What is 'clean' eating??
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Here's some good overviews of the history of the word and what it supposedly means:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/01/08/what-it-means-eat-clean
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/05/08/clean_eating_is_a_bad_label_with_no_real_meaning_for_your_diet_plan.html
Um, no. That first link says the term was coined in 1993, but I've heard it all my life. Since I was a child in the 1960's.
I didn't see where the second link said anything at all about it origins. Just that it had been around for "years".
Well, I was a child in the 70s and it certainly wasn't in use then, and by the 80s I was reading a lot of food and nutrition writing, and it wasn't in wide use then. Maybe you could point to some examples of its 1960s uses?
The second one talks about the multiplicity of ways it is used today, explaining why its pretty much become a catchphrase people use to try to make their particular way of eating morally better than other people's way of eating.
Well, I could point to some people I heard say it but you wouldn't be able to see it. Obviously I wasn't reading it on the internet in the 1960's or reading nutrition literature as a child, but here are a couple things Google found for me:
http://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/clean-eating-fad-or-future/
I didn’t realize that clean eating is nothing new. The clean eating movement began in the 1960’s when a lot of things were changing, including people’s approaches to food and health.
http://spryliving.com/articles/eating-clean-defined/
Clean eating history. The beginnings of the clean eating movement were born within the natural healthy food movement of the 1960s. At that time, many cultural revolutions were taking place, and food was no exception. Healthy, natural food became synonymous with the morals and values of this time.
"Beginnings of the movement" doesn't mean anyone was using the term "clean eating." Approaches to food and health were definitely changing -- "Diet for a small planet" and other similar books talked about eating more "natural" foods, and then by the 70s the vegetarian movement was booming. But a lot of what was considered "natural foods" at that point were still not what anyone today would consider "clean," and that's just not what they were calling it. They were making granola and substituting carob for chocolate and making vegetarian dishes that used pounds of cheese in place of the meat. Processing wheat gluten into seitan and chowing down on tofu and making casseroles of cornmeal -- all things that are anathema to many "clean eaters" today.
Hey man, if you want to think I'm lying then there's not much I can do to change that. You asked for links, I gave you links.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »Chilli7777 wrote: »The amount of morons on this thread is alarming.
Is that including yourself
Also you haven't clarified your 5 item statement am still curious
It IS interesting that many of the people saying "well, it's obviously this, d'uh" don't seem to be willing to answer reasonable questions or address the concerns that perfectly healthful foods are being called "unclean" under their definitions.
I give credit to Needs2 that she will address the issues, and I respect her point of view, even if we disagree.
I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.
Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.
A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »The other thing I don't get is the treatment of so called "genetically modified" foods. Apparently those aren't natural anymore, those are manmade. Yet they still grow. They aren't "poured into a mold". Why are they considered no longer natural? I'm not going to guess as to your opinion on those @Need2Exerc1se so I'll just ask if you consider "genetically modified" plants to be natural or man-made and if so what about them crossed that line for you?
I assume the answer is because the process isn't "natural" like agriculture itself is natural or like the techniques used in genetic engineering aren't from natural processes neither of which are true.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
I'd say that's a little beyond "natural".
Do you consider agriculture itself to be "natural"? My claim is not that genetic engineering is "natural" its a confusion as to why some people consider agriculture to be "natural" but genetic engineering to be not. It seems somewhat hypocritical or niave.
Recombinant DNA technology is based upon enzymes that occur naturally within bacteria. Restriction enzymes, homologous recombination, plasmids, these are all natural processes put into a particular order by humans to achieve the desired affect.
Agriculture is not natural. How could it be? I'd say agriculture is more natural than GE, and some agricultural methods are more natural than others.
The fact you think it is more natural than genetic engineering makes me think you don't know that much about how genetic engineering is actually done. What specific part of the process of genetic engineering is not a natural process.
Restriction enzymes are natural, DNA polymerase is natural, DNA ligase is natural, plasmids are natural, homologous recombination is natural. Using restriction enzymes to cut out a specific gene, amplify it with DNA polymerase, ligate it into a similarly cut plasmid with DNA ligase and then have that plasmid insert the gene via homolgous recombination is the man made process called genetic engineering.
Seeds are natural, cross-polination is natural. The act of planting seeds, growing plants, selecting those with favorable attributes, cross-polinating them, saving the seeds and starting again the next year is the man made process called agriculture.
Is the difference for you that you fully comprehend one but are less familiar with the other (I'm not trying to offend but it is a possible explanation)? Is it that one is more modern of a technique than the other? At what point do we cross that line from natural to man made if its not by using man made processes such as agriculture?
Agriculture can be as simple as plowing earth and dropping a seed, then nature takes over. IDK know the ins and outs of GE foods, but if the WHO says it's something that wouldn't happen naturally I tend to believe them.
It isn't something that would happen naturally...neither is agriculture. Neither of them are natural in that respect. That is my point.
I state a few posts ago I didn't think either was natural. You asked about more natural.
I don't think the statement "more natural" even makes sense so no I did not ask that. Something is either natural or it isn't.
Neither the process of genetic engineering nor the process of agriculture is natural. Both genetic engineering and agriculture use natural processes true but if using natural processes was the definition of natural then a metal sword would be natural. It is the implementation of those natural processes in a specific order that is human engineered and makes them man made.
The definition I am using for natural and not natural is pretty straightforward and I think once stated its easy to see what I would consider natural or not. It does not have a "manipulated" in there that is grey and hard to define. I legitimately did not know whether you would consider genetically engineered foods to be natural or man made based on your definition.
Things that are natural are things that would be produced by nature without any human intervention. Things that are man made are things that are produced via human intervention that otherwise would not have occured in nature. So in my view corn is man made, it is not natural. Corn arose from human intervention, it did not occur naturally and it would not occur naturally. The fish we eat are natural, they exist in nature without our influence. If we farm them that doesn't suddenly make them man made, you take a farmed salmon and toss it in the wild and it would probably do alright. You do that with corn and it wouldn't last a season. Things that are genetically engineered, also not natural..but not "more" or "less" natural than agriculture...to me they are equivalent...one is just a more modern technique.
What doesn't make sense about "more natural"? Man has altered every aspect of our world. So, unless we are saying nature no longer exists, it seems all we are left with is more or less natural.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Here's some good overviews of the history of the word and what it supposedly means:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/01/08/what-it-means-eat-clean
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/05/08/clean_eating_is_a_bad_label_with_no_real_meaning_for_your_diet_plan.html
Um, no. That first link says the term was coined in 1993, but I've heard it all my life. Since I was a child in the 1960's.
I didn't see where the second link said anything at all about it origins. Just that it had been around for "years".
Well, I was a child in the 70s and it certainly wasn't in use then, and by the 80s I was reading a lot of food and nutrition writing, and it wasn't in wide use then. Maybe you could point to some examples of its 1960s uses?
The second one talks about the multiplicity of ways it is used today, explaining why its pretty much become a catchphrase people use to try to make their particular way of eating morally better than other people's way of eating.
I grew up in the 60's. I guess I was sheltered. I sure don't remember it.
I remember, I think, the word "wholesome". I think I remember that describing things as disparate as vegetables, bread, orange juice, and apple pie.
I had an older sister who was considered a hippie.
Hippies might have undertaken crunchy practices, but did she use the term "clean" to describe what she was doing?
I really don't remember that being part of the culture. There were some hippie kids in my baby sitter rotation.
Yeah, I was a child and teenager in the 60s and 70s, and ate at a food co-op run by hippy types frequently in the early and mid 80s, and the term I heard in those decades was "natural foods," generally referring to what we would call whole foods now.
Natural foods was what I remember too and what I picked up and used to use when I was super into it (which I don't think was all that helpful, but I tend toward the obsessive). I think "natural" is the wrong word too, and don't use it anymore, but I only ran into "clean" when I started paying more attention to dieting culture, connected it to bodybuilding on the one hand and notions of morality on the other ("clean" as used in the Bible, for example), and then saw it become a buzzword that everyone is using and that seems to just mean "healthy" for the most part today.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Here's some good overviews of the history of the word and what it supposedly means:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/01/08/what-it-means-eat-clean
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/05/08/clean_eating_is_a_bad_label_with_no_real_meaning_for_your_diet_plan.html
Um, no. That first link says the term was coined in 1993, but I've heard it all my life. Since I was a child in the 1960's.
I didn't see where the second link said anything at all about it origins. Just that it had been around for "years".
Well, I was a child in the 70s and it certainly wasn't in use then, and by the 80s I was reading a lot of food and nutrition writing, and it wasn't in wide use then. Maybe you could point to some examples of its 1960s uses?
The second one talks about the multiplicity of ways it is used today, explaining why its pretty much become a catchphrase people use to try to make their particular way of eating morally better than other people's way of eating.
Well, I could point to some people I heard say it but you wouldn't be able to see it. Obviously I wasn't reading it on the internet in the 1960's or reading nutrition literature as a child, but here are a couple things Google found for me:
http://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/clean-eating-fad-or-future/
I didn’t realize that clean eating is nothing new. The clean eating movement began in the 1960’s when a lot of things were changing, including people’s approaches to food and health.
http://spryliving.com/articles/eating-clean-defined/
Clean eating history. The beginnings of the clean eating movement were born within the natural healthy food movement of the 1960s. At that time, many cultural revolutions were taking place, and food was no exception. Healthy, natural food became synonymous with the morals and values of this time.
"Beginnings of the movement" doesn't mean anyone was using the term "clean eating." Approaches to food and health were definitely changing -- "Diet for a small planet" and other similar books talked about eating more "natural" foods, and then by the 70s the vegetarian movement was booming. But a lot of what was considered "natural foods" at that point were still not what anyone today would consider "clean," and that's just not what they were calling it. They were making granola and substituting carob for chocolate and making vegetarian dishes that used pounds of cheese in place of the meat. Processing wheat gluten into seitan and chowing down on tofu and making casseroles of cornmeal -- all things that are anathema to many "clean eaters" today.
Hey man, if you want to think I'm lying then there's not much I can do to change that. You asked for links, I gave you links.
I don't think you are lying, to be clear. I think it might have been less common than you assume or perhaps was regional. More significantly, I seriously doubt that the context or meaning used by most who pick it up and assume it means something that tracks to weight loss or nutrition (or Panera) relates much to hippy culture.
But I dunno, I certainly wasn't a hippy.
Edit to add: my aunt was, way back in the day, and my sister worked in a health food store in the '90s, though.0 -
I think the term clean eating did once have a specific meaning but now it's become generic. I take the phrase to be another way of saying 'healthy eating'. I think people like using new phrases for old concepts. Like the way people refer to 'hacks' as in five diet hacks to lose weight, when they just mean 'tips'.0
-
I'm reminded of Kirk Cameron explaining how the banana is evidence of Intelligent Design. (He's right, but he's got the wrong designer.)2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Here's some good overviews of the history of the word and what it supposedly means:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/01/08/what-it-means-eat-clean
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/05/08/clean_eating_is_a_bad_label_with_no_real_meaning_for_your_diet_plan.html
Um, no. That first link says the term was coined in 1993, but I've heard it all my life. Since I was a child in the 1960's.
I didn't see where the second link said anything at all about it origins. Just that it had been around for "years".
Well, I was a child in the 70s and it certainly wasn't in use then, and by the 80s I was reading a lot of food and nutrition writing, and it wasn't in wide use then. Maybe you could point to some examples of its 1960s uses?
The second one talks about the multiplicity of ways it is used today, explaining why its pretty much become a catchphrase people use to try to make their particular way of eating morally better than other people's way of eating.
Well, I could point to some people I heard say it but you wouldn't be able to see it. Obviously I wasn't reading it on the internet in the 1960's or reading nutrition literature as a child, but here are a couple things Google found for me:
http://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/clean-eating-fad-or-future/
I didn’t realize that clean eating is nothing new. The clean eating movement began in the 1960’s when a lot of things were changing, including people’s approaches to food and health.
http://spryliving.com/articles/eating-clean-defined/
Clean eating history. The beginnings of the clean eating movement were born within the natural healthy food movement of the 1960s. At that time, many cultural revolutions were taking place, and food was no exception. Healthy, natural food became synonymous with the morals and values of this time.
"Beginnings of the movement" doesn't mean anyone was using the term "clean eating." Approaches to food and health were definitely changing -- "Diet for a small planet" and other similar books talked about eating more "natural" foods, and then by the 70s the vegetarian movement was booming. But a lot of what was considered "natural foods" at that point were still not what anyone today would consider "clean," and that's just not what they were calling it. They were making granola and substituting carob for chocolate and making vegetarian dishes that used pounds of cheese in place of the meat. Processing wheat gluten into seitan and chowing down on tofu and making casseroles of cornmeal -- all things that are anathema to many "clean eaters" today.
Hey man, if you want to think I'm lying then there's not much I can do to change that. You asked for links, I gave you links.
I don't think you are lying, to be clear. I think it might have been less common than you assume or perhaps was regional. More significantly, I seriously doubt that the context or meaning used by most who pick it up and assume it means something that tracks to weight loss or nutrition (or Panera) relates much to hippy culture.
But I dunno, I certainly wasn't a hippy.
Edit to add: my aunt was, way back in the day, and my sister worked in a health food store in the '90s, though.
I don't think many relate it to it's origins now either. That wasn't the subject at hand however. The post to which I replies linked an article that said the term was coined in 1993, which is not true.
IDK where the term came from nor did I care at the time. I was just a kid. And maybe it was regional, heck, maybe my sister or one of her friends coined it for all I know.
1 -
It means to avoid eating food that has been dropped on the floor.juliebowman4 wrote: »I keep seeing references to 'eating clean'. What does this mean?
I assume it means something different than washing my fruit and veg.
2 -
StaciMarie1974 wrote: »It means to avoid eating food that has been dropped on the floor.juliebowman4 wrote: »I keep seeing references to 'eating clean'. What does this mean?
I assume it means something different than washing my fruit and veg.
Alas. I have been a dirty eater.
On that note, WHY does toast always land on the floor....butter side down?!?!
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.
Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.
A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.
This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better. You can't slap every little bit of detailed information on people at once - we have to learn. So when a beginner goes in to the store to buy peanut butter, for example, and they expect the jar to contain peanuts but there's 4 or more other items listed - that's a red flag. Odds are a couple of those ingredients are things you don't want and the product has been over processed to the point that any nutritional value the ingredients had was destroyed. At some point, a person might want to dig deeper and learn about those ingredients. Maybe they are ok. As time goes on, people will be looking at the ingredients themselves and not counting how many there are. It's a learning experience. I don't know who came up with the "5 ingredient" guideline - why not 4 or 6? - but I think it's a pretty good one for starters. It's a tool to get people to start reading ingredients.
Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.5 -
I think the term clean eating did once have a specific meaning but now it's become generic. I take the phrase to be another way of saying 'healthy eating'. I think people like using new phrases for old concepts. Like the way people refer to 'hacks' as in five diet hacks to lose weight, when they just mean 'tips'.
This is a great point.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.
Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.
A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.
This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.
Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.
Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.
Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »The other thing I don't get is the treatment of so called "genetically modified" foods. Apparently those aren't natural anymore, those are manmade. Yet they still grow. They aren't "poured into a mold". Why are they considered no longer natural? I'm not going to guess as to your opinion on those @Need2Exerc1se so I'll just ask if you consider "genetically modified" plants to be natural or man-made and if so what about them crossed that line for you?
I assume the answer is because the process isn't "natural" like agriculture itself is natural or like the techniques used in genetic engineering aren't from natural processes neither of which are true.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
I'd say that's a little beyond "natural".
Do you consider agriculture itself to be "natural"? My claim is not that genetic engineering is "natural" its a confusion as to why some people consider agriculture to be "natural" but genetic engineering to be not. It seems somewhat hypocritical or niave.
Recombinant DNA technology is based upon enzymes that occur naturally within bacteria. Restriction enzymes, homologous recombination, plasmids, these are all natural processes put into a particular order by humans to achieve the desired affect.
Agriculture is not natural. How could it be? I'd say agriculture is more natural than GE, and some agricultural methods are more natural than others.
The fact you think it is more natural than genetic engineering makes me think you don't know that much about how genetic engineering is actually done. What specific part of the process of genetic engineering is not a natural process.
Restriction enzymes are natural, DNA polymerase is natural, DNA ligase is natural, plasmids are natural, homologous recombination is natural. Using restriction enzymes to cut out a specific gene, amplify it with DNA polymerase, ligate it into a similarly cut plasmid with DNA ligase and then have that plasmid insert the gene via homolgous recombination is the man made process called genetic engineering.
Seeds are natural, cross-polination is natural. The act of planting seeds, growing plants, selecting those with favorable attributes, cross-polinating them, saving the seeds and starting again the next year is the man made process called agriculture.
Is the difference for you that you fully comprehend one but are less familiar with the other (I'm not trying to offend but it is a possible explanation)? Is it that one is more modern of a technique than the other? At what point do we cross that line from natural to man made if its not by using man made processes such as agriculture?
Agriculture can be as simple as plowing earth and dropping a seed, then nature takes over. IDK know the ins and outs of GE foods, but if the WHO says it's something that wouldn't happen naturally I tend to believe them.
It isn't something that would happen naturally...neither is agriculture. Neither of them are natural in that respect. That is my point.
I state a few posts ago I didn't think either was natural. You asked about more natural.
I don't think the statement "more natural" even makes sense so no I did not ask that. Something is either natural or it isn't.
Neither the process of genetic engineering nor the process of agriculture is natural. Both genetic engineering and agriculture use natural processes true but if using natural processes was the definition of natural then a metal sword would be natural. It is the implementation of those natural processes in a specific order that is human engineered and makes them man made.
The definition I am using for natural and not natural is pretty straightforward and I think once stated its easy to see what I would consider natural or not. It does not have a "manipulated" in there that is grey and hard to define. I legitimately did not know whether you would consider genetically engineered foods to be natural or man made based on your definition.
Things that are natural are things that would be produced by nature without any human intervention. Things that are man made are things that are produced via human intervention that otherwise would not have occured in nature. So in my view corn is man made, it is not natural. Corn arose from human intervention, it did not occur naturally and it would not occur naturally. The fish we eat are natural, they exist in nature without our influence. If we farm them that doesn't suddenly make them man made, you take a farmed salmon and toss it in the wild and it would probably do alright. You do that with corn and it wouldn't last a season. Things that are genetically engineered, also not natural..but not "more" or "less" natural than agriculture...to me they are equivalent...one is just a more modern technique.
What doesn't make sense about "more natural"? Man has altered every aspect of our world. So, unless we are saying nature no longer exists, it seems all we are left with is more or less natural.
To me natural means "comes from nature". If it doesn't come from nature then it isn't natural. I don't know what is meant by "more natural" in that context. Is the idea that a plant that is genetically altered to include one gene from a bacterium is "more natural" than a plant that is genetically altered to include two different genes from two different bacterium? If it gets that granular to me it just becomes arbitrary. That doesn't actually mean anything.
Man made means something to me in the context of it being a product that would not exist if it wasn't for humans. To me that is fairly clear. As soon as we talk about "how close" something is to nature then it gets totally subjective. After all arguably something that was genetically engineered, like the AquaAdvantage Salmon, is typically much closer to the original natural product because it only has a small amount of genetic material that is different whereas an agricultural product bred through thosands of years of selection are much more genetically different than their natural origin. Yet it sounds to me like you would claim the agriculturally engineered plant is "more natural" than the GE salmon. So its not very clear how you are defining it because if you think corn is natural but GE salmon isn't then clearly your definition doesn't seem to be "more similar to the natural origin" because the GE salmon is much closer to the natural species genetically than corn is to tesonite.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »The other thing I don't get is the treatment of so called "genetically modified" foods. Apparently those aren't natural anymore, those are manmade. Yet they still grow. They aren't "poured into a mold". Why are they considered no longer natural? I'm not going to guess as to your opinion on those @Need2Exerc1se so I'll just ask if you consider "genetically modified" plants to be natural or man-made and if so what about them crossed that line for you?
I assume the answer is because the process isn't "natural" like agriculture itself is natural or like the techniques used in genetic engineering aren't from natural processes neither of which are true.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
I'd say that's a little beyond "natural".
Do you consider agriculture itself to be "natural"? My claim is not that genetic engineering is "natural" its a confusion as to why some people consider agriculture to be "natural" but genetic engineering to be not. It seems somewhat hypocritical or niave.
Recombinant DNA technology is based upon enzymes that occur naturally within bacteria. Restriction enzymes, homologous recombination, plasmids, these are all natural processes put into a particular order by humans to achieve the desired affect.
Agriculture is not natural. How could it be? I'd say agriculture is more natural than GE, and some agricultural methods are more natural than others.
The fact you think it is more natural than genetic engineering makes me think you don't know that much about how genetic engineering is actually done. What specific part of the process of genetic engineering is not a natural process.
Restriction enzymes are natural, DNA polymerase is natural, DNA ligase is natural, plasmids are natural, homologous recombination is natural. Using restriction enzymes to cut out a specific gene, amplify it with DNA polymerase, ligate it into a similarly cut plasmid with DNA ligase and then have that plasmid insert the gene via homolgous recombination is the man made process called genetic engineering.
Seeds are natural, cross-polination is natural. The act of planting seeds, growing plants, selecting those with favorable attributes, cross-polinating them, saving the seeds and starting again the next year is the man made process called agriculture.
Is the difference for you that you fully comprehend one but are less familiar with the other (I'm not trying to offend but it is a possible explanation)? Is it that one is more modern of a technique than the other? At what point do we cross that line from natural to man made if its not by using man made processes such as agriculture?
Agriculture can be as simple as plowing earth and dropping a seed, then nature takes over. IDK know the ins and outs of GE foods, but if the WHO says it's something that wouldn't happen naturally I tend to believe them.
It isn't something that would happen naturally...neither is agriculture. Neither of them are natural in that respect. That is my point.
I state a few posts ago I didn't think either was natural. You asked about more natural.
I don't think the statement "more natural" even makes sense so no I did not ask that. Something is either natural or it isn't.
Neither the process of genetic engineering nor the process of agriculture is natural. Both genetic engineering and agriculture use natural processes true but if using natural processes was the definition of natural then a metal sword would be natural. It is the implementation of those natural processes in a specific order that is human engineered and makes them man made.
The definition I am using for natural and not natural is pretty straightforward and I think once stated its easy to see what I would consider natural or not. It does not have a "manipulated" in there that is grey and hard to define. I legitimately did not know whether you would consider genetically engineered foods to be natural or man made based on your definition.
Things that are natural are things that would be produced by nature without any human intervention. Things that are man made are things that are produced via human intervention that otherwise would not have occured in nature. So in my view corn is man made, it is not natural. Corn arose from human intervention, it did not occur naturally and it would not occur naturally. The fish we eat are natural, they exist in nature without our influence. If we farm them that doesn't suddenly make them man made, you take a farmed salmon and toss it in the wild and it would probably do alright. You do that with corn and it wouldn't last a season. Things that are genetically engineered, also not natural..but not "more" or "less" natural than agriculture...to me they are equivalent...one is just a more modern technique.
What doesn't make sense about "more natural"? Man has altered every aspect of our world. So, unless we are saying nature no longer exists, it seems all we are left with is more or less natural.
To me natural means "comes from nature". If it doesn't come from nature then it isn't natural. I don't know what is meant by "more natural" in that context. Is the idea that a plant that is genetically altered to include one gene from a bacterium is "more natural" than a plant that is genetically altered to include two different genes from two different bacterium? If it gets that granular to me it just becomes arbitrary. That doesn't actually mean anything.
Man made means something to me in the context of it being a product that would not exist if it wasn't for humans. To me that is fairly clear. As soon as we talk about "how close" something is to nature then it gets totally subjective. After all arguably something that was genetically engineered, like the AquaAdvantage Salmon, is typically much closer to the original natural product because it only has a small amount of genetic material that is different whereas an agricultural product bred through thosands of years of selection are much more genetically different than their natural origin. Yet it sounds to me like you would claim the agriculturally engineered plant is "more natural" than the GE salmon. So its not very clear how you are defining it because if you think corn is natural but GE salmon isn't then clearly your definition doesn't seem to be "more similar to the natural origin" because the GE salmon is much closer to the natural species genetically than corn is to tesonite.
Well yeah, it would be subjective.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.
Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.
A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.
This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.
Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.
Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.
Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.
Why does it have to be so black and white? Who made that rule?1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.
Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.
A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.
This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.
Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.
Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.
Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.
Well, I didn't feel insulted at all. Most people don't meet with dieticians just once in a day-long session. They meet several times over weeks in 30-60 minute sessions. Avoid prepared foods with more than 5 ingredients (or 4, or 6) is a good starting point. That was one of my first week "assignments." Then we were able to discuss that in sessions that followed and get into some of those ingredients. Changing ones habits takes time. And it takes work... dedication... and an ongoing education. I learned a lot "counting" ingredients. So it worked for me. My wife liked it too and still counts - it's a real eye opener realizing the things we have been putting in our bodies for so long.
I don't know if I ever claimed to be a "clean eater" - maybe. Just like people can't call themselves "vegans" if they have a steak once in a while, maybe can't say I'm a "clean eater." What I do say a lot is "I'm trying to eat clean" and "I'm working toward a cleaner diet" but I have no desire or intention to permanently give up goodies once in a while.
Like I said before, different things work for different people. And I say "whatever works!" I don't see how it helps by blowing holes in strategies or muddying the waters with a bunch of unnecessary minutia. Lots of people here are just lost and looking for something to try and if counting ingredients gets them started down that path, why not?2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.
Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.
A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.
This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.
Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.
Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.
Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.
Why does it have to be so black and white? Who made that rule?
It doesn't have to be, it can be subjective...but if its subjective then obviously its just your opinion and you can't act like your opinion about word meaning somehow applies to everyone and everything. You should not define terms on the basis of subjective opinion so that comes back to the idea of clean eating being overly vague. If you base something not on black and white terminology then you end up with some wishy-washy vague guideline that means completely different things to different people.
I get irritated that people get our (the United States) congress to literally pass laws based on their subjective opinion about what constitutes "natural" acting like it has some quantifiable meaning or actual application that isn't entirely subjective (ie recent GMO labeling law). We shouldn't be defining our terms or basing our laws on things like that.6 -
I consider it to mean food that it has no added ingredients that I can't pronounce nor spell. Canned tomatoes for some might not be "clean" but for me okay, cause all that's in it are the tomatoes, water, salt maybe sugar. Does not have to be organic. Just no added ingredients that a chemist made up.0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd still like to understand from one of the "more than 5 ingredients are BAD, obviously" (insert eye roll) people how that definition actually tracks nutrition or, at least, an admission that they don't think it's about nutrition or health.
Also, I almost never buy something from the store with more than 5 ingredients (not because I think it's unhealthy, as cwolfman's salsa example showed well, but just because I never have, I don't usually shop that way, although there are exceptions), but I don't pretend I don't therefore eat processed foods. Saying you don't when you do just seems dishonest to me.
A cake from the bakery and one I bake at home (assuming more than 5 ingredients) are equally high in calories and hard (or not hard, depending) to fit in a day.
This was told to me by a dietician - it's a guide... a red flag for beginners who wish to learn how to eat better.
Yeah, this is a point made by Need2 earlier, and I think people just have different reactions to those kinds of rules. I find them dumb and rather condescending, and if someone told me to follow them I'd wonder why they thought I was incapable of understanding the real information--nutrition really isn't that complicated. What gets me, though, are people who maybe did find them helpful and then proceed to preach to others here as if we need to follow those rules of thumb religiously or else don't have a good diet, no matter what else we know.
Or, and this is common, who ask who is a "clean eater" and who isn't, as if the fact that I don't self-define as a clean eater means I don't care about nutrition and couldn't engage in a discussion about how to improve one's diet or what inspires me when cooking from whole foods or whatever.Of course I still eat cake and ice cream. I eat cookies and all kinds of "unclean" food. But nowhere near what I use to. I've searched for and found "cleaner" alternatives that I enjoy very much and I feel a lot better. Agree or disagree, I think people need to do whatever it takes to get healthier and feel better. There is no one plan or diet that works for everybody.
Sure, but as I understand it claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to (I never ate much cake, but do I eat certain lower nutrient/high cal foods less than I used to? of course). It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever, and seems to be a claim that that is more desirable or a better way to eat than someone with more knowledge looking at a jar of salsa, seeing it's all ingredients they'd use at home, and deciding it's worth the convenience.
Why does it have to be so black and white? Who made that rule?
It doesn't have to be, it can be subjective...but if its subjective then obviously its just your opinion and you can't act like your opinion about word meaning somehow applies to everyone and everything. You should not define terms on the basis of subjective opinion so that comes back to the idea of clean eating being overly vague. If you base something not on black and white terminology then you end up with some wishy-washy vague guideline that means completely different things to different people.
I get irritated that people get our (the United States) congress to literally pass laws based on their subjective opinion about what constitutes "natural" acting like it has some quantifiable meaning or actual application that isn't entirely subjective (ie recent GMO labeling law). We shouldn't be defining our terms or basing our laws on things like that.
From a scientific standpoint, I agree with you about terminology and clear definitions. But at the same time, expecting everyone to conform to your values and beliefs about how to approach the world is not appropriate either. Obviously, as a scientist, you hold data and evidence in high regard and probably base a lot of decisions on that, and that's fine. For others, they might be content not to focus that much on the specifics if they are getting the desired outcome, and that's fine as well.
These conversations always remind me of the Friends episode where Ross makes it his mission to convince Phoebe that dinosaurs existed.1
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
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions