a clear definition of clean eating.. I would think the paleo diet would count for most people, but I don't recommend it at all!!
Personally I've had wonderful success with my 'clean' diet. To me, eating clean means you opt for the least processed option available in all food choices. Personally I try to make the bulk of my daily intake fruits, veggies, skinless chicken, fish, nuts, beans & dairy without additives.
Obviously trying to cut out ALL processed foods completely would be very difficult, so instead I try to choose the 'cleanest' option. If I'm craving something from the store that I know only comes readily in a processed form (pizza, ready made meals, desserts, etc.) I look for the option with the cleanest ingredients and I consume it in moderation!
I feel it the next day every time I cheat my clean eating... I feel more bloated, less energy...0 -
loeylovesyou wrote: »I agree with many other posts that tree isn't really a clear definition of clean eating.. I would think the paleo diet would count for most people, but I don't recommend it at all!!
Personally I've had wonderful success with my 'clean' diet. To me, eating clean means you opt for the least processed option available in all food choices. Personally I try to make the bulk of my daily intake fruits, veggies, skinless chicken, fish, nuts, beans & dairy without additives.
Obviously trying to cut out ALL processed foods completely would be very difficult, so instead I try to choose the 'cleanest' option. If I'm craving something from the store that I know only comes readily in a processed form (pizza, ready made meals, desserts, etc.) I look for the option with the cleanest ingredients and I consume it in moderation!
I feel it the next day every time I cheat my clean eating... I feel more bloated, less energy...
1/2 because you're up/down eating on your body. if you ate those things on a more regular basis, you'd feel fine when you ate then. 1/2 because you're doing it to yourself mentally. If you think you're going to feel bad, you are.0 -
Or the urine to avoid life threatening dehydration... Lol!Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'm sorry but that is so sad. Why not just have it once in a while if you enjoy it? Life is too short to forgo the things we enjoy. We just can't eat as much of them as we would like to...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No reason? Personal choice isn't good enough?
No reason to eliminate foods you enjoy. You would not eliminate a food you enjoy because of personal choice...
Yes I would. I enjoy cheesecake. I haven't had it in years, probably decades. It's so high calorie that when presented with the opportunity, I choose not to eat it. I mean, it's just food. It's not like I'm eliminating a friend from my life.
Maybe I will someday, maybe not. My life is quite happy without it so no need to feel sad for me.
But if ever I am about to pass out from hunger and cheesecake is all that is available, rest assured that I will eat the cheesecake.
Hey, if urine and cheesecake is all there is, I'm going for it. I'm a survivor.0 -
loeylovesyou wrote: »I agree with many other posts that tree isn't really a clear definition of clean eating.. I would think the paleo diet would count for most people, but I don't recommend it at all!!
Personally I've had wonderful success with my 'clean' diet. To me, eating clean means you opt for the least processed option available in all food choices. Personally I try to make the bulk of my daily intake fruits, veggies, skinless chicken, fish, nuts, beans & dairy without additives.
Obviously trying to cut out ALL processed foods completely would be very difficult, so instead I try to choose the 'cleanest' option. If I'm craving something from the store that I know only comes readily in a processed form (pizza, ready made meals, desserts, etc.) I look for the option with the cleanest ingredients and I consume it in moderation!
I feel it the next day every time I cheat my clean eating... I feel more bloated, less energy...
See, the processing thing is so arbitrary though. A chicken has to be plucked, butchered, skinned and deboned in order to fit your label of "not processed", yet that's a lot of processing. To me, what's more important is how was the chicken raised before it was processed and what has been added to the meat. Same with fish. Was it farmed, and if so, what methods were used. Were things like color or flavor enhancers added?
Same with veggies - are they GMO? What was added during the growing process or after harvest?
To me, these are the things that determine how clean it is more than if it was processed. Planting and harvest could be viewed as 'processing' if we want to be overly literal.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That poster doesn't need a reason. Their diet doesn't have to be justified and it's okay if you don't like their diet.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.
Exactly, you said "maybe permanently. There's no reason to ever permanently eliminate foods from your diet that you enjoy, sure you can severely limit them, but there's no reason to eliminate them. When you say "maybe permanently" that means there's a possibility that you will never fit them back in, so you did say that.
If someone wants to eliminate Oreos for now - or for life - that's okay!
Neither your blessing or your permission is required.
True, but eliminating something because you want to and eliminating something because you think you have to are 2 different things...
If they are trying to get into a calorie deficit they are doing it because they have to - whether that be cutting a food out of their diet or limiting the portion size of their favourite foods.
If they want to reduce calories they have to make sacrifices.
It goes beyond just during weight loss for some of us. I am 63...my maintenance calories will probably cap out between 1600-1800 calories most days. I have made some personal choices about food in order to stay within that range.
I thought about the foods that I was eating...where I needed to eliminate/moderate/replace...what I needed to include for health and based my personal choices off of that.
If I never have a White Castle frozen cheeseburger again...I just can't see letting that make me sad.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'm sorry but that is so sad. Why not just have it once in a while if you enjoy it? Life is too short to forgo the things we enjoy. We just can't eat as much of them as we would like to...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No reason? Personal choice isn't good enough?
No reason to eliminate foods you enjoy. You would not eliminate a food you enjoy because of personal choice...
Yes I would. I enjoy cheesecake. I haven't had it in years, probably decades. It's so high calorie that when presented with the opportunity, I choose not to eat it. I mean, it's just food. It's not like I'm eliminating a friend from my life.
Maybe I will someday, maybe not. My life is quite happy without it so no need to feel sad for me.
But if ever I am about to pass out from hunger and cheesecake is all that is available, rest assured that I will eat the cheesecake.
Agree...If I thought I was going to starve to death I would even eat that slimy boiled okra!
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Exactly, you said "maybe permanently. There's no reason to ever permanently eliminate foods from your diet that you enjoy, sure you can severely limit them, but there's no reason to eliminate them. When you say "maybe permanently" that means there's a possibility that you will never fit them back in, so you did say that.
No reason? Personal choice isn't good enough?
Did you not realize that we don't get personal choices? Simply because we choose to do or not do something is not a good enough reason.
0 -
loeylovesyou wrote: »To me, eating clean means you opt for the least processed option available in all food choices. Personally I try to make the bulk of my daily intake fruits, veggies, skinless chicken, fish, nuts, beans & dairy without additives.
Given the choice between chicken with skin and bones and skinless chicken, the chicken with the skin and bones is the less processed option.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »[See, the processing thing is so arbitrary though. A chicken has to be plucked, butchered, skinned and deboned in order to fit your label of "not processed", yet that's a lot of processing. To me, what's more important is how was the chicken raised before it was processed and what has been added to the meat. Same with fish. Was it farmed, and if so, what methods were used. Were things like color or flavor enhancers added?
As you know, I don't care for the "clean" term, but to me these are more significant things (in that they are things I actually do care about) vs. the "processing" thing.
I don't care about GMO, though, and eat organic only because I usually eat local and my source for local happens to be organic much of the time. (Not to start a discussion on these things, but just so it doesn't appear I was saying I was concerned about them.)0 -
I have seen many people state clean eating does not work. I'm just curious, how do you define clean eating? In your opinion, what is it's successes, or failures. What is it's opposite dirty eating?
As a former "clean eater" the only difference I felt eating like that compared to now is that my skin was clearer. Yup, that's all. Clean eating meant I didn't eat from the middle aisles of the grocery store. Everything was either fruit, veggies, meat (rarely anything red), carbs like potatoes, whole wheat bread, whole wheat pasta. No pop or other drinks with sugar in them. I did that for about 6 months and by that time it became exhausting. I always had to come home to make dinner. My boyfriend was getting irritated about it because he likes my cooking and the food I was making he didn't like as much. I don't blame him! We never went out for dates to eat because I was too restrictive. I ended up bingeing on treats and depleting those deficit calories anyways. It was too high maintenance for me.
I didn't start losing serious inches until I was closely watching my calorie intake and exercising. "LIGHTBULB!", It wasn't the type of food that was making me lose weight, it was the actual calories. Now I eat whatever fits into my calorie goal. I still eat fruits and veggies but I shop in the the middle aisles a little. I eat those processed rice sides if I don't have time to make something fresh, make a steak if I'm craving it. I eat those packets of tuna salad for work. I don't freak if I go over on my carbs or if I drink a can of pop every once in awhile. I'm much happier now and so is my boyfriend. I am losing inches every month, my skin looks well (not as nice as before but whatever), I have tons of energy...from losing extra body weight, not the food type. Now my boyfriend is on board and watches his portions because it is sustainable to him compared to eating food he hated. The best thing I got from this experience is learning to cook from scratch - I incorporate those skills into my new cooking style and make some bomb*** food!
Yummy food, healthy relationship with food, and losing weight is a win, win in my book. 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »[See, the processing thing is so arbitrary though. A chicken has to be plucked, butchered, skinned and deboned in order to fit your label of "not processed", yet that's a lot of processing. To me, what's more important is how was the chicken raised before it was processed and what has been added to the meat. Same with fish. Was it farmed, and if so, what methods were used. Were things like color or flavor enhancers added?
As you know, I don't care for the "clean" term, but to me these are more significant things (in that they are things I actually do care about) vs. the "processing" thing.
I don't care about GMO, though, and eat organic only because I usually eat local and my source for local happens to be organic much of the time. (Not to start a discussion on these things, but just so it doesn't appear I was saying I was concerned about them.)
I'm not even saying they are significant or that I care about them, just that it's what I've always known "clean eating" to mean. But my knowledge of the term goes back to the days of hippies and flower children and communes and community living and gardening.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »My impression is that some people use "eliminate" to mean "don't eat" even when it's less a hard and fast rule and more a matter of something just never fitting in or seeming like the most desirable choice.
For example, I have no hard and fast rules. I also used to occasionally get these quesadillas from a chain taco place near my office. I never get them anymore and probably won't again, because the nutrition/calories don't really fit what I want from a lunch currently and when I thought about it I realized that they really aren't that good. I used to waste calories in the dumbest ways sometimes.
That said, I haven't eliminated them, since if for some reason (although I doubt it will happen) I really crave one, I'll fit it in.
Much more likely I'll go to a really good Mexican place for dinner that week, however, and make the calories worth while (even if they end up being more).
In my mind...eliminating/excluding/don't eat a specific food because of personal choice is not the same as someone believing that they will fall over dead or explode if a donut passes their lips.
I eliminated foods made upon my personal goals. Those choices were thought out based on my specific goals. Also when I eliminated certain items I found a replacement that did fit. Example...instead of those White Castle cheese burgers I now make my own little sliders using ground turkey. Less than half the calories and many more nutrients.
Where I think that people run in to problems with eliminating foods are when those choices are made based on fear...listening to someone else...lack of research...lack of a plan.
I agree with your example of the Mexican food. When I use up my calories I want to make sure that I am lovin' what I eat.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »My impression is that some people use "eliminate" to mean "don't eat" even when it's less a hard and fast rule and more a matter of something just never fitting in or seeming like the most desirable choice.
For example, I have no hard and fast rules. I also used to occasionally get these quesadillas from a chain taco place near my office. I never get them anymore and probably won't again, because the nutrition/calories don't really fit what I want from a lunch currently and when I thought about it I realized that they really aren't that good. I used to waste calories in the dumbest ways sometimes.
That said, I haven't eliminated them, since if for some reason (although I doubt it will happen) I really crave one, I'll fit it in.
Much more likely I'll go to a really good Mexican place for dinner that week, however, and make the calories worth while (even if they end up being more).
In my mind...eliminating/excluding/don't eat a specific food because of personal choice is not the same as someone believing that they will fall over dead or explode if a donut passes their lips.
I eliminated foods made upon my personal goals. Those choices were thought out based on my specific goals. Also when I eliminated certain items I found a replacement that did fit. Example...instead of those White Castle cheese burgers I now make my own little sliders using ground turkey. Less than half the calories and many more nutrients.
Where I think that people run in to problems with eliminating foods are when those choices are made based on fear...listening to someone else...lack of research...lack of a plan.
I agree with your example of the Mexican food. When I use up my calories I want to make sure that I am lovin' what I eat.
I think we are saying the same thing and using different words to do so. This is actually one of the few times when I will say that I think something is just semantic and that the difference isn't significant. I don't eat plenty of foods since they don't fit in my goals and I'd just as soon have something else that fits better, but I don't think of that as having eliminated them.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions