What is 'clean' eating??

katthouse499 wrote: »

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

What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?

And if there are any questions regarding the community guidelines, please go: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

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.

If they think they've actually made a choice that is nutritionally better by choosing a soup made of fewer different kinds of vegetables, but perhaps some additives that would be more questionable (depending on what bothers people, let's say it has more sodium) vs. choosing one with less sodium but just more different vegetables, that would be at least misinformed and foolish of them. I think this kind of thing illustrates how focusing on some notion of "clean" rather than actual nutrition or, at least, actual ingredients that one prefers not to eat tends not to be helpful.

The problems with the perimeter rule has been similarly shown to result in missing lots of high-quality foods (and in my grocery, the actual vegetables, although you hit the bakery and deli meats).

I see this a lot in posters asking whether canned beans are "clean" vs. some other way of making an informed decision over whether they are something they want to include in their diet, or the occasional posts where a poster asks whether one can have a "clean" diet without vegetables. Focusing on not eating foods deemed unclean (let's say bread, or dried pasta, or canned beans, or even ultra processed things) doesn't actually do much to teach you what you should be including in your diet if you are really starting from a position of being so uninformed that these silly rules seem helpful and necessary. Maybe someone who eats a huge amount of fast food will cut that out and start cooking at home and benefit, maybe someone will eat less sweets and think to add vegetables instead, but I wouldn't count on it, and I think actually focusing on nutrition rather than being cleaner than thou (as indeed most of the posts about "eating clean" tend to read to me) would be useful.

And again, it would be less divisive and lead to less misunderstanding if people said "hey, I'm interested in eating a more nutrition conscious diet, is anyone with me" vs. "who here eats clean!" The latter just gets those who enjoy self-defining as "clean" for whatever reason, and then the rest of us get told that we are haters who don't care about nutrition and eat only Twinkies.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

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.

If they think they've actually made a choice that is nutritionally better by choosing a soup made of fewer different kinds of vegetables, but perhaps some additives that would be more questionable (depending on what bothers people, let's say it has more sodium) vs. choosing one with less sodium but just more different vegetables, that would be at least misinformed and foolish of them. I think this kind of thing illustrates how focusing on some notion of "clean" rather than actual nutrition or, at least, actual ingredients that one prefers not to eat tends not to be helpful.

The problems with the perimeter rule has been similarly shown to result in missing lots of high-quality foods (and in my grocery, the actual vegetables, although you hit the bakery and deli meats).

I see this a lot in posters asking whether canned beans are "clean" vs. some other way of making an informed decision over whether they are something they want to include in their diet, or the occasional posts where a poster asks whether one can have a "clean" diet without vegetables. Focusing on not eating foods deemed unclean (let's say bread, or dried pasta, or canned beans, or even ultra processed things) doesn't actually do much to teach you what you should be including in your diet if you are really starting from a position of being so uninformed that these silly rules seem helpful and necessary. Maybe someone who eats a huge amount of fast food will cut that out and start cooking at home and benefit, maybe someone will eat less sweets and think to add vegetables instead, but I wouldn't count on it, and I think actually focusing on nutrition rather than being cleaner than thou (as indeed most of the posts about "eating clean" tend to read to me) would be useful.

And again, it would be less divisive and lead to less misunderstanding if people said "hey, I'm interested in eating a more nutrition conscious diet, is anyone with me" vs. "who here eats clean!" The latter just gets those who enjoy self-defining as "clean" for whatever reason, and then the rest of us get told that we are haters who don't care about nutrition and eat only Twinkies.

Rules are just rules. Some people apply them too strictly, some ignore them, some use them as general guidelines while overriding them when common sense suggests they should. People are people and will always be people.

I realize your dislike of the term "clean eating", I just don't happen to agree. The term doesn't bother me in the least.

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

katthouse499 wrote: »

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

What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?

Fish

....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.

Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

katthouse499 wrote: »

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

What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?

Fish

....yeah okay that is actually true, hadn't thought of that one. The vast vast majority though are agricultural products or processed foods.

Which mostly aren't man-made. Man grows an apple, he doesn't make the apple.

Apples are pretty much man made. Doesn't matter if they grow, they were shaped by us...they wouldn't exist without us. There is nothing in nature that resembles or tastes like something like a Gala apple. The natural version is nothing like what we have in a store.

A metal object is made by pouring liquid metal into a mold, the liquid and solidification follow natural laws but yet no one would argue that it isn't man made nor would you ever see its like in nature without human intervention. An agricultural product is formed by a molding process over centuries...the proccesses follow natural laws but yet the product is something you would never see in nature without human intervention. Yet people call that natural. That always confused me.

Why would a plant in nature produce hundreds of giant sugar orbs with tiny seeds only to die shortly thereafter or no longer be able to produce. We engineered that into them, they are products. That doesn't mean they are bad but I don't understand the purpose of denying that fact.

Fish I agree though, the fish we consume are gathered from a natural enviorment (unless you are talking like farmed salmon).

When a man pours the ingredients of an apple into a mold and makes an apple, I'll believe it's man-made. Until then it will always be man-manipulated to me.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

katthouse499 wrote: »

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

What isn't man-made that you can find in a grocery store?

Fish

Much of the fish found in grocery stores is farmed - bred and raised by humans in a fish farm. Wild-caught fish were caught, processed, flash frozen and packaged by humans. By some definitions that would make it "processed" and thus "unclean".

Which further shows how ridiculous the phrase is. If I were to go catch a salmon myself, clean it with my own hands and throw it on ice to eat later, many would consider that "clean". But if somebody else caught, cleaned, froze it and put it in the store, it would be "processed" and "unclean".