What is clean eating?

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

sullus wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Now here's a question. I like fries.
I buy frozen, noname brand, packaged fries in a bag with barcode and everything. -> Definitely processed food, no doubt about it.
They only have 2 ingredients though: potatoes and sunflower oil. -> Nothing you can't pronounce and not exceeding the magical 4 ingredients.

Clean or not?
I'd bet you a tenner if we asked 100 clean eaters without each knowing what the others said, the answers would be split almost 50/50.

I go with a similar example on Cape Cod potato chips and Fritos. Each is as close to nature as possible (washed, sliced/ground and cooked), has only 3 ingredients which can be pronounced (chips: Potatoes, sunflower oil, salt; Fritos: Corn, corn oil, salt)

They both meet nearly every definition proposed above (can't meet them all because some are contradictory)

Sure they both have an added chemical preservative (salt). But it seems like the clean eating people are cool with that one chemical preservative.

Fritos are pretty far from the natural state of corn.

Because they're ground?

Does that mean that corn tortillas aren't "clean"? What about polenta?

Or is it something else?

Yes, because they are ground. Technically, shucked, decobbed (or whatever you call removing the kernels from the cob) and ground. I don't see how tortillas any different, polenta maybe a little cleaner as a single food.

Would all ground foods be unclean or is this specific to corn?

I'm not overly comfortable with the term 'unclean' when it comes to food. I'm old school and never heard it described as anything other clean in varying degrees (clean, sort of clean, not clean, stuff like that). And there is plenty of room for argument even amongst those that share my definition as it's not a black and white type definition. Lots of gray.

But to me, no. Ground foods would not be clean. Those ground with the bran and germ included would cleaner than those with it removed. Those with it removed that are then bleached (e.g. white flour) are not clean.

That's part of the debate we're playing with here. Too many people look at clean/unclean as a binary decision. I agree with you that it's not; it is a continuum. Take Strawberries:

Wild strawberry picked and eaten in a field
Farm-raised strawberry picked and eaten in a field.
Farm-raised strawberry picked by machine, washed, and boxed for sale.
Farm-raised strawberry picked by machine, washed, sliced, frozen, and boxed for sale.
Farm-raised strawberry picked by machine, washed, sliced, mixed with a little sugar, frozen, and boxed for sale.
Farm raised strawberry processed into strawberry preserves ...

etc. (I got tired of typing)

janejellyroll wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

sullus wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Now here's a question. I like fries.
I buy frozen, noname brand, packaged fries in a bag with barcode and everything. -> Definitely processed food, no doubt about it.
They only have 2 ingredients though: potatoes and sunflower oil. -> Nothing you can't pronounce and not exceeding the magical 4 ingredients.

Clean or not?
I'd bet you a tenner if we asked 100 clean eaters without each knowing what the others said, the answers would be split almost 50/50.

I go with a similar example on Cape Cod potato chips and Fritos. Each is as close to nature as possible (washed, sliced/ground and cooked), has only 3 ingredients which can be pronounced (chips: Potatoes, sunflower oil, salt; Fritos: Corn, corn oil, salt)

They both meet nearly every definition proposed above (can't meet them all because some are contradictory)

Sure they both have an added chemical preservative (salt). But it seems like the clean eating people are cool with that one chemical preservative.

Fritos are pretty far from the natural state of corn.

Because they're ground?

Does that mean that corn tortillas aren't "clean"? What about polenta?

Or is it something else?

Yes, because they are ground. Technically, shucked, decobbed (or whatever you call removing the kernels from the cob) and ground. I don't see how tortillas any different, polenta maybe a little cleaner as a single food.

Would all ground foods be unclean or is this specific to corn?

I'm not overly comfortable with the term 'unclean' when it comes to food. I'm old school and never heard it described as anything other clean in varying degrees (clean, sort of clean, not clean, stuff like that). And there is plenty of room for argument even amongst those that share my definition as it's not a black and white type definition. Lots of gray.

But to me, no. Ground foods would not be clean. Those ground with the bran and germ included would cleaner than those with it removed. Those with it removed that are then bleached (e.g. white flour) are not clean.

I understand you're not comfortable with it, but if certain foods are clean, what would you call the rest? "Not clean" doesn't seem that different from "unclean."

But I don't want to get on a tangent with the "unclean" thing.

You would consider almond butter, ground beef (let's say it's grass-fed for good measure), coffee, pepper, and oat milk (made from ground oats) to be "not clean" foods?

I'd say there were fairly clean if the beef were raised without antibiotics, hormones and steroids. Not sure about oat milk since I'm not familiar with how that's made. Is it basically just oat broth?

eeejer wrote: »

clean eating = preparing everything you eat yourself, knowing every single ingredient in your food because you put it there. Nothing premade at all. You start with raw ingredients (preferably bought from local sources you know). It is pretty much a meaningless term, but this is my definition of it.

I like the intent of this idea but wouldn't that mean a meal you make would be clean for you but not for me, and vice versa?

There's no debate. It means whatever it means to the individual. Who cares what other people are doing or what they call their WOE? Maybe focus on what you are doing instead.

It's normal for humans to come up with descriptors of things and it's normal that different people will see it differently. Who cares?

What I don't understand at all here on MFP is how so many people will bash/ridicule others who choose less processed foods, and more whole foods. Somehow people who think the what they eat matters must be a threat to the "eat all the things, quality doesn't matter, it's only calories in and out" crowd.

Also, it goes the other way, if people are eating processed foods and reaching their goals, terrific, not my business. I don't think anyone should assume that one WOE or lifestyle works for all, no matter what works for you personally.

juggernaut1974 wrote: »

CollieFit wrote: »

I was surprised to see some of the things on the list such as food that comes in a box or has a bar code. I had some really nice supermarket bought fish the other day. It came in a box and had a barcode, but for me that did not make it any less fishy.

Yeah, my standard response to those is this:



Clean...or not clean?

To date, I've never gotten an answer from someone using that definition.

I don't use the definition re: boxes, bags or barcodes but I'd consider it clean. It if were grown without synthetic pesticides/fertilizers even better.

Akimajuktuq wrote: »

There's no debate. It means whatever it means to the individual. Who cares what other people are doing or what they call their WOE? Maybe focus on what you are doing instead.

It's normal for humans to come up with descriptors of things and it's normal that different people will see it differently. Who cares?

What I don't understand at all here on MFP is how so many people will bash/ridicule others who choose less processed foods, and more whole foods. Somehow people who think the what they eat matters must be a threat to the "eat all the things, quality doesn't matter, it's only calories in and out" crowd.

Also, it goes the other way, if people are eating processed foods and reaching their goals, terrific, not my business. I don't think anyone should assume that one WOE or lifestyle works for all, no matter what works for you personally.

For what it is worth, I have never seen anyone here (let alone a "crowd") argue that it doesn't matter what foods we eat. Let's try to keep strawmen to a minimum here.

janejellyroll wrote: »

juggernaut1974 wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

So what is clean eating? And is it a useful descriptor at all?

I love that of those who have responded so far in an attempt to once-and-for-all define clean eating...everyone (not surprisingly) has offered a different definition!

I suspect the individualization of the rules is one of the reasons why it may be such a popular term. People can give up the things they won't miss that much anyway and find a way to include the things they really don't want to live without.

And (I suspect) a way to feel morally superior to those who DON'T subscribe to their particular rules.

californiagirl2012 wrote: »

It's about the silliest word ever for food. We all know what healthy is. Just do it.

We all know what healthy is??? Have you ever read through these forums. I was shocked by how few people know what healthy eating is.

Ketzalitzli2 wrote: »

All I know is, I started eating better and cutting out processed foods and loading down on carbs about 2 weeks ago and started doing my workouts and then today I ate an asiago bagel with cream cheese and I feel like I'm about to die right now! So eating clean or not, no more bagels for me! haha

It's the mixing of asiago and cream cheeses. A deadly combination.

Bagels were meant to only hold one kind of cheese (ie cream cheese) at a time.

I'm sure there are benefits to the various methods and definitions of clean eating that people follow, but I just struggle to care. It's hard enough to follow calorie goals and macro goals and try to get more protein and fiber. Throw in clean, organic, or whatever else and it's just too many categories to pay attention to.