Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What is clean eating?
Replies
-
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
You're the one claiming there is a distinction, that one is less desirable than the other. I'm not sure why that is and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
You're speaking out against the "tampering mentality." But that mentality has already shaped the pickle you have said is more desirable.
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
What is my definition of a clean car? One that has all of my kids’ crap and empty water bottle, coffee cups, and protein bar wrappers removed. My neighbor spends an hour a week waxing and detailing his car, you could eat off of the floor mats. So he probably thinks my definition of clean cars sucks. Oh well, standards vary.
What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
Why is it wrong that the food should have a coloring that attracts the eye if the color came from a lab, but not if it came from nature? At least, I'd assume most people evaluate the color and appearance of their natural food, which in turn reflects chemical composition, often times ones that don't reflect a nutritional component.
My dad cans pickles - he grows cucumbers in his garden, picks them, cuts them up, puts them in jars, boils the pickling brine (vinegar, water, and salt), dumps it in the jar, and seals it. I don't think it ever occurred to me to say, "these are good Dad, but just not yellow enough, could you dump some food coloring in?" Lol, that is just that industrial tampering mentality that doesn't appeal to me, things are what color they are, and I can live with that.
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
One of them is far more intrusive to the course of nature than the other. And it's not adding a few drops of food coloring.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.
This sounds a lot like "I've made a claim that I've assumed to be true (food having a certain color by breeding is inherently better than color added by chemistry) that I can't be bothered to back up, so I'm going to invert the burden of proof".
For a person that seems to insist their food choice is based on some kind of rational process over preference, I see a lack of rational, empirical evidence for it.
I’m working on gathering the empirical evidence of why I like naturally colored food over artificially colored food. At the same time I’m also gathering empirical evidence on why I like real blue eyes over blue-colored contact lenses, real boobs over stuffed bras, and the appearance of Michael Jackson in 1978 over Michael Jackson in 1998. Stay tuned.
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
^^^^^This!!!!janejellyroll wrote: »Clean eating seems more like a religion than a coherent way to choose food.
A very vague religion with no real doctrine.
You make up the doctrine as you go along, you know, you wing it...
0 -
@Need2Exerc1se You said somewhere upthread that you don't call yourself a clean eater, correct? You just try to eat as clean as possible?
Well no, not really. I have no doubt I could easily eat cleaner than I do. I would say I eat "mostly clean".
We live on a farm, grow a lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat, we raise chickens and hunt. Probably about half of our food comes from our land, and about another 20% is clean purchased the food. The rest I either don't know or wouldn't consider clean.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No, I don't believe it is. I assume it's the same or similar to table salt, which is a processed product. I doubt much if any salt in our food is in it's natural state.
Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.purelytreats.com.au/products/chocolate-chip-cookie
Purely Treats COCONUT & CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE MIX
paleo | gluten free | grain free | natural sugar only | dairy free | soy free | nut free
Made with organic Himalayan rock salt.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No, I don't believe it is. I assume it's the same or similar to table salt, which is a processed product. I doubt much if any salt in our food is in it's natural state.
Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.purelytreats.com.au/products/chocolate-chip-cookie
Purely Treats COCONUT & CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE MIX
paleo | gluten free | grain free | natural sugar only | dairy free | soy free | nut free
Made with organic Himalayan rock salt.
I have no idea if it's "cleaner," but I like the taste of the Himalayan rock salt. It's pink too (at least mine is), and very pretty!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »No, I don't believe it is. I assume it's the same or similar to table salt, which is a processed product. I doubt much if any salt in our food is in it's natural state.
Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.purelytreats.com.au/products/chocolate-chip-cookie
Purely Treats COCONUT & CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE MIX
paleo | gluten free | grain free | natural sugar only | dairy free | soy free | nut free
Made with organic Himalayan rock salt.
Not sure when I asked for that, but thanks I guess. How many people eat these do you suppose?0 -
See, it's stuff like salt that makes me go cross-eyed. Crystallized table salt is about a pure a product as one can conceive. It's NaCl for goodness' sake. Two elements! In my mind, as squeaky clean as one can imagine.
The elements form themselves in neat little ranks, which is why our teeny tiny little salt crystals are square. And pure white.
BUT you talk to people who look askance at the great agro-industrial food complex, and this salt isn't natural enough! But NOOO, let's dig pink rock salt out of an environmentally sensitive alpine environment, with all it's associated contamination, and call that clean.
2 -
@Need2Exerc1se as it seems you are depending on your natural common sense to guide you, I imagine you have not tracked any of your absolutist statements (or circular reasoning) "I doubt much if any salt in our food is in it's natural state." Here you go, Himalayan Pink Rock Salt. Now appearing in products everywhere. Because natural. Therefore clean. By some definitions.1
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se You said somewhere upthread that you don't call yourself a clean eater, correct? You just try to eat as clean as possible?
Well no, not really. I have no doubt I could easily eat cleaner than I do. I would say I eat "mostly clean".
We live on a farm, grow a lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat, we raise chickens and hunt. Probably about half of our food comes from our land, and about another 20% is clean purchased the food. The rest I either don't know or wouldn't consider clean.
Fair enough. I think it's been said more than once in this thread that no one eats 100% clean (whatever definition they're using). Okay, so based on my reading of this thread, this is your definition of clean (please do correct me):
The cleanness of a food depends on how close it is to its natural state. You would not describe a food as unclean but rather in degrees of clean/less clean/not clean. For example, a piece of meat butchered from an animal you hunted would be considered clean. That same meat being ground and mixed with spices and piped into a casing would be less clean.
If salt is less clean to you as well, does industrial human intervention then also play a role in how natural something is?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I just can't fathom how you are drawing your lines. Giant corporation growing bananas and picking them early to ripen on the truck while taking them all over (to places they would never grow) = natural. Eating foods not available where you live without industrialization = natural. Canning or freezing vegetables (if a big company) so they are available out of season = unnatural. Canning them yourself = natural. Grinding up corn or flour or selling dried pasta = unnatural. Smoking salmon or making cheese = unnatural. Going to a restaurant and having a chef cook you food = unnatural? Raising cows to have their milk = natural. Raising cattle for their meat = natural, even if they are penned up and fed foods which aren't the best for them.
Ultimately, what's the point? You seem to be also saying that you aren't claiming that "natural" or "cleaner" = better. So why make the distinctions which really don't seem all that obvious?
Hmm, you seem to be confusing who said what. I never said canning or freezing vegetables was unnatural. I never said anything about smoked salmon or cheese or going to a restaurant or selling pasta or milk being natural.
I don't see how who grows the food or how it gets to your table affects how natural an ingredient is. Diet can affect how natural meat is according to how natural the food is, not by who provides the food. Natural is affected by things like additives and processes that change the ingredient.
These are my general thoughts which allow for much interpretation and waffling on my part. Sorry you are having a hard time understanding.
Well, you ignored the key point of my post: Ultimately, what's the point? You seem to be also saying that you aren't claiming that "natural" or "cleaner" = better. So why make the distinctions which really don't seem all that obvious?
And yes, I don't understand the distinctions you are making (ground beef = unclean?). Any food is changed in cooking and incorporating in a recipe, so why is grinding = unnatural but chopping up and cooking not? Why wouldn't almond milk (which I can make easily) be natural? Why is adding salt to food natural if it's sea salt or some such, but not kosher salt? And again, why is it "natural" to eat a food out of season or to domesticate animals or to cart it about, but not to cut it up really small?
Does any of this make a bit of difference other than over what gets the term "clean" applied to it in your definition (which seems quite a bit different than other definitions)?0 -
Do you give the chickens a head start before you hunt them? That would be cleaner.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We live on a farm, grow a lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat, we raise chickens and hunt.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se You said somewhere upthread that you don't call yourself a clean eater, correct? You just try to eat as clean as possible?
Well no, not really. I have no doubt I could easily eat cleaner than I do. I would say I eat "mostly clean".
We live on a farm, grow a lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat, we raise chickens and hunt. Probably about half of our food comes from our land, and about another 20% is clean purchased the food. The rest I either don't know or wouldn't consider clean.
Fair enough. I think it's been said more than once in this thread that no one eats 100% clean (whatever definition they're using). Okay, so based on my reading of this thread, this is your definition of clean (please do correct me):
The cleanness of a food depends on how close it is to its natural state. You would not describe a food as unclean but rather in degrees of clean/less clean/not clean. For example, a piece of meat butchered from an animal you hunted would be considered clean. That same meat being ground and mixed with spices and piped into a casing would be less clean.
If salt is less clean to you as well, does industrial human intervention then also play a role in how natural something is?
Yes, that's pretty much it, though I think it is the curing of sausage rather than the spices that makes it less clean.
To the last question it could. I would evaluate each food individually.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »My biggest pet peeve is the request for "clean recipes." I don't see how normal recipes (I have tons of cookbooks, and really most of them not dessert themed, anyway) wouldn't pass most definitions of "clean." Sure, if someone's definition involves no flour, skip anything with flour. Thus, if you are asking for "clean" recipes I probably have some, but need to know the specifics.
Honestly, whenever I see someone asking for recipes (whether clean or not), I really just want to reply with lmgtfy.com. But then I'm kind of an *kitten*.
Not just recipes - that's my knee-jerk response to about 90% of the threads that get posted...:)
Yep. Exactly why I don't post very often.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »My biggest pet peeve is the request for "clean recipes." I don't see how normal recipes (I have tons of cookbooks, and really most of them not dessert themed, anyway) wouldn't pass most definitions of "clean." Sure, if someone's definition involves no flour, skip anything with flour. Thus, if you are asking for "clean" recipes I probably have some, but need to know the specifics.
Honestly, whenever I see someone asking for recipes (whether clean or not), I really just want to reply with lmgtfy.com. But then I'm kind of an *kitten*.
As for trying to encourage someone to define what their clean eating style is so that you know how to respond to their question/request, wouldn't it just be easier to let a self-professed clean eater respond to their discussion? Why even try to provide an answer when you know that everyone's definition of clean eating is different? I'm just wondering how efficacious it is to ask someone to define their version of clean eating. From what I've seen, the threads usually seem to devolve to a point where it's all about defining what "clean" is and whether it's a useful way to eat rather than addressing the question/concern originally posted.
When I see posts asking for clean eating recipes I respond with recipes I'd consider clean and let them decide whether to try it or ignore it. I just assume they define it the same way I do.
See now, that's helpful. Sometimes it feels like many on MFP (no one in particular in my thoughts here
) are so caught up in being right/getting in the last word/trying to change people's opinions that actually providing an answer that is useful to the original post falls by the wayside (the recent "heating blueberries" thread comes to mind).
I don't see why that's more helpful than saying "I have lots of ideas for desserts that would seem to me to be 'clean' under some of the common usages or lower cal, if that's what you are really getting at -- if you clarify what you mean by clean, I'd love to share them?"
Or, as I've said over and over re the clean recipes: "I think most cookbooks are based on cooking from whole foods, if that's what you mean by clean, here are some ideas [then I give a list usually including the basic Bittman book as a beginner book, the Bittman Fish book if someone is interested in cooking fish, Barbara Kafka's Vegetable Love and Greene on Greens as a couple of good sources for vegetables, and whatever seasonal cookbook or two I happen to be thinking of]." I also usually link 101cookbooks as an excellent internet site for cooking based around fresh ingredients, vegetables, and legumes and the like, and perhaps mention epicurious as a good basic recipe site with a ton of recipes and the ability to put in your own preferences.
I don't ever argue about the term "clean eating" in those threads, but it's bizarre how often the OP refuses to explain what they mean by clean or act as if you must be a moron not to get it. (Kind of like the blueberry OP decided everyone but Yarwell was dumb not to see that her first post was 100% clear in every way.)
I never said Need2's response is more helpful than what you stated in your post. Asking someone to clarify exactly what they are looking for (particularly in a recipe request thread) only makes sense. What about a thread where people state they're looking for clean eaters to friend? IMO, it becomes less helpful there because the person is clearly a self-identified clean eater looking for others who self-identify that way.
I used to say "what do you mean by 'clean eating' -- I don't use that term or care for it, but I mostly cook from whole foods and care a lot about nutrition and have an open diary."
Now I don't, because I've been buying lunch too much, logging infrequently anyway, and have a ridiculous number of friends (and feel guilty about not spending more time on my feed).
I don't assume that people who are seeking out "clean eating friends" are really so shallow as to care primarily about the label (although sometimes it seems as they are, as in the group some seem really focused on talking about how others on the forums and don't care about nutrition vs. the virtuous clean eaters). I also don't assume they really want people who are 100% clean eating (whatever that means), since most of them are making a bigger transition than I did when I lowered my calories (or so it seems by the questions they ask) and also most eat lots of things I wouldn't think would fall within the meaning of clean that I tend to assume.And what about the threads where someone is looking for help because they've "plateaued" and someone comes in suggesting "clean eating?" Invariably, someone else comes in saying something along the lines of "'clean eating' isn't necessary" or "what do you mean by 'clean'" and the thread becomes a hotbed of what is/is not clean eating and whether it's a "good" way to eat and the original post is all but forgotten.
I think these are situations where it comes up, yes, but mostly because of the person insisting that "clean eating" is necessary to weight loss or better for it, which is something I think should be debunked. As I ask in those threads, why is eating cottage cheese hurting my ability to lose weight? (I never get an answer.)
I think OP typically gets a pretty good answer in those threads anyway, though, but one reason for this forum is now the derailer ("you should eat clean!") can be directed over here.As bizarre as it is that the OP's often can't/won't define clean eating, I find it just as bizarre that so often those threads do turn into an argument of semantics regarding clean eating. (The blueberry thread was bizarre in so many ways...)
I disagree that the examples you are talking about become arguments of semantics or that it's wrong to address a false claim such as "you must eat clean to lose weight."
The long semantic discussions I've seen tend to be threads like this one, where the OP actually started it to discuss the concept of eating clean (often to assert that clean eating is better or that CICO means eating horribly).Will debating the definition of clean eating here (where we should have debate), lead to clearer discussions in other parts of the forum?
Probably not, but debates can be directed here where appropriate and it is (IMO) somewhat interesting.
The discussion is better here, much as I disagree with Need2, since the people who assert it means "not eating ANY processed foods" and seem unable to understand that they do, in fact, eat processed foods aren't driving the discussion and whether or not certain kinds of industrialized foods with particular additives are worth avoiding or not, I think that's a clearer definition in some ways than the "no processing" stuff. I'm biased because I do prefer eating mostly from whole foods -- that's my own ideal -- but it's important to me to be honest that this is merely a preference, NOT healthier or the only way to have a nutrient-rich diet, and also to eschew the term "clean" which I think adds an unpleasant moral or purity judgment. So in that last sense I acknowledge it is in some respects a semantic discussion, but would also submit that that doesn't make it unimportant. People having messed up ideas about food can lead to self-sabotaging behavior and shame, among other things. It's been very important for me to try and force myself to think logically about food and when I have knee jerk ideas about something being bad to question myself as to why I think that.
@lemurcat12 I don't disagree with anything in your response. I agree that not all the threads related to clean eating and the various responses (on or off topic of the OP) are questions of semantics. I do believe that fewer responses related to defining clean eating will result in better quality responses to the OP though. In fact, if someone responds without even using the term, rather offering nutritionally sound responses that might even lower the number of countering responses from the "you must eat clean" crowd.
The problem with this is that it seems to assume that "clean" = "nutritionally sound," and I don't think that's how it's normally used. I think it's useful to point out that it's a buzz word with no real helpful meaning AND that being processed is not the opposite of "nutrient rich" (which is why I often bring up processed foods that most would acknowledge are helpful in a diet). I also think it should be done in a friendly way that offers help based on what you think the OP is getting at.
If someone says "can you eat clean without eating vegetables" (there have been multiple threads with that title) or "is canned chili clean," I think it does either open the door to the semantic discussion or suggest that the OP doesn't really have a coherent understanding of what "clean" means to her or why she is eating clean. And that's when I think it helps to point out that people use clean in lots of different ways, that it generally isn't connected to any weight loss or nutrition benefit, and if the interest is in eating a nutritionally-sound diet, here are some ideas (insert what I do, link to Harvard site or talk by Dr. Katz, etc.).0 -
@Need2Exerc1se as it seems you are depending on your natural common sense to guide you, I imagine you have not tracked any of your absolutist statements (or circular reasoning) "I doubt much if any salt in our food is in it's natural state." Here you go, Himalayan Pink Rock Salt. Now appearing in products everywhere. Because natural. Therefore clean. By some definitions.
Again, thanks. Next time I will omit the "if any".
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
^^^^^This!!!!janejellyroll wrote: »Clean eating seems more like a religion than a coherent way to choose food.
A very vague religion with no real doctrine.
Come worship and the dining table and be converted!!
To quote Stephen Dedalus: "What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?"
;-)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
^^^^^This!!!!janejellyroll wrote: »Clean eating seems more like a religion than a coherent way to choose food.
A very vague religion with no real doctrine.
Come worship and the dining table and be converted!!
To quote Stephen Dedalus: "What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?"
;-)
I'm not sure I'd equate conversion to liberation.0 -
In my venn diagram, the ethically clean eater would definitely have problems with transportation. There's distress for the animal in transit. And the carbon footprint of transporting foodstuffs so far from source.
http://www.ediblegeography.com/food-an-atlas/
http://www.safe.org.nz/articles/010310/new-zealand-poised-resume-live-export-trade0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
^^^^^This!!!!janejellyroll wrote: »Clean eating seems more like a religion than a coherent way to choose food.
A very vague religion with no real doctrine.
Come worship and the dining table and be converted!!
To quote Stephen Dedalus: "What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?"
;-)
I'm not sure I'd equate conversion to liberation.
Which fits the quote just fine, actually.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
^^^^^This!!!!janejellyroll wrote: »Clean eating seems more like a religion than a coherent way to choose food.
A very vague religion with no real doctrine.
Come worship and the dining table and be converted!!
To quote Stephen Dedalus: "What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?"
;-)
You . . . you just have quotes from "Ulysses" on-hand to drop into a conversation. You continue to impress.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
^^^^^This!!!!janejellyroll wrote: »Clean eating seems more like a religion than a coherent way to choose food.
A very vague religion with no real doctrine.
Come worship and the dining table and be converted!!
To quote Stephen Dedalus: "What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?"
;-)
You . . . you just have quotes from "Ulysses" on-hand to drop into a conversation. You continue to impress.
Portrait, actually. (I'll have to come up with one from Ulysses, though!)0 -
Well, there is this:
MR LEOPOLD BLOOM ATE WITH RELISH THE INNER ORGANS OF BEASTS and fowls. He liked thick giblet soup, nutty gizzards, a stuffed roast heart, liver slices fried with crustcrumbs, fried hencod's roes. Most of all he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I just can't fathom how you are drawing your lines. Giant corporation growing bananas and picking them early to ripen on the truck while taking them all over (to places they would never grow) = natural. Eating foods not available where you live without industrialization = natural. Canning or freezing vegetables (if a big company) so they are available out of season = unnatural. Canning them yourself = natural. Grinding up corn or flour or selling dried pasta = unnatural. Smoking salmon or making cheese = unnatural. Going to a restaurant and having a chef cook you food = unnatural? Raising cows to have their milk = natural. Raising cattle for their meat = natural, even if they are penned up and fed foods which aren't the best for them.
Ultimately, what's the point? You seem to be also saying that you aren't claiming that "natural" or "cleaner" = better. So why make the distinctions which really don't seem all that obvious?
Hmm, you seem to be confusing who said what. I never said canning or freezing vegetables was unnatural. I never said anything about smoked salmon or cheese or going to a restaurant or selling pasta or milk being natural.
I don't see how who grows the food or how it gets to your table affects how natural an ingredient is. Diet can affect how natural meat is according to how natural the food is, not by who provides the food. Natural is affected by things like additives and processes that change the ingredient.
These are my general thoughts which allow for much interpretation and waffling on my part. Sorry you are having a hard time understanding.
Well, you ignored the key point of my post: Ultimately, what's the point? You seem to be also saying that you aren't claiming that "natural" or "cleaner" = better. So why make the distinctions which really don't seem all that obvious?
And yes, I don't understand the distinctions you are making (ground beef = unclean?). Any food is changed in cooking and incorporating in a recipe, so why is grinding = unnatural but chopping up and cooking not? Why wouldn't almond milk (which I can make easily) be natural? Why is adding salt to food natural if it's sea salt or some such, but not kosher salt? And again, why is it "natural" to eat a food out of season or to domesticate animals or to cart it about, but not to cut it up really small?
Does any of this make a bit of difference other than over what gets the term "clean" applied to it in your definition (which seems quite a bit different than other definitions)?
I never said ground beef was unclean or not clean.
Why the distinction? Because it's what the term "eating clean" means to me and the OP asked.
Why keep asking for the term to be defined if you can't understand the definition? Mine seems very simple to me - think about the ingredients in a food and determine how close they are to the natural state of the ingredient. The closer it is the cleaner it is.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »My biggest pet peeve is the request for "clean recipes." I don't see how normal recipes (I have tons of cookbooks, and really most of them not dessert themed, anyway) wouldn't pass most definitions of "clean." Sure, if someone's definition involves no flour, skip anything with flour. Thus, if you are asking for "clean" recipes I probably have some, but need to know the specifics.
Honestly, whenever I see someone asking for recipes (whether clean or not), I really just want to reply with lmgtfy.com. But then I'm kind of an *kitten*.
Not just recipes - that's my knee-jerk response to about 90% of the threads that get posted...:)
Yep. Exactly why I don't post very often.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »My biggest pet peeve is the request for "clean recipes." I don't see how normal recipes (I have tons of cookbooks, and really most of them not dessert themed, anyway) wouldn't pass most definitions of "clean." Sure, if someone's definition involves no flour, skip anything with flour. Thus, if you are asking for "clean" recipes I probably have some, but need to know the specifics.
Honestly, whenever I see someone asking for recipes (whether clean or not), I really just want to reply with lmgtfy.com. But then I'm kind of an *kitten*.
As for trying to encourage someone to define what their clean eating style is so that you know how to respond to their question/request, wouldn't it just be easier to let a self-professed clean eater respond to their discussion? Why even try to provide an answer when you know that everyone's definition of clean eating is different? I'm just wondering how efficacious it is to ask someone to define their version of clean eating. From what I've seen, the threads usually seem to devolve to a point where it's all about defining what "clean" is and whether it's a useful way to eat rather than addressing the question/concern originally posted.
When I see posts asking for clean eating recipes I respond with recipes I'd consider clean and let them decide whether to try it or ignore it. I just assume they define it the same way I do.
See now, that's helpful. Sometimes it feels like many on MFP (no one in particular in my thoughts here ) are so caught up in being right/getting in the last word/trying to change people's opinions that actually providing an answer that is useful to the original post falls by the wayside (the recent "heating blueberries" thread comes to mind).
I don't see why that's more helpful than saying "I have lots of ideas for desserts that would seem to me to be 'clean' under some of the common usages or lower cal, if that's what you are really getting at -- if you clarify what you mean by clean, I'd love to share them?"
Or, as I've said over and over re the clean recipes: "I think most cookbooks are based on cooking from whole foods, if that's what you mean by clean, here are some ideas [then I give a list usually including the basic Bittman book as a beginner book, the Bittman Fish book if someone is interested in cooking fish, Barbara Kafka's Vegetable Love and Greene on Greens as a couple of good sources for vegetables, and whatever seasonal cookbook or two I happen to be thinking of]." I also usually link 101cookbooks as an excellent internet site for cooking based around fresh ingredients, vegetables, and legumes and the like, and perhaps mention epicurious as a good basic recipe site with a ton of recipes and the ability to put in your own preferences.
I don't ever argue about the term "clean eating" in those threads, but it's bizarre how often the OP refuses to explain what they mean by clean or act as if you must be a moron not to get it. (Kind of like the blueberry OP decided everyone but Yarwell was dumb not to see that her first post was 100% clear in every way.)
I never said Need2's response is more helpful than what you stated in your post. Asking someone to clarify exactly what they are looking for (particularly in a recipe request thread) only makes sense. What about a thread where people state they're looking for clean eaters to friend? IMO, it becomes less helpful there because the person is clearly a self-identified clean eater looking for others who self-identify that way.
I used to say "what do you mean by 'clean eating' -- I don't use that term or care for it, but I mostly cook from whole foods and care a lot about nutrition and have an open diary."
Now I don't, because I've been buying lunch too much, logging infrequently anyway, and have a ridiculous number of friends (and feel guilty about not spending more time on my feed).
I don't assume that people who are seeking out "clean eating friends" are really so shallow as to care primarily about the label (although sometimes it seems as they are, as in the group some seem really focused on talking about how others on the forums and don't care about nutrition vs. the virtuous clean eaters). I also don't assume they really want people who are 100% clean eating (whatever that means), since most of them are making a bigger transition than I did when I lowered my calories (or so it seems by the questions they ask) and also most eat lots of things I wouldn't think would fall within the meaning of clean that I tend to assume.And what about the threads where someone is looking for help because they've "plateaued" and someone comes in suggesting "clean eating?" Invariably, someone else comes in saying something along the lines of "'clean eating' isn't necessary" or "what do you mean by 'clean'" and the thread becomes a hotbed of what is/is not clean eating and whether it's a "good" way to eat and the original post is all but forgotten.
I think these are situations where it comes up, yes, but mostly because of the person insisting that "clean eating" is necessary to weight loss or better for it, which is something I think should be debunked. As I ask in those threads, why is eating cottage cheese hurting my ability to lose weight? (I never get an answer.)
I think OP typically gets a pretty good answer in those threads anyway, though, but one reason for this forum is now the derailer ("you should eat clean!") can be directed over here.As bizarre as it is that the OP's often can't/won't define clean eating, I find it just as bizarre that so often those threads do turn into an argument of semantics regarding clean eating. (The blueberry thread was bizarre in so many ways...)
I disagree that the examples you are talking about become arguments of semantics or that it's wrong to address a false claim such as "you must eat clean to lose weight."
The long semantic discussions I've seen tend to be threads like this one, where the OP actually started it to discuss the concept of eating clean (often to assert that clean eating is better or that CICO means eating horribly).Will debating the definition of clean eating here (where we should have debate), lead to clearer discussions in other parts of the forum?
Probably not, but debates can be directed here where appropriate and it is (IMO) somewhat interesting.
The discussion is better here, much as I disagree with Need2, since the people who assert it means "not eating ANY processed foods" and seem unable to understand that they do, in fact, eat processed foods aren't driving the discussion and whether or not certain kinds of industrialized foods with particular additives are worth avoiding or not, I think that's a clearer definition in some ways than the "no processing" stuff. I'm biased because I do prefer eating mostly from whole foods -- that's my own ideal -- but it's important to me to be honest that this is merely a preference, NOT healthier or the only way to have a nutrient-rich diet, and also to eschew the term "clean" which I think adds an unpleasant moral or purity judgment. So in that last sense I acknowledge it is in some respects a semantic discussion, but would also submit that that doesn't make it unimportant. People having messed up ideas about food can lead to self-sabotaging behavior and shame, among other things. It's been very important for me to try and force myself to think logically about food and when I have knee jerk ideas about something being bad to question myself as to why I think that.
@lemurcat12 I don't disagree with anything in your response. I agree that not all the threads related to clean eating and the various responses (on or off topic of the OP) are questions of semantics. I do believe that fewer responses related to defining clean eating will result in better quality responses to the OP though. In fact, if someone responds without even using the term, rather offering nutritionally sound responses that might even lower the number of countering responses from the "you must eat clean" crowd.
The problem with this is that it seems to assume that "clean" = "nutritionally sound," and I don't think that's how it's normally used. I think it's useful to point out that it's a buzz word with no real helpful meaning AND that being processed is not the opposite of "nutrient rich" (which is why I often bring up processed foods that most would acknowledge are helpful in a diet). I also think it should be done in a friendly way that offers help based on what you think the OP is getting at.
If someone says "can you eat clean without eating vegetables" (there have been multiple threads with that title) or "is canned chili clean," I think it does either open the door to the semantic discussion or suggest that the OP doesn't really have a coherent understanding of what "clean" means to her or why she is eating clean. And that's when I think it helps to point out that people use clean in lots of different ways, that it generally isn't connected to any weight loss or nutrition benefit, and if the interest is in eating a nutritionally-sound diet, here are some ideas (insert what I do, link to Harvard site or talk by Dr. Katz, etc.).
All good points. I'd still like to respond to anyone asking if some food item is "clean" as if they're asking whether something is nutritionally sound for them to eat (which of course depends on the context of their overall diet), because it seems that many times when someone is trying to eat "clean" what they really want is to increase the amount of nutrient-dense foods they eat. You always seem to respond well @lemurcat12 .
I just wish that everyone responded as well as you do to those types of threads. I've seen too many one-word/phrase responses like "CICO is all that matters." While yes, that is true, including additional more helpful information like you suggest is what will actually be helpful to the OP (and any lurkers sharing OP's questions). 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Well, there is this:
MR LEOPOLD BLOOM ATE WITH RELISH THE INNER ORGANS OF BEASTS and fowls. He liked thick giblet soup, nutty gizzards, a stuffed roast heart, liver slices fried with crustcrumbs, fried hencod's roes. Most of all he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine.
That meal sounds natural, but not very clean.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se You said somewhere upthread that you don't call yourself a clean eater, correct? You just try to eat as clean as possible?
Well no, not really. I have no doubt I could easily eat cleaner than I do. I would say I eat "mostly clean".
We live on a farm, grow a lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat, we raise chickens and hunt. Probably about half of our food comes from our land, and about another 20% is clean purchased the food. The rest I either don't know or wouldn't consider clean.
Fair enough. I think it's been said more than once in this thread that no one eats 100% clean (whatever definition they're using). Okay, so based on my reading of this thread, this is your definition of clean (please do correct me):
The cleanness of a food depends on how close it is to its natural state. You would not describe a food as unclean but rather in degrees of clean/less clean/not clean. For example, a piece of meat butchered from an animal you hunted would be considered clean. That same meat being ground and mixed with spices and piped into a casing would be less clean.
If salt is less clean to you as well, does industrial human intervention then also play a role in how natural something is?
Yes, that's pretty much it, though I think it is the curing of sausage rather than the spices that makes it less clean.
To the last question it could. I would evaluate each food individually.
I think I get it. I wouldn't personally draw the lines where you do in terms of what is closer to being natural, but I think I can understand where you're coming from in your definition of clean.
So, if I understand, from your perspective masa harina (corn flour mixed with calcium hydroxide) is less clean than straight corn flour which is less clean than whole corn.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Well, there is this:
MR LEOPOLD BLOOM ATE WITH RELISH THE INNER ORGANS OF BEASTS and fowls. He liked thick giblet soup, nutty gizzards, a stuffed roast heart, liver slices fried with crustcrumbs, fried hencod's roes. Most of all he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine.
+1 for the Joyce quotes 0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se You said somewhere upthread that you don't call yourself a clean eater, correct? You just try to eat as clean as possible?
Well no, not really. I have no doubt I could easily eat cleaner than I do. I would say I eat "mostly clean".
We live on a farm, grow a lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat, we raise chickens and hunt. Probably about half of our food comes from our land, and about another 20% is clean purchased the food. The rest I either don't know or wouldn't consider clean.
Fair enough. I think it's been said more than once in this thread that no one eats 100% clean (whatever definition they're using). Okay, so based on my reading of this thread, this is your definition of clean (please do correct me):
The cleanness of a food depends on how close it is to its natural state. You would not describe a food as unclean but rather in degrees of clean/less clean/not clean. For example, a piece of meat butchered from an animal you hunted would be considered clean. That same meat being ground and mixed with spices and piped into a casing would be less clean.
If salt is less clean to you as well, does industrial human intervention then also play a role in how natural something is?
Yes, that's pretty much it, though I think it is the curing of sausage rather than the spices that makes it less clean.
To the last question it could. I would evaluate each food individually.
I think I get it. I wouldn't personally draw the lines where you do in terms of what is closer to being natural, but I think I can understand where you're coming from in your definition of clean.
So, if I understand, from your perspective masa harina (corn flour mixed with calcium hydroxide) is less clean than straight corn flour which is less clean than whole corn.
Yep. I would expect many people who share my definition to draw the lines differently on some foods. Heck, on any given day I might even draw them slightly differently.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Well, there is this:
MR LEOPOLD BLOOM ATE WITH RELISH THE INNER ORGANS OF BEASTS and fowls. He liked thick giblet soup, nutty gizzards, a stuffed roast heart, liver slices fried with crustcrumbs, fried hencod's roes. Most of all he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine.
That meal sounds natural, but not very clean.
It would be high in the B12 vitamins I believe, and iron.0 -
Slightly differently...yes.
So different I could only find a couple of food categories that satisfy most self-identified clean eaters. Vegetables and whole grains.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions