Have you ever tried clean eating?
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Annamarie3404 wrote: »For the most part, I eat clean. I quit eating processed foods completely at the beginning of this year. I don't eat raw though. But I cook everything I eat. It's all fresh or frozen veggies...steamed, baked, broiled or grilled.
I am also weaning myself off of the microwave. Hope to get that out by the end of this year.
I don't understand. And I say that genuinely, I feel like people aren't communicating. Just looking at today and yesterday, how are bread products, jelly, and a WW's frozen meal not processed?
My breakfast was a vegetable omelet with feta cheese plus cottage cheese on the side, and IMO both the cheeses are obviously processed. Last night I had pasta with a homemade sauce. Again, the pasta is obviously processed, as is the olive oil I used.
I saw a hotdog too...
tostitoes ...
not sure people quite understand processed...
My breakfast was processed...juice, almond milk, fruit...processed in a blender to a smoothie with protein powder...lunch cheese, cottage cheese, crackers, crab, avocado....all processed to a point but very nutrient dense.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's pretty clear that this is an extremely poor example of what the poster meant. Nobody picks up a banana at the store and sees the individual components listed as ingredients that were added to it.cwolfman13 wrote: »LindaGraziano1 wrote: »Totally clean. No processed stuff. Like they say, when you read the ingredients. "If you can't read it, don't eat it".
Exactly. Chemical makeup and ingredients aren't the same thing.
Many of those chemicals are also ingredients in other foods...what exactly is the difference? If these were listed on a banana should you not eat it because you don't know how to pronounce some chemical...stupid is as stupid does I suppose....it's just dumb.2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's pretty clear that this is an extremely poor example of what the poster meant. Nobody picks up a banana at the store and sees the individual components listed as ingredients that were added to it.cwolfman13 wrote: »LindaGraziano1 wrote: »Totally clean. No processed stuff. Like they say, when you read the ingredients. "If you can't read it, don't eat it".
Exactly. Chemical makeup and ingredients aren't the same thing.
Many of those chemicals are also ingredients in other foods...what exactly is the difference? If these were listed on a banana should you not eat it because you don't know how to pronounce some chemical...stupid is as stupid does I suppose....it's just dumb.
I'm not telling anyone what to eat or not eat. I'm just pointing out a bad example.1 -
But why is it a bad example? What is it about being an "ingredient" that makes something bad, as opposed to exactly the same substance that is not an "ingredient"?
Genuinely confused.7 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's pretty clear that this is an extremely poor example of what the poster meant. Nobody picks up a banana at the store and sees the individual components listed as ingredients that were added to it.cwolfman13 wrote: »LindaGraziano1 wrote: »Totally clean. No processed stuff. Like they say, when you read the ingredients. "If you can't read it, don't eat it".
It's actually an excellent example of why saying "If you can't read it, don't eat it" is so asinine. If a consumer were to see phenylalanine listed as an ingredient in a packaged food, they would avoid if if they were following that mantra...but they'd eat it willingly, happily, and unknowingly in a banana. How does that make any sense?7 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »I'll do it for a period of time as a metabolic reset.
Ok I'll play along. What is a "metabolic reset"?
Death?6 -
suzyjane1972 wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »I'll do it for a period of time as a metabolic reset.
Ok I'll play along. What is a "metabolic reset"?
Death?
That would be reincarnation actually.7 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's pretty clear that this is an extremely poor example of what the poster meant. Nobody picks up a banana at the store and sees the individual components listed as ingredients that were added to it.cwolfman13 wrote: »LindaGraziano1 wrote: »Totally clean. No processed stuff. Like they say, when you read the ingredients. "If you can't read it, don't eat it".
It perfectly illustrates how silly the "if I can't pronounce it, I won't eat it" way of thinking is. If you're scared of something because it has a lot of letters and don't care to educate yourself that is totally fine.. just don't go around congratulating yourself for it.8 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But why is it a bad example? What is it about being an "ingredient" that makes something bad, as opposed to exactly the same substance that is not an "ingredient"?
Genuinely confused.
It has nothing to with bad or good. One person was talking about ingredients listed on a package and the example was the chemical makeup of such an ingredient. Apples and oranges, my friend. Or perhaps I should say apples and the chemical makeup of apples.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But why is it a bad example? What is it about being an "ingredient" that makes something bad, as opposed to exactly the same substance that is not an "ingredient"?
Genuinely confused.
It has nothing to with bad or good. One person was talking about ingredients listed on a package and the example was the chemical makeup of such an ingredient. Apples and oranges, my friend. Or perhaps I should say apples and the chemical makeup of apples.
Which is the same thing.2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's pretty clear that this is an extremely poor example of what the poster meant. Nobody picks up a banana at the store and sees the individual components listed as ingredients that were added to it.cwolfman13 wrote: »LindaGraziano1 wrote: »Totally clean. No processed stuff. Like they say, when you read the ingredients. "If you can't read it, don't eat it".
It's actually an excellent example of why saying "If you can't read it, don't eat it" is so asinine. If a consumer were to see phenylalanine listed as an ingredient in a packaged food, they would avoid if if they were following that mantra...but they'd eat it willingly, happily, and unknowingly in a banana. How does that make any sense?
It actually makes some sense. It's not as if adding any random chemical that might happen to be in a food naturally to another food that doesn't naturally contain it has no potential for problems.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's pretty clear that this is an extremely poor example of what the poster meant. Nobody picks up a banana at the store and sees the individual components listed as ingredients that were added to it.cwolfman13 wrote: »LindaGraziano1 wrote: »Totally clean. No processed stuff. Like they say, when you read the ingredients. "If you can't read it, don't eat it".
It's actually an excellent example of why saying "If you can't read it, don't eat it" is so asinine. If a consumer were to see phenylalanine listed as an ingredient in a packaged food, they would avoid if if they were following that mantra...but they'd eat it willingly, happily, and unknowingly in a banana. How does that make any sense?
It actually makes some sense. It's not as if adding any random chemical that might happen to be in a food naturally to another food that doesn't naturally contain it has no potential for problems.
I think it makes more sense to learn about words and ingredients that one doesn't know and then judge whether or not to consume foods containing them. Living according to an arbitrary mantra is for children who haven't learned to reason for themselves yet.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But why is it a bad example? What is it about being an "ingredient" that makes something bad, as opposed to exactly the same substance that is not an "ingredient"?
Genuinely confused.
It has nothing to with bad or good. One person was talking about ingredients listed on a package and the example was the chemical makeup of such an ingredient. Apples and oranges, my friend. Or perhaps I should say apples and the chemical makeup of apples.
Which is the same thing.
Um yeah, no.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's pretty clear that this is an extremely poor example of what the poster meant. Nobody picks up a banana at the store and sees the individual components listed as ingredients that were added to it.cwolfman13 wrote: »LindaGraziano1 wrote: »Totally clean. No processed stuff. Like they say, when you read the ingredients. "If you can't read it, don't eat it".
It's actually an excellent example of why saying "If you can't read it, don't eat it" is so asinine. If a consumer were to see phenylalanine listed as an ingredient in a packaged food, they would avoid if if they were following that mantra...but they'd eat it willingly, happily, and unknowingly in a banana. How does that make any sense?
It actually makes some sense. It's not as if adding any random chemical that might happen to be in a food naturally to another food that doesn't naturally contain it has no potential for problems.
I think it makes more sense to learn about words and ingredients that one doesn't know and then judge whether or not to consume foods containing them. Living according to an arbitrary mantra is for children who haven't learned to reason for themselves yet.
Just because A makes more sense than B doesn't mean that B makes no sense.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But why is it a bad example? What is it about being an "ingredient" that makes something bad, as opposed to exactly the same substance that is not an "ingredient"?
Genuinely confused.
It has nothing to with bad or good. One person was talking about ingredients listed on a package and the example was the chemical makeup of such an ingredient. Apples and oranges, my friend. Or perhaps I should say apples and the chemical makeup of apples.
Which is the same thing.
Um yeah, no.
Would you also disagree that water and the chemical makeup of water are two different things? You're getting close to worrying about dihydrogen monoxide.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's pretty clear that this is an extremely poor example of what the poster meant. Nobody picks up a banana at the store and sees the individual components listed as ingredients that were added to it.cwolfman13 wrote: »LindaGraziano1 wrote: »Totally clean. No processed stuff. Like they say, when you read the ingredients. "If you can't read it, don't eat it".
It's actually an excellent example of why saying "If you can't read it, don't eat it" is so asinine. If a consumer were to see phenylalanine listed as an ingredient in a packaged food, they would avoid if if they were following that mantra...but they'd eat it willingly, happily, and unknowingly in a banana. How does that make any sense?
It actually makes some sense. It's not as if adding any random chemical that might happen to be in a food naturally to another food that doesn't naturally contain it has no potential for problems.
I think it makes more sense to learn about words and ingredients that one doesn't know and then judge whether or not to consume foods containing them. Living according to an arbitrary mantra is for children who haven't learned to reason for themselves yet.
Just because A makes more sense than B doesn't mean that B makes no sense.
If my choices are between "sensible" and "more sensible", I know which one I'll pick.
Edit: And I still disagree that the mantra is very sensible. Maybe if you come across something that you've never heard of before, then yeah, skip that product at that time. But then go home and look it up! Learn about it to make an educated decision the next time.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But why is it a bad example? What is it about being an "ingredient" that makes something bad, as opposed to exactly the same substance that is not an "ingredient"?
Genuinely confused.
It has nothing to with bad or good. One person was talking about ingredients listed on a package and the example was the chemical makeup of such an ingredient. Apples and oranges, my friend. Or perhaps I should say apples and the chemical makeup of apples.
Which is the same thing.
Um yeah, no.
Would you also disagree that water and the chemical makeup of water are two different things? You're getting close to worrying about dihydrogen monoxide.
I'm not worrying about anything, but to answer your question, No.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's pretty clear that this is an extremely poor example of what the poster meant. Nobody picks up a banana at the store and sees the individual components listed as ingredients that were added to it.cwolfman13 wrote: »LindaGraziano1 wrote: »Totally clean. No processed stuff. Like they say, when you read the ingredients. "If you can't read it, don't eat it".
It's actually an excellent example of why saying "If you can't read it, don't eat it" is so asinine. If a consumer were to see phenylalanine listed as an ingredient in a packaged food, they would avoid if if they were following that mantra...but they'd eat it willingly, happily, and unknowingly in a banana. How does that make any sense?
It actually makes some sense. It's not as if adding any random chemical that might happen to be in a food naturally to another food that doesn't naturally contain it has no potential for problems.
I think it makes more sense to learn about words and ingredients that one doesn't know and then judge whether or not to consume foods containing them. Living according to an arbitrary mantra is for children who haven't learned to reason for themselves yet.
Just because A makes more sense than B doesn't mean that B makes no sense.
If my choices are between "sensible" and "more sensible", I know which one I'll pick.
I would certainly hope so. If not you, who?0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »If I can't pronounce it on the label, then I don't eat it. Mainly stay to outside perimeter of the store now. I have however been known to breakdown and have a spaghetti and homemade meatballs
>_> Pasta...weakness is strong with this one it is.
I always find that such a weird thing to say. So... the greater the level of education, the more variety you can eat? People who have studied chemistry can eat far more things than someone who studied, say, arts? Does it mean you can't eat foreign food?
Yes, I wondered about foreign food. I have a bit of trouble getting the pronunciation of the Indian and Thai food I like just right. It would make me very sad if I couldn't eat that food until I learned to pronounce everything correctly.
Not to mention that means all blind people would starve to death. They can't read anything (assuming that like my food, yours also doesn't come with braille).4 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »If I can't pronounce it on the label, then I don't eat it. Mainly stay to outside perimeter of the store now. I have however been known to breakdown and have a spaghetti and homemade meatballs
>_> Pasta...weakness is strong with this one it is.
I always find that such a weird thing to say. So... the greater the level of education, the more variety you can eat? People who have studied chemistry can eat far more things than someone who studied, say, arts? Does it mean you can't eat foreign food?
Yes, I wondered about foreign food. I have a bit of trouble getting the pronunciation of the Indian and Thai food I like just right. It would make me very sad if I couldn't eat that food until I learned to pronounce everything correctly.
Not to mention that means all blind people would starve to death. They can't read anything (assuming that like my food, yours also doesn't come with braille).
And I guess we can all eat trans fat since it's so easy to pronounce.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions