The cleaner you eat, the less you enjoy processed flavours?!
Replies
-
This belongs in the new argument forum0
-
So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
When it comes to taste, of course preferences change based on what you are used to eating. Now, whether this can change in a short time, or if it matters how you grew up or not, I do not know. If you are used to good quality fruit/dairy/oil/meat/wine and so on, you will notice lower quality and imitations. I do not think it has to do with "clean" specifically.
Yes, I agree with this.0 -
So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
When it comes to taste, of course preferences change based on what you are used to eating. Now, whether this can change in a short time, or if it matters how you grew up or not, I do not know. If you are used to good quality fruit/dairy/oil/meat/wine and so on, you will notice lower quality and imitations. I do not think it has to do with "clean" specifically.
Oh dear I wonder if my very middle class upbringing is a factor here! Can I just clarify also, those challenging me on the term clean that I rephrased within 3 posts when I realised the gravity of my mistake of using one word.
Huh???
What does class have to do with this?
Sigh. The post above. You know what? Tongue in cheek or even mild humour is taken with nothing but offense and I'm not an argumentative person I like a humourus life, so I'm tapping out. Enjoy the thread x
I apologise, because honestly I thought it was one of those "I cannot eat healthy/clean/good" (insert whatever you want here) and can only eat "junk" because I cannot afford to arguments, which is something I have seen a lot.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
When it comes to taste, of course preferences change based on what you are used to eating. Now, whether this can change in a short time, or if it matters how you grew up or not, I do not know. If you are used to good quality fruit/dairy/oil/meat/wine and so on, you will notice lower quality and imitations. I do not think it has to do with "clean" specifically.
I think you are right.
What has to do with eating "clean"? Probably who starts to eat clean also improve the quality of their diet, because convenience foods are often just a low quality poor choice.
Not everyone trying to lose weight was eating the foods you are calling low-quality, though, or needs to "go clean" to start eating more whole and locally-sourced and higher-quality (as in better cuts of meat, better wine, many other possible subjective things to put here) foods. Lots of people who get fat love food and because they love food may have actually sought out really tasty and high quality foods already.
Which is also why I don't think that eating a better diet is going to lead to not liking well-prepared sweet foods, for example, if one liked sweet as a flavor to start with.
Could it highlight that some mass-market things tend to be too sweet or too salty? Sure. When I started homecooking most of my meals (years ago), I did get less tolerant of how salty and greasy some things are. I was already (from childhood, who knows why) kind of sensitive to some things being overly sweet, so didn't change much in that respect.0 -
So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
When it comes to taste, of course preferences change based on what you are used to eating. Now, whether this can change in a short time, or if it matters how you grew up or not, I do not know. If you are used to good quality fruit/dairy/oil/meat/wine and so on, you will notice lower quality and imitations. I do not think it has to do with "clean" specifically.
Oh dear I wonder if my very middle class upbringing is a factor here! Can I just clarify also, those challenging me on the term clean that I rephrased within 3 posts when I realised the gravity of my mistake of using one word.
Huh???
What does class have to do with this?
Someone stayed that people who have always eaten higher quality food and wine could identify lower quality by taste. Is plebs must wallow in our interior food choices.
I don't think higher quality food necessarily means fancy-shmancy and not available to the middle class. I had a really middle class upbringing, and yet we ate vegetables (poorly prepared and canned too often, but also fresh often enough, as both my parents grew up in part on farms and my maternal grandparents continued to have a small farm when I was a kid). I think the fact that I was required to eat vegetables and mostly did have what I'd call a typical midwestern middle class American homecooked meal of meat, potato or some other starch (we didn't have "pasta" back then, just spaghetti or macaroni or noodles), plus a vegetable helped form my tastes so I enjoy this kind of food. Lots and lots of posters, especially younger ones, claim not to like vegetables or not to enjoy basic food like this often enough that I do think there's something about palate formation that is relevant.
I also think that when more foods are available to you and you start experimenting with them that probably forms the palate too -- tolerance or enjoyment of spicier flavors or different spices and preparations and all that.
The mistake would be to claim that people who enjoy a broad range of foods (including the fancy-shmancy stuff) can't enjoy other sorts of indulgences. It seems to me (from reading lots of food writers) that the people with the most knowledge and exposure to foods are often the least picky and will enjoy pub food and diners and southern-style home cooking and whatever local specialties are (often not exactly health-conscious).0 -
ObsidianMist wrote: »I was actually just saying to my partner yesterday that the less junk I eat, the better it tastes when I do have it. not sure why. it makes it more like a treat though which helps with only eating it once in a while.
This is my reaction as well. Sweets tastes sweeter when not eaten often. So sweet they become cloying if I eat too much, but a little is SO deliciously decadent. Greasy fried foods still taste delicious but also so rich that it's hard to eat too much.0 -
So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
When it comes to taste, of course preferences change based on what you are used to eating. Now, whether this can change in a short time, or if it matters how you grew up or not, I do not know. If you are used to good quality fruit/dairy/oil/meat/wine and so on, you will notice lower quality and imitations. I do not think it has to do with "clean" specifically.
Oh dear I wonder if my very middle class upbringing is a factor here! Can I just clarify also, those challenging me on the term clean that I rephrased within 3 posts when I realised the gravity of my mistake of using one word.
Huh???
What does class have to do with this?
Sigh. The post above. You know what? Tongue in cheek or even mild humour is taken with nothing but offense and I'm not an argumentative person I like a humourus life, so I'm tapping out. Enjoy the thread x
I apologise, because honestly I thought it was one of those "I cannot eat healthy/clean/good" (insert whatever you want here) and can only eat "junk" because I cannot afford to arguments, which is something I have seen a lot.
I appreciate the apology
and I love that argument, i save sooo much money from NOT eating fast food! also, i'll cite that there may be a very large divide between 'middle class' in the UK and the meaning in the us, which I would have no clue on but that's fully off topic, I just would never intend to offend anyone! 0 -
^^^This should be a sticky!cwolfman13 wrote: »To an extent, I agree...but the problem with these conversations is evident right here in your post. You apparently consider animal products to be inherently unhealthy...I fully disagree...and while broccoli may have more protein per calorie, eating a bunch of broccoli isn't going to get me to 120 - 145 grams of protein per day...lean sourced protein from animal products IMO is a completely healthy and nutritionally valid part of a balanced diet.
There was another poster who mentioned gluten as "un-clean" and "bad"...in reality it's just a naturally occurring protein which most people don't actually have an issue with...but, marketing is marketing.
The other issue here is that when people say there aren't "bad" foods, they're generally suggesting that maybe people should look at their diets in the whole rather than isolating some food or one particular meal or whatever...they generally suggest that while there are no "bad" foods, there are most certainly "bad" diets. I will be first to shout from the mountain tops that people should be eating more whole, nutrient dense foods and that these foods should make up the majority of one's diet overall....but I'll also be the first to shout from the mountain tops that having my little coconut gelato after dinner a few nights per week is pretty irrelevant to the whole of my diet.
BRAVO!!!0 -
Firstly, this is wrong. Broccoli does not have more protein then steak in any reality. 1 gram of broccoli has 0.028 grams of protein and 1 gram of steak has 0.27 grams of protein...If you look at the nutritional content of 100 calories of broccoli compared to 100 calories of steak, it isn't even close. The broccoli even has more protein per calorie.
More importantly though, if you continue to look at food as an either or you will continue to get it wrong over and over again. Broccoli has nutrients that steak lacks such as Vitamin C and Vitamin A while steak has nutrients that broccoli lacks such as protein, Vitamin B-12, Iron and Vitamin B-6. When eaten together though, you get closer to a complete meal.
You have to look at the big picture and view the overall diet, not the individual components that make up the diet.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
Some of those items probably have "natural" strawberry flavor though -- my point is that the "artificiality" of the flavor probably isn't an issue (unless you're using in a different way than usual).
You may like strawberries, but dislike strawberry-flavored items (whether that flavor is natural or artificial).
I'll disagree.
I can tell the difference between naturally flavored and artificially flavored items for at least some flavors. Vanilla is a big one - I can distinguish real vanilla extract or vanilla bean paste from vanillin a mile away. So is orange. I actually prefer artificial orange flavoring to the mix or natural orange oils and extracts they use to flavor orange juice these days. I can definitely tell artificial marshmallow flavoring from real marshmallow even with real marshmallows present (Toll House hot cocoa cookies - couldn't eat them, the filling tasted too 'off' even with real marshmallows throughout)
I'm not talking about vanilla extract though -- I'm talking about ingredients like "natural flavor" that are vanilla flavored. I can also taste the difference between vanilla and vanillin.
I can distinguish those as 'not vanilla extract/paste' as well. In my head, I tend to lump those in with artificial flavorings even though the components are natural. I can distinguish between natural vanilla flavoring and vanillin, too. Vanillin is really far off of what it should taste like. Natural vanilla flavoring is still not right but less harsh tasting than vanillin and lacking the complexity of actual vanilla.
Basically, for some flavors I can tell the difference between a flavor made mainly from the actual thing, and a flavoring put together by humans to mimic the taste of that thing regardless of the naturalness or artificiality of the components. It doesn't say anything about which I prefer for a particular flavoring, though.
I think being able to distinguish between an actual ingredient and a flavoring is pretty common. I'm talking about what was mentioned above -- the ability to distinguish between a natural and an artificial flavor. That's what I'm skeptical about.
If someone told me they could distinguish between natural strawberry flavor (which was created in a lab and doesn't include any component of strawberries but is legally entitled to the natural designation) and artificial strawberry flavor (which was also created in a lab and doesn't include any component of strawberries but is legally obligated to be labelled "artificial"), I would be skeptical.
Setting aside oils and extracts and all that, I don't think the human palate can distinguish between a natural and an artificial flavor with any degree of reliability.
Why not? Two different flavorings with two different sets of components and almost guaranteed different flavor profiles. Both attempts to mimic something else. Some of the attempts taste similar enough that people can't tell the difference but I bet most would be easily distinguishable unless masked by other ingredients in the final product (yogurt or ice cream or whatever).
If you mean that most can't tell just by tasting an unknown flavoring whether it is made from natural or artificial components, then sure. It just tastes like a mimicry.
They don't have different sets of components. Many natural and artificial flavorings have the same components and they replicate the same flavor profiles. That's my point -- I do mean that most people (I would say probably virtually all people) cannot tell the difference between a natural and an artificial flavor by taste.
Yes, when you have an artificial flavoring that exactly replicates the natural one in every respect save the derivation source it would of course taste the same. Some do. Most don't.
Yeah, there may be a difference in flavors that are discernable. But humans can't tell something is artificial just by tasting it. That's my entire point -- I suspect you think I was saying something that I wasn't. Saying "artificial things don't taste good to me" doesn't really make sense. We cannot tell the natural from the artificial.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
Some of those items probably have "natural" strawberry flavor though -- my point is that the "artificiality" of the flavor probably isn't an issue (unless you're using in a different way than usual).
You may like strawberries, but dislike strawberry-flavored items (whether that flavor is natural or artificial).
I'll disagree.
I can tell the difference between naturally flavored and artificially flavored items for at least some flavors. Vanilla is a big one - I can distinguish real vanilla extract or vanilla bean paste from vanillin a mile away. So is orange. I actually prefer artificial orange flavoring to the mix or natural orange oils and extracts they use to flavor orange juice these days. I can definitely tell artificial marshmallow flavoring from real marshmallow even with real marshmallows present (Toll House hot cocoa cookies - couldn't eat them, the filling tasted too 'off' even with real marshmallows throughout)
I'm not talking about vanilla extract though -- I'm talking about ingredients like "natural flavor" that are vanilla flavored. I can also taste the difference between vanilla and vanillin.
I can distinguish those as 'not vanilla extract/paste' as well. In my head, I tend to lump those in with artificial flavorings even though the components are natural. I can distinguish between natural vanilla flavoring and vanillin, too. Vanillin is really far off of what it should taste like. Natural vanilla flavoring is still not right but less harsh tasting than vanillin and lacking the complexity of actual vanilla.
Basically, for some flavors I can tell the difference between a flavor made mainly from the actual thing, and a flavoring put together by humans to mimic the taste of that thing regardless of the naturalness or artificiality of the components. It doesn't say anything about which I prefer for a particular flavoring, though.
I think being able to distinguish between an actual ingredient and a flavoring is pretty common. I'm talking about what was mentioned above -- the ability to distinguish between a natural and an artificial flavor. That's what I'm skeptical about.
If someone told me they could distinguish between natural strawberry flavor (which was created in a lab and doesn't include any component of strawberries but is legally entitled to the natural designation) and artificial strawberry flavor (which was also created in a lab and doesn't include any component of strawberries but is legally obligated to be labelled "artificial"), I would be skeptical.
Setting aside oils and extracts and all that, I don't think the human palate can distinguish between a natural and an artificial flavor with any degree of reliability.
Oh, that's not what I was talking about - I meant real strawberries (or strawberry juice) which originated in a garden vs artificial strawberry flavor created in a lab.
I doubt any human could tell the difference between a natural flavor and an artificial one -- that's my entire point. Could a person tell a difference between a real strawberry and strawberry flavor -- many probably can. Saying "I don't like artificial flavors" doesn't make much sense. Saying "I prefer strawberries to strawberry flavoring" does. But it looks like the yogurt you prefer does contain flavoring of some type -- there is both "flavor" and "vanilla flavor" in it. And chances are that both of those were created in lab-type conditions.0 -
So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
When it comes to taste, of course preferences change based on what you are used to eating. Now, whether this can change in a short time, or if it matters how you grew up or not, I do not know. If you are used to good quality fruit/dairy/oil/meat/wine and so on, you will notice lower quality and imitations. I do not think it has to do with "clean" specifically.
Oh dear I wonder if my very middle class upbringing is a factor here! Can I just clarify also, those challenging me on the term clean that I rephrased within 3 posts when I realised the gravity of my mistake of using one word.
Huh???
What does class have to do with this?
Sigh. The post above. You know what? Tongue in cheek or even mild humour is taken with nothing but offense and I'm not an argumentative person I like a humourus life, so I'm tapping out. Enjoy the thread x
I apologise, because honestly I thought it was one of those "I cannot eat healthy/clean/good" (insert whatever you want here) and can only eat "junk" because I cannot afford to arguments, which is something I have seen a lot.
I appreciate the apology and I love that argument, i save sooo much money from NOT eating fast food! also, i'll cite that there may be a very large divide between 'middle class' in the UK and the meaning in the us, which I would have no clue on but that's fully off topic, I just would never intend to offend anyone!
If you are curious, here's a little something about the weird American understanding of the term (although I'd define my family when growing up as actually middle class even if you exclude the outliers): http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/why-americans-all-believe-they-are-middle-class/278240/0 -
^^^This should be a sticky!cwolfman13 wrote: »To an extent, I agree...but the problem with these conversations is evident right here in your post. You apparently consider animal products to be inherently unhealthy...I fully disagree...and while broccoli may have more protein per calorie, eating a bunch of broccoli isn't going to get me to 120 - 145 grams of protein per day...lean sourced protein from animal products IMO is a completely healthy and nutritionally valid part of a balanced diet.
There was another poster who mentioned gluten as "un-clean" and "bad"...in reality it's just a naturally occurring protein which most people don't actually have an issue with...but, marketing is marketing.
The other issue here is that when people say there aren't "bad" foods, they're generally suggesting that maybe people should look at their diets in the whole rather than isolating some food or one particular meal or whatever...they generally suggest that while there are no "bad" foods, there are most certainly "bad" diets. I will be first to shout from the mountain tops that people should be eating more whole, nutrient dense foods and that these foods should make up the majority of one's diet overall....but I'll also be the first to shout from the mountain tops that having my little coconut gelato after dinner a few nights per week is pretty irrelevant to the whole of my diet.
BRAVO!!!
Agreed. It's an excellent, well-explained post.0 -
Is it just me? The less processed foods I eat the less I enjoy them. Even down to my protein shake, the false strawberry just tasted horrible today! I guess it's good that I'd rather eat an omlette than a doughnut (same cals!) But it can be annoying when out with friends as it's hard to not look like a food snob in restaurants! !
Yes, if I eat "totally clean" (my own definition thereof), I notice the same thing, that my taste for natural tastes increased. The tastebuds do replace every two weeks, and you can train the newbies. For example, you can appreciate less intense sweetness, and therefore not like sodas or desserts as before.0 -
So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
When it comes to taste, of course preferences change based on what you are used to eating. Now, whether this can change in a short time, or if it matters how you grew up or not, I do not know. If you are used to good quality fruit/dairy/oil/meat/wine and so on, you will notice lower quality and imitations. I do not think it has to do with "clean" specifically.
This is pretty much what I think...I'm a total food snob...always have been...I like quality period, even with my "junk". It probably has a lot to do with how one grew up...I grew up eating mom's homemade chocolate chip cookies...Chips Ahoy tastes like *kitten* to me, just as an example.
When I was growing up, we didn't have a lot of money...my mom cooked almost everything from scratch ("junk" or otherwise) because it's cheaper than buying pre-packaged stuff...the one caveat here was Happy Days night where we'd all gather around the t.v. to watch the Fonz and eat weird frozen meals on t.v. trays...I don't recall caring much for the meals, but I still recall Happy Days nights with fondness.0 -
Rachel0778 wrote: »It depends on the food I think. I will always love doughnuts, but after years of scaling back I realized I don't actually like chips or crackers that much. My hypothesis is bringing more consciousness to your food choices make you truly realize what your food preferences are.
^ I have been eating slightly cleaner/healthier for a few weeks now and over this past weekend I went to make a sandwich and have some bbq chips with them (my 2nd fav, aside from Old Bay chips. nom nom nom). Well I went to take a bite of the chips and they were HORRIBLE. I could only taste cardboard and oil and was kinda sad about it.0 -
As your point about people eating "clean" and it being "bland" and missing out, is subjective. I'd consider eating a piece of steamed broccoli pretty bland, but throw some MSG and Velveta cheese........I don't feel I'm missing out.Mapalicious wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SmartAlec03211988 wrote: »For me personally... yes, when I abstain from processed junky stuff and go back to it, it tends to taste awful or not as good as I remember.
How do you define "processed junky stuff"?
A homemade strawberry-rhubarb pie?
It's quite subjective, I'd imagine. And if it helps people, then they should go for it, I think.
I don't eat mcDs, taco bell, burger king, arby's, and a host of other places because i find it gross tasting and gross smelling. I don't eat pop-tarts, I don't eat oreos or chips ahoy or those cheap crappy cookies. I don't eat doritos or cheesy poofs. I don't eat most cereal, flavored milk, soda. I don't eat soggy weird frozen dinners.
But I have 'processed' stuff all the time. But for me, those are some things that are on my personal list of "processed junky stuff" that I am happy to stay away from. Nothing scientific about it at all.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You've not read my comment the way I intended, moderator person. When I say "I think people who think that "clean" eating is "bland" eating are missing out" - this means that I think people who aren't all ripped and experienced like you, and are new to things, think that in order to eat 'clean' or better or more wholesome food that it HAS to be bland, which is not the case. I think that assumption steers people away from eating better, and it's important for folks to know, who are trying to lose 125 lbs like I did, that eating 'clean' or better can be very flavorful and delicious, if you want it to be.
I never said that people WHO eat bland in order to eat clean are missing out. No need to get defensive of your diet, I am sure you're doing great and are very experienced.0 -
Maybe it's simply not that useful to tell people they should "eat clean." After all, no one seems to know or agree on what that means. Eating better (and a healthful, nutrient-rich diet) is, of course, a worthy goal, and one that would seem less likely to be equated with bland food. I get why to some "eating clean" would mean plain, no sauces, no seasoning, food just for fuel.
My personal issue with "eating clean" is that processed foods come in a wide variety (as discussed upthread) and saying you should cut out processed foods really has nothing to do with nutrition.
Also, it seems to make it all or nothing: either you eat "clean" -- NO whatever it is you don't eat -- or you don't. But a good, healthful diet allows for some less nutrient dense foods you simply find pleasurable, too, and I even think allowing for that can make it more healthful, as being overly rigid about their diets can be bad for people (it was for me).0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
Some of those items probably have "natural" strawberry flavor though -- my point is that the "artificiality" of the flavor probably isn't an issue (unless you're using in a different way than usual).
You may like strawberries, but dislike strawberry-flavored items (whether that flavor is natural or artificial).
I'll disagree.
I can tell the difference between naturally flavored and artificially flavored items for at least some flavors. Vanilla is a big one - I can distinguish real vanilla extract or vanilla bean paste from vanillin a mile away. So is orange. I actually prefer artificial orange flavoring to the mix or natural orange oils and extracts they use to flavor orange juice these days. I can definitely tell artificial marshmallow flavoring from real marshmallow even with real marshmallows present (Toll House hot cocoa cookies - couldn't eat them, the filling tasted too 'off' even with real marshmallows throughout)
I'm not talking about vanilla extract though -- I'm talking about ingredients like "natural flavor" that are vanilla flavored. I can also taste the difference between vanilla and vanillin.
I can distinguish those as 'not vanilla extract/paste' as well. In my head, I tend to lump those in with artificial flavorings even though the components are natural. I can distinguish between natural vanilla flavoring and vanillin, too. Vanillin is really far off of what it should taste like. Natural vanilla flavoring is still not right but less harsh tasting than vanillin and lacking the complexity of actual vanilla.
Basically, for some flavors I can tell the difference between a flavor made mainly from the actual thing, and a flavoring put together by humans to mimic the taste of that thing regardless of the naturalness or artificiality of the components. It doesn't say anything about which I prefer for a particular flavoring, though.
I think being able to distinguish between an actual ingredient and a flavoring is pretty common. I'm talking about what was mentioned above -- the ability to distinguish between a natural and an artificial flavor. That's what I'm skeptical about.
If someone told me they could distinguish between natural strawberry flavor (which was created in a lab and doesn't include any component of strawberries but is legally entitled to the natural designation) and artificial strawberry flavor (which was also created in a lab and doesn't include any component of strawberries but is legally obligated to be labelled "artificial"), I would be skeptical.
Setting aside oils and extracts and all that, I don't think the human palate can distinguish between a natural and an artificial flavor with any degree of reliability.
Why not? Two different flavorings with two different sets of components and almost guaranteed different flavor profiles. Both attempts to mimic something else. Some of the attempts taste similar enough that people can't tell the difference but I bet most would be easily distinguishable unless masked by other ingredients in the final product (yogurt or ice cream or whatever).
If you mean that most can't tell just by tasting an unknown flavoring whether it is made from natural or artificial components, then sure. It just tastes like a mimicry.
They don't have different sets of components. Many natural and artificial flavorings have the same components and they replicate the same flavor profiles. That's my point -- I do mean that most people (I would say probably virtually all people) cannot tell the difference between a natural and an artificial flavor by taste.
Yes, when you have an artificial flavoring that exactly replicates the natural one in every respect save the derivation source it would of course taste the same. Some do. Most don't.
Yeah, there may be a difference in flavors that are discernable. But humans can't tell something is artificial just by tasting it. That's my entire point -- I suspect you think I was saying something that I wasn't. Saying "artificial things don't taste good to me" doesn't really make sense. We cannot tell the natural from the artificial.
But vanillin is artificial vanilla and you (and I) can tell the difference.0 -
I may still love doughnuts and pizza, and enjoy them from time to time. But the truth is that when I eat lots of fruit and vegetables, some lean protein and moderate "other" carbs (bread, rice, pasta) I feel so much better and have so much more energy. Thanks for posting this. I think I know what you mean by "clean"!0
-
OP clarified what she meant in the third post or so.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Maybe it's simply not that useful to tell people they should "eat clean." After all, no one seems to know or agree on what that means. Eating better (and a healthful, nutrient-rich diet) is, of course, a worthy goal, and one that would seem less likely to be equated with bland food. I get why to some "eating clean" would mean plain, no sauces, no seasoning, food just for fuel.
My personal issue with "eating clean" is that processed foods come in a wide variety (as discussed upthread) and saying you should cut out processed foods really has nothing to do with nutrition.
Also, it seems to make it all or nothing: either you eat "clean" -- NO whatever it is you don't eat -- or you don't. But a good, healthful diet allows for some less nutrient dense foods you simply find pleasurable, too, and I even think allowing for that can make it more healthful, as being overly rigid about their diets can be bad for people (it was for me).
I think this is a big issue in labeling one's self in general. You attach this label to yourself and then you can't live up to it...so you're a failure...or you just call it "cheating" or whatever because you're doing something so shameful and wrong...0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
Some of those items probably have "natural" strawberry flavor though -- my point is that the "artificiality" of the flavor probably isn't an issue (unless you're using in a different way than usual).
You may like strawberries, but dislike strawberry-flavored items (whether that flavor is natural or artificial).
I'll disagree.
I can tell the difference between naturally flavored and artificially flavored items for at least some flavors. Vanilla is a big one - I can distinguish real vanilla extract or vanilla bean paste from vanillin a mile away. So is orange. I actually prefer artificial orange flavoring to the mix or natural orange oils and extracts they use to flavor orange juice these days. I can definitely tell artificial marshmallow flavoring from real marshmallow even with real marshmallows present (Toll House hot cocoa cookies - couldn't eat them, the filling tasted too 'off' even with real marshmallows throughout)
I'm not talking about vanilla extract though -- I'm talking about ingredients like "natural flavor" that are vanilla flavored. I can also taste the difference between vanilla and vanillin.
I can distinguish those as 'not vanilla extract/paste' as well. In my head, I tend to lump those in with artificial flavorings even though the components are natural. I can distinguish between natural vanilla flavoring and vanillin, too. Vanillin is really far off of what it should taste like. Natural vanilla flavoring is still not right but less harsh tasting than vanillin and lacking the complexity of actual vanilla.
Basically, for some flavors I can tell the difference between a flavor made mainly from the actual thing, and a flavoring put together by humans to mimic the taste of that thing regardless of the naturalness or artificiality of the components. It doesn't say anything about which I prefer for a particular flavoring, though.
I think being able to distinguish between an actual ingredient and a flavoring is pretty common. I'm talking about what was mentioned above -- the ability to distinguish between a natural and an artificial flavor. That's what I'm skeptical about.
If someone told me they could distinguish between natural strawberry flavor (which was created in a lab and doesn't include any component of strawberries but is legally entitled to the natural designation) and artificial strawberry flavor (which was also created in a lab and doesn't include any component of strawberries but is legally obligated to be labelled "artificial"), I would be skeptical.
Setting aside oils and extracts and all that, I don't think the human palate can distinguish between a natural and an artificial flavor with any degree of reliability.
Why not? Two different flavorings with two different sets of components and almost guaranteed different flavor profiles. Both attempts to mimic something else. Some of the attempts taste similar enough that people can't tell the difference but I bet most would be easily distinguishable unless masked by other ingredients in the final product (yogurt or ice cream or whatever).
If you mean that most can't tell just by tasting an unknown flavoring whether it is made from natural or artificial components, then sure. It just tastes like a mimicry.
They don't have different sets of components. Many natural and artificial flavorings have the same components and they replicate the same flavor profiles. That's my point -- I do mean that most people (I would say probably virtually all people) cannot tell the difference between a natural and an artificial flavor by taste.
Yes, when you have an artificial flavoring that exactly replicates the natural one in every respect save the derivation source it would of course taste the same. Some do. Most don't.
Yeah, there may be a difference in flavors that are discernable. But humans can't tell something is artificial just by tasting it. That's my entire point -- I suspect you think I was saying something that I wasn't. Saying "artificial things don't taste good to me" doesn't really make sense. We cannot tell the natural from the artificial.
But vanillin is artificial vanilla and you (and I) can tell the difference.
Sure, it has a specific taste. There are specific flavors I don't care for either (banana flavor is a main one, but the taste of regular bananas is fine to me). We are tasting something we don't like. We are not discerning the difference between a natural flavor and an artificial one. We just aren't capable, as humans, of tasting a natural flavor (creating in a lab from various compounds) and an artificial flavor (also created in a lab from various compounds) and telling the difference.
That doesn't mean that all flavors are going to taste good to people or that some flavors won't taste "fake." But again, we are responding to a specific taste -- we are not somehow discerning that it is an artificial flavor instead of a natural flavor.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Maybe it's simply not that useful to tell people they should "eat clean." After all, no one seems to know or agree on what that means. Eating better (and a healthful, nutrient-rich diet) is, of course, a worthy goal, and one that would seem less likely to be equated with bland food. I get why to some "eating clean" would mean plain, no sauces, no seasoning, food just for fuel.
My personal issue with "eating clean" is that processed foods come in a wide variety (as discussed upthread) and saying you should cut out processed foods really has nothing to do with nutrition.
Also, it seems to make it all or nothing: either you eat "clean" -- NO whatever it is you don't eat -- or you don't. But a good, healthful diet allows for some less nutrient dense foods you simply find pleasurable, too, and I even think allowing for that can make it more healthful, as being overly rigid about their diets can be bad for people (it was for me).
What about eating clean seems to make it all or nothing more than any other way of eating? How is eating clean with bits of processed food any different than a low carber having a high carb day, or a follower of IIFYM being off on macros one day or week? What is so special about eating clean that makes you think differently of it?0 -
This is what I have gone through countless times. Only in the past few years have I come to terms with the notion that food is just food...cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Maybe it's simply not that useful to tell people they should "eat clean." After all, no one seems to know or agree on what that means. Eating better (and a healthful, nutrient-rich diet) is, of course, a worthy goal, and one that would seem less likely to be equated with bland food. I get why to some "eating clean" would mean plain, no sauces, no seasoning, food just for fuel.
My personal issue with "eating clean" is that processed foods come in a wide variety (as discussed upthread) and saying you should cut out processed foods really has nothing to do with nutrition.
Also, it seems to make it all or nothing: either you eat "clean" -- NO whatever it is you don't eat -- or you don't. But a good, healthful diet allows for some less nutrient dense foods you simply find pleasurable, too, and I even think allowing for that can make it more healthful, as being overly rigid about their diets can be bad for people (it was for me).
I think this is a big issue in labeling one's self in general. You attach this label to yourself and then you can't live up to it...so you're a failure...or you just call it "cheating" or whatever because you're doing something so shameful and wrong...
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »There are specific flavors I don't care for either (banana flavor is a main one, but the taste of regular bananas is fine to me).
Yes. As much as I love watermelon and as much as I would love to love sugar free artificially flavored watermelon gum - artificial watermelon flavoring tastes awful to me
When I was a kid, watermelon bubble gum was one of my ultimate favorites. My mom was pretty restrictive with candy, so it was always a big deal when we would go on road trips and she would buy gum for us. It tasted so good to me. Then I didn't chew it for years and years . . . tried a piece a couple of years ago. I had to spit it out almost right away. It tasted so disgusting to me!0 -
Probably because the definition can be so ambiguous...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Maybe it's simply not that useful to tell people they should "eat clean." After all, no one seems to know or agree on what that means. Eating better (and a healthful, nutrient-rich diet) is, of course, a worthy goal, and one that would seem less likely to be equated with bland food. I get why to some "eating clean" would mean plain, no sauces, no seasoning, food just for fuel.
My personal issue with "eating clean" is that processed foods come in a wide variety (as discussed upthread) and saying you should cut out processed foods really has nothing to do with nutrition.
Also, it seems to make it all or nothing: either you eat "clean" -- NO whatever it is you don't eat -- or you don't. But a good, healthful diet allows for some less nutrient dense foods you simply find pleasurable, too, and I even think allowing for that can make it more healthful, as being overly rigid about their diets can be bad for people (it was for me).
What about eating clean seems to make it all or nothing more than any other way of eating? How is eating clean with bits of processed food any different than a low carber having a high carb day, or a follower of IIFYM being off on macros one day or week? What is so special about eating clean that makes you think differently of it?
0 -
Probably because the definition can be so ambiguous...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Maybe it's simply not that useful to tell people they should "eat clean." After all, no one seems to know or agree on what that means. Eating better (and a healthful, nutrient-rich diet) is, of course, a worthy goal, and one that would seem less likely to be equated with bland food. I get why to some "eating clean" would mean plain, no sauces, no seasoning, food just for fuel.
My personal issue with "eating clean" is that processed foods come in a wide variety (as discussed upthread) and saying you should cut out processed foods really has nothing to do with nutrition.
Also, it seems to make it all or nothing: either you eat "clean" -- NO whatever it is you don't eat -- or you don't. But a good, healthful diet allows for some less nutrient dense foods you simply find pleasurable, too, and I even think allowing for that can make it more healthful, as being overly rigid about their diets can be bad for people (it was for me).
What about eating clean seems to make it all or nothing more than any other way of eating? How is eating clean with bits of processed food any different than a low carber having a high carb day, or a follower of IIFYM being off on macros one day or week? What is so special about eating clean that makes you think differently of it?
How would that make it an all or nothing way of eating?0 -
Because every time it's been explained to me it's been about eliminating foods (the unclean ones, of course, however the person defines what is not clean). Usually "no processed foods" (although invariably the person does, in fact, eat lots of processed foods that somehow don't count as processed). In fact, I've been in lots and lots of debates where people (including me) said "what's wrong with just eating some lower nutrient/higher cal foods in the context of a healthful diet in moderation?" and rather than being told "exactly! that's what eating "clean" is!" I've been told that that's not as good and people who don't eat clean just don't care about our health.
As additional support for my view, just look at the list that Dianne collected (my emphasis added):Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store. (The frozen veg are on the inside in mine.)
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's. (Dried pasta is in a box, among many other things.)
No take-out or junk food at all. (So even if I know my local Italian, Indian, or Persian place cooks from scratch with good ingredients and in a reasonably diet-friendly way (this is certainly true for my favorite order from the Persian place), it's not "clean".)
Nothing at all with a barcode. (So much for eggs and meat from the grocery store, as well as even some fruits and veg.)
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial. (Sorry milk and eggs.)
Don't eat foods that have a mascot. (Sorry raisins -- however, I might comply with this one, not sure, since I don't really like raisins.)
If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
Eat "food" and not "food-like substances." (This calls for more explanation.)
No added sugar. (Not the WHO's recommendation of less than 5%, note. It has to be NO, none at all.)
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown. (Don't even get this one. Weird.)
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
A plant-based whole food diet.
Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food. (Finally one that is not completely all or nothing!)
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation. (this one seems sensible enough, so long as the person doesn't also insist that grains inherently do, for everyone)
Bored of this now, so will just list the others.No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
Eat a plant based diet consisting of whole plant foods.
No bad carbs and processed foods.
Anything that makes a better choice.
Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.
Beyond this, as I understand the "clean" idea, it's that one should strive not to eat any of the "bad" foods. And if you do, that's a failure, although it's also expected that no one will be perfect.
As I see it, based on my understanding of nutrition, there should be no need to try to be perfect or to think it would be ideal not to eat any of whatever is excluded (let's say "processed" or "foods with additives" or low nutrient/high cal foods"). I don't think setting a goal of none for most of this stuff is demanded by any nutritional consideration,* and yet I don't see any other meaningful difference between how someone who "eats clean" eats, in practice, and someone else who focuses on eating a nutrient-rich, balanced, healthful diet, but accepts that it's not less healthful just because it includes something like ice cream or, I dunno, a craft beer, in a reasonable amount given overall calories and goals and the rest of what one eats.
*And indeed where I think it is, I'd personally try to eat none, as with transfats. Not claim to "eat clean" and then eat 20% other things. That always strikes me as dishonest.0 -
I don't think it is. I'm not sure what it is. Just answering your question. Well, trying to at least...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Probably because the definition can be so ambiguous...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Maybe it's simply not that useful to tell people they should "eat clean." After all, no one seems to know or agree on what that means. Eating better (and a healthful, nutrient-rich diet) is, of course, a worthy goal, and one that would seem less likely to be equated with bland food. I get why to some "eating clean" would mean plain, no sauces, no seasoning, food just for fuel.
My personal issue with "eating clean" is that processed foods come in a wide variety (as discussed upthread) and saying you should cut out processed foods really has nothing to do with nutrition.
Also, it seems to make it all or nothing: either you eat "clean" -- NO whatever it is you don't eat -- or you don't. But a good, healthful diet allows for some less nutrient dense foods you simply find pleasurable, too, and I even think allowing for that can make it more healthful, as being overly rigid about their diets can be bad for people (it was for me).
What about eating clean seems to make it all or nothing more than any other way of eating? How is eating clean with bits of processed food any different than a low carber having a high carb day, or a follower of IIFYM being off on macros one day or week? What is so special about eating clean that makes you think differently of it?
How would that make it an all or nothing way of eating?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions