What is 'clean' eating??

1356710

Replies

  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,490 Member
    pasewaldd wrote: »
    I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.

    Yeah, but why? Why is combining six ingredients at home clean, but eating the same six ingredients that someone pre-combined unclean?

    It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.

    Which is lacking..

    I guess some could say "my diet is better than yours", referencing above poster that it is just something to make people feel superior about their food choices....

    I guess I could say something off the wall like, I don't eat dirty food off the floor.. or do I?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    pasewaldd wrote: »
    I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.

    Yeah, but why? Why is combining six ingredients at home clean, but eating the same six ingredients that someone pre-combined unclean?

    It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.

    If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."

    If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?

    The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.

    Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).

    Some people like simple restrictions. Some people don't. *shrug*
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    pasewaldd wrote: »
    I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.

    Yeah, but why? Why is combining six ingredients at home clean, but eating the same six ingredients that someone pre-combined unclean?

    It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.

    If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."

    If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?

    The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.

    Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).

    Some people like simple restrictions. Some people don't. *shrug*

    I understood you to be arguing that there was no "simple restriction" and that someone who was applying the rule "Don't buy anything with more than five ingredients" would actually purchase things with more than five ingredients because they were actually applying the rule "Avoid unnecessary additives."

    If the rule is really about about "unnecessary" additives, how does your argument about the two different groups (those who like simple restrictions and those who don't) apply?
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    pasewaldd wrote: »
    I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.

    This is pretty much my favorite salsa which is prepared and sold locally by the family owned restaurant of the same name...

    jar_hot_salsa.jpg

    Ingredients: tomatoes, fresh jalapenos, garlic, tomato puree, salt, and citric acid...

    oops...that's six ingredients on the package...guess I better chuck it...too dirty.

    I also make my own salsa frequently...pretty much the same ingredients but I also add cilantro usually...is that any cleaner?

    Well, cilantro tastes like soap to some people, so maybe?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    pasewaldd wrote: »
    I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.

    Yeah, but why? Why is combining six ingredients at home clean, but eating the same six ingredients that someone pre-combined unclean?

    It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.

    If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."

    If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?

    The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.

    Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).

    Some people like simple restrictions. Some people don't. *shrug*

    I understood you to be arguing that there was no "simple restriction" and that someone who was applying the rule "Don't buy anything with more than five ingredients" would actually purchase things with more than five ingredients because they were actually applying the rule "Avoid unnecessary additives."

    If the rule is really about about "unnecessary" additives, how does your argument about the two different groups (those who like simple restrictions and those who don't) apply?

    Some might look at a can of soup and think "more than 5 ingredients, I'll buy something else", others would think "more than 5 ingredients, but most are just vegetables so I think it's okay"

    I don't see either of these things as wrong. There is always something else to eat.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    pasewaldd wrote: »
    I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.

    This is pretty much my favorite salsa which is prepared and sold locally by the family owned restaurant of the same name...

    jar_hot_salsa.jpg

    Ingredients: tomatoes, fresh jalapenos, garlic, tomato puree, salt, and citric acid...

    oops...that's six ingredients on the package...guess I better chuck it...too dirty.

    I also make my own salsa frequently...pretty much the same ingredients but I also add cilantro usually...is that any cleaner?

    I wonder why they list tomatoes and tomato puree separately. Is that a labeling rule?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,171 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    pasewaldd wrote: »
    I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.

    This is pretty much my favorite salsa which is prepared and sold locally by the family owned restaurant of the same name...

    jar_hot_salsa.jpg

    Ingredients: tomatoes, fresh jalapenos, garlic, tomato puree, salt, and citric acid...

    oops...that's six ingredients on the package...guess I better chuck it...too dirty.

    I also make my own salsa frequently...pretty much the same ingredients but I also add cilantro usually...is that any cleaner?

    I wonder why they list tomatoes and tomato puree separately. Is that a labeling rule?

    I think because they use fresh tomatoes and then tomato puree (water and concentrated crushed tomatoes) so technically it is two different ingredients. They use the puree to thicken it.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,121 Member
    Lizarking wrote: »
    a vacuous term used to make people feel superior about their own food choices.

    Not related to the thread but brilliant use of one of my favourite words.

    I like vitupritive but no one ever uses it.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    savithny wrote: »
    Really, its a weasel-word term invented by marketers that can be used to sell people just about anything under the premise that they'll magically lose weight. It really is. It means whatever a particular marketer wants it to mean in order to convince you that their particular magazine, book, weight-loss program, is totally hip to the absolute latest food trends.

    I don't believe this is true. Certainly it is sometimes used that way now, but I don't believe that the term was "invented" (or coined) for this. I think it originally had to do with health, not weight loss.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    edited September 2016
    pasewaldd wrote: »
    I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.

    Yeah, but why? Why is combining six ingredients at home clean, but eating the same six ingredients that someone pre-combined unclean?

    It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.

    If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."

    If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?

    The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.

    Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).

    Some people like simple restrictions. Some people don't. *shrug*

    I understood you to be arguing that there was no "simple restriction" and that someone who was applying the rule "Don't buy anything with more than five ingredients" would actually purchase things with more than five ingredients because they were actually applying the rule "Avoid unnecessary additives."

    If the rule is really about about "unnecessary" additives, how does your argument about the two different groups (those who like simple restrictions and those who don't) apply?

    Some might look at a can of soup and think "more than 5 ingredients, I'll buy something else", others would think "more than 5 ingredients, but most are just vegetables so I think it's okay"

    I don't see either of these things as wrong. There is always something else to eat.

    "Wrong" is a strong word, but if -- in the first instance -- it results in eliminating foods that taste good to them and would help them meet their nutritional goals for no valid reason, it seems . . . unfortunate.

    And if the focus on not eating things with more than five ingredients means that one *doesn't* focus on the things that actually result in weight loss or better nutrition, that would be really unfortunate.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    pasewaldd wrote: »
    I think the quote of 5 ingredients is for the ingredients on a package, not something a person prepares themselves.

    Yeah, but why? Why is combining six ingredients at home clean, but eating the same six ingredients that someone pre-combined unclean?

    It's really more about unnecessary additives. A can of carrots doesn't need to have 6 ingredients. That sort of thing. All these sayings are just general guidelines that are best applied along with common sense.

    If the point is to avoid unnecessary additives (however one defines those), I think a better guideline would be "Avoid unnecessary additives," not "Don't eat anything with more than 5 ingredients."

    If the point of the rule (or "guideline") is to help people who are trying to make better food choices, this fails utterly. If I can't use the first rule because I don't understand what an unnecessary additive is, then how am I determining when I can eat something with more than five ingredients?

    The argument seems to be that the rules are designed to help people who can't understand more complex rules. But when the rule is questioned, advocates seem to think that people will just fall back on the stores of knowledge that the rule advocates assume they don't have.

    Taken at face value, the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Taken as a common sense guideline that assumes the person applying it has adequate knowledge to understand when to disregard it, it compels one to ask "Why not just apply the rule you're really arguing for?" (no unnecessary additives).

    Some people like simple restrictions. Some people don't. *shrug*

    I understood you to be arguing that there was no "simple restriction" and that someone who was applying the rule "Don't buy anything with more than five ingredients" would actually purchase things with more than five ingredients because they were actually applying the rule "Avoid unnecessary additives."

    If the rule is really about about "unnecessary" additives, how does your argument about the two different groups (those who like simple restrictions and those who don't) apply?

    Some might look at a can of soup and think "more than 5 ingredients, I'll buy something else", others would think "more than 5 ingredients, but most are just vegetables so I think it's okay"

    I don't see either of these things as wrong. There is always something else to eat.

    "Wrong" is a strong word, but if -- in the first instance -- it results in eliminating foods that taste good to them and would help them meet their nutritional goals for no valid reason, it seems . . . unfortunate.

    I suppose so, though honestly I can't see how a can of soup would make that much difference in an overall diet. But, if they apply a rule so strictly that they make themselves miserable then I would definitely agree.

    However, if it prompts them to buy the ingredients and make their own soup from scratch and they learn how much better homemade foods can taste, I'd say it's fortunate.
  • katthouse499
    katthouse499 Posts: 50 Member
    I am food sensitive !! I don't break down some things. To me clean eating is eating anything that isn't man made or comes in a box with any type of additives :smiley:
  • katthouse499
    katthouse499 Posts: 50 Member
    Hope this helps