What is 'clean' eating??
Options
Replies
-
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.
I would agree with all that.
Edit: though it's pretty off subject for my comment which was in response to the comment from @lemurcat12 that said: "claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to <snip>. It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever"
I was just wondering why that particular term had to be black and white. Would the same be true of other diet terms. For example, if I say I eat low carb would that mean I had to eat low carb 100% of the time?0 -
Gravity. The butter side is heavier.juliebowman4 wrote: »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?!?!
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.
I don't think this is a question of beliefs or values- at least not this sub conversation. It's frankly a question of knowledge. Most Americans probably assume an agricultural product like corn or apples or whatever are 'natural' because they know they grow in the ground (or the tree does)- and they have absolutely no knowledge of the level of human intervention required to make those products or that they wouldn't exist as we know them without manipulating nature. It certainly isn't the idyllic farmer image we cling to- way less romantic and frontiersy.
It's not a values thing for someone with more knowledge to point out that the definition someone is using without all the facts (or without correct facts) is based on inaccurate information. I'm not a rigid person, so maybe that's why I'm always so baffled when people are confronted with new information and reject it out of hand. I'm more like "Holy *kitten*! I'm going to explore this because this changes how I think about things- and that turns my *kitten* on."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.
If you meet with a dietitian the dietitian can figure out where you are and what would be helpful and come up with ideas to help you improve your diet, I agree with that and think a good one will understand the person and the issues when giving advice.
When I decided to lose weight I was already basically eating from whole foods for the most part and didn't buy many packaged goods, and I knew a lot about nutrition (which is why I didn't go to see a dietitian, in part). So for someone to tell me that I should start by "cleaning up my diet" and giving up foods with more than 5 ingredients would not have been helpful at all, and would have (again) seemed insulting and like she or he didn't pay attention to the information received, at all.
For someone to state as an absolute that a diet without ANY foods with more than 5 ingredients is to take a rather simplistic rule that might be helpful to certain people and proclaim it as something more. And it's (IMO) always better to actually understand why a particular choice is better for you in a particular case than another (and one factor might be convenience or taste), and relying on all or nothing rules like 5 or less=good, more than 5=bad is not, IMO, the ultimate goal or real knowledge.
Can it be a stepping stone? Sure, maybe for some. Like I said, different things work for different people, and that it feels insulting for me and like the person assumes I eat in a way I do not (or that I don't make thoughtful decisions about the processed foods I buy) may not apply for all.
My object is to the idea that "clean eating" has some obvious definition and is nutritionally better not eating in other ways. I don't self-define as a clean eater since I've yet to hear a definition that I really think makes a lot of sense, and because I think the word applied to eating is obnoxious and rather self-congratulatory, but as I always say I'm interested in nutrition and cooking from whole foods and open for discussion. That people don't say "great, that's what I'm looking for!" but instead seem to want to find people doing self-defined "clean eating plans" or the like says a lot, I think, about the real motive for using the term.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.
It sounds like your way of eating is much like mine, then. (And I made smaller changes at one point, it just largely happened years ago, way before I was trying to lose weight this time -- ultra processed food wasn't the cause of my weight issues and I rather resent the idea that anyone who gets fat must be relying on them or not cooking or does not know about nutrition.) I don't get why you'd latch onto the term "clean eating" (not saying you are) or get annoyed when people ask what it means is all. That I question the term doesn't at all mean I question the goal of eating healthfully or cooking from whole foods, etc. -- as I said, I do this. Have for years.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?
Because I think real nutrition is simpler and less about minutia than "less than 5 ingredients!" and that understanding how it works is more helpful overall. For example, as I mentioned above, people post about wanting to clean eat and not eat vegetables. If you avoid foods with more than 5 ingredients and yet don't touch vegetables, your diet isn't so great (barring certain health issues, of course). If you do that and get super low protein or don't get in healthy fats or avoid fiber, same. For me, I could have said I was doing that and continued eating as I was when I got fat -- not what I needed.0 -
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?
This is my understanding when I ask people on MFP what they mean by "clean eating." It is also my understanding from the various challenges and clean plans that get mentioned sometimes: NO whatever.
If it's about mostly trying to eat healthfully and from whole foods, it's pretty much how I eat, so why the special name and claim that they eat so differently?2 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.
If you meet with a dietitian the dietitian can figure out where you are and what would be helpful and come up with ideas to help you improve your diet, I agree with that and think a good one will understand the person and the issues when giving advice.
When I decided to lose weight I was already basically eating from whole foods for the most part and didn't buy many packaged goods, and I knew a lot about nutrition (which is why I didn't go to see a dietitian, in part). So for someone to tell me that I should start by "cleaning up my diet" and giving up foods with more than 5 ingredients would not have been helpful at all, and would have (again) seemed insulting and like she or he didn't pay attention to the information received, at all.
For someone to state as an absolute that a diet without ANY foods with more than 5 ingredients is to take a rather simplistic rule that might be helpful to certain people and proclaim it as something more. And it's (IMO) always better to actually understand why a particular choice is better for you in a particular case than another (and one factor might be convenience or taste), and relying on all or nothing rules like 5 or less=good, more than 5=bad is not, IMO, the ultimate goal or real knowledge.
Can it be a stepping stone? Sure, maybe for some. Like I said, different things work for different people, and that it feels insulting for me and like the person assumes I eat in a way I do not (or that I don't make thoughtful decisions about the processed foods I buy) may not apply for all.
My object is to the idea that "clean eating" has some obvious definition and is nutritionally better not eating in other ways. I don't self-define as a clean eater since I've yet to hear a definition that I really think makes a lot of sense, and because I think the word applied to eating is obnoxious and rather self-congratulatory, but as I always say I'm interested in nutrition and cooking from whole foods and open for discussion. That people don't say "great, that's what I'm looking for!" but instead seem to want to find people doing self-defined "clean eating plans" or the like says a lot, I think, about the real motive for using the term.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.
It sounds like your way of eating is much like mine, then. (And I made smaller changes at one point, it just largely happened years ago, way before I was trying to lose weight this time -- ultra processed food wasn't the cause of my weight issues and I rather resent the idea that anyone who gets fat must be relying on them or not cooking or does not know about nutrition.) I don't get why you'd latch onto the term "clean eating" (not saying you are) or get annoyed when people ask what it means is all. That I question the term doesn't at all mean I question the goal of eating healthfully or cooking from whole foods, etc. -- as I said, I do this. Have for years.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?
Because I think real nutrition is simpler and less about minutia than "less than 5 ingredients!" and that understanding how it works is more helpful overall. For example, as I mentioned above, people post about wanting to clean eat and not eat vegetables. If you avoid foods with more than 5 ingredients and yet don't touch vegetables, your diet isn't so great (barring certain health issues, of course). If you do that and get super low protein or don't get in healthy fats or avoid fiber, same. For me, I could have said I was doing that and continued eating as I was when I got fat -- not what I needed.
Well, please accept my apologies for not being offended with my dietician when she was trying to help me. I'll try to be more sensitive and disagreeable in the future.
In the meantime, I've explained as best I could and I hope that I, in some way, helped the OP and others who may have been wondering the same thing. Good luck to all and keep up the good work.2 -
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.
Yeah no doubt what I am expressing is my world view and my beliefs about how things should work and that amounts to an opinion. In discussing how we should approach regulations, and public policy and food I do think everyone has a voice and those voices are opinions. I'm not trying to shout down Need2Exercise, but I am disagreeing with them. I haven't gotten the sense that they are upset by this otherwise I would have stopped. To me we are both stating our opinions and arguing the merits of those opinions.
The idea that regulations should be based on facts not subjective beliefs is not in and of itself a fact, its an opinion...I get that.
That said that corn is not something that was produced by nature I feel is pretty much a fact. I mean it is at least really hard for me to understand how someone could view something like that knowing the history of it as something that is natural. It is a product of our agriculture, it wouldn't exist in any shape or form recognizable to what we have in a natural way. So how someone could view corn as natural but yet a single genetic change in a salmon makes it unnatural is admittedly bizzare to me and makes me feel like the person who thinks that just doesn't have the whole picture.5 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Chilli7777 wrote: »Eating things as close to their natural state as possible. Packaged food with more than 5 ingredients would be avoided. Sorry you were bombarded by idiots.
Genuinely inquisitve as to where the number 5 comes from? So if I have a pre-prepared fruit salad with 6 fruits, is it not longer clean?
I ate some pre-prepared Indian food with about 20 ingredients, the other day. I'd usually be disappointed with anything less, as I'd use that many if I could be arsed to make it myself, too..2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I would agree with all that.
Edit: though it's pretty off subject for my comment which was in response to the comment from @lemurcat12 that said: "claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to <snip>. It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever"
I was just wondering why that particular term had to be black and white. Would the same be true of other diet terms. For example, if I say I eat low carb would that mean I had to eat low carb 100% of the time?
Nah to be honest I went a bit off rails on a personal rant related to other conversations I've had about "clean" eating and GMOs. I think its hard to avoid doing that. I don't think opinions have to be black and white, opinions by definition are subjective and therefore grey. I just think if we make laws or regulations they should be on the basis of things that can be defined that way. I am very much bothered by the idea of a legal system in which one person who presents a fact is "out voted" by two people who present a belief. That said you aren't sitting there trying to make laws or regulations so I guess my point wasn't really directed towards you, just a point I made to explain why I care about the definitions.
Some people don't like their ideas being questioned to the point that they get riled or emotionally upset and I tend to avoid prolonging those conversations. Although it can be hard to tell in text over the internet I wasn't getting the sense you were being upset so I just continued talking from my perspective and what I believe. I think I probably do know more about the specifics of genetic engineering and would feel like I could provide some facts to counter others opinions but in terms of the definition of "natural" and how to apply it that is subjective and my opinion is just that, an opinion. I don't mean to make it sound like anything more.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.
I don't think this is a question of beliefs or values- at least not this sub conversation. It's frankly a question of knowledge. Most Americans probably assume an agricultural product like corn or apples or whatever are 'natural' because they know they grow in the ground (or the tree does)- and they have absolutely no knowledge of the level of human intervention required to make those products or that they wouldn't exist as we know them without manipulating nature. It certainly isn't the idyllic farmer image we cling to- way less romantic and frontiersy.
It's not a values thing for someone with more knowledge to point out that the definition someone is using without all the facts (or without correct facts) is based on inaccurate information. I'm not a rigid person, so maybe that's why I'm always so baffled when people are confronted with new information and reject it out of hand. I'm more like "Holy *kitten*! I'm going to explore this because this changes how I think about things- and that turns my *kitten* on."
I am glad to have turned on your kitten. Sorry, couldn't help myself...sometimes the *kitten* thing just makes for some hilarious posts.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Chilli7777 wrote: »Eating things as close to their natural state as possible. Packaged food with more than 5 ingredients would be avoided. Sorry you were bombarded by idiots.
Genuinely inquisitve as to where the number 5 comes from? So if I have a pre-prepared fruit salad with 6 fruits, is it not longer clean?
I ate some pre-prepared Indian food with about 20 ingredients, the other day. I'd usually be disappointed with anything less, as I'd use that many if I could be arsed to make it myself, too..
I'm eating a chicken bowl right now. It has chicken breast, rice, broccoli, cabbage, carrots and green onions.
6 ingredients. I'm probably already dead.2 -
mysteps2beauty wrote: »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.
But this can differ depending on education level/background....0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I would agree with all that.
Edit: though it's pretty off subject for my comment which was in response to the comment from @lemurcat12 that said: "claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to <snip>. It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever"
I was just wondering why that particular term had to be black and white. Would the same be true of other diet terms. For example, if I say I eat low carb would that mean I had to eat low carb 100% of the time?
Yes. You also can't be vegan 5 days of the week, if you eat meat or use animal products at all, you're not vegan.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I would agree with all that.
Edit: though it's pretty off subject for my comment which was in response to the comment from @lemurcat12 that said: "claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to <snip>. It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever"
I was just wondering why that particular term had to be black and white. Would the same be true of other diet terms. For example, if I say I eat low carb would that mean I had to eat low carb 100% of the time?
Yes. You also can't be vegan 5 days of the week, if you eat meat or use animal products at all, you're not vegan.
This illustrated perfectly the point I was trying to make about the meaning of natural.
The word vegan really only has meaning in the context of someone who completely abstain from animal products. If someone who doesn't eat animal products on Tuesdays refers to themselves as vegan then either they are wrong or it turns the word into this nebulous subjective mush that doesn't really mean anything. If we accept that and someone says their vegan now we have no clue what they mean.
Similar with natural. Something that I'd natural arises from nature without human intervention. If you start calling something like corn natural you have turned a concrete term into subjective mush and I don't even understand what you mean by natural anymore so I have to keep asking. Is GE natural? Is a crystal natural? I don't know different people will claim different things.
If you give up objective definitions you end up talking past one another constantly misinterpreting eachother meaning. It's hard to avoid but I at least try to point it out when it happens.0 -
Honestly the definition of natural people seem to use is "if it's alive or not machine or hand built and came into being before I was born it's natural"0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I would agree with all that.
Edit: though it's pretty off subject for my comment which was in response to the comment from @lemurcat12 that said: "claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to <snip>. It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever"
I was just wondering why that particular term had to be black and white. Would the same be true of other diet terms. For example, if I say I eat low carb would that mean I had to eat low carb 100% of the time?
Yes. You also can't be vegan 5 days of the week, if you eat meat or use animal products at all, you're not vegan.
See, that's just it.
Generally speaking, vegan is not a subjective term. Most people would agree on what it means to be vegan.
Not so with 'clean' eating.
Ask 100 people....get 100 different answers.
1 -
juliebowman4 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I would agree with all that.
Edit: though it's pretty off subject for my comment which was in response to the comment from @lemurcat12 that said: "claiming that you are a "clean eater" doesn't mean you eat less cake than you used to <snip>. It means that you NEVER eat "processed foods" or "foods with 5 ingredients" or whatever"
I was just wondering why that particular term had to be black and white. Would the same be true of other diet terms. For example, if I say I eat low carb would that mean I had to eat low carb 100% of the time?
Yes. You also can't be vegan 5 days of the week, if you eat meat or use animal products at all, you're not vegan.
See, that's just it.
Generally speaking, vegan is not a subjective term. Most people would agree on what it means to be vegan.
Not so with 'clean' eating.
Ask 100 people....get 100 different answers.
But do those people each adhere to their answer all the time? If they say they're a clean eater and their definition is "No foods with more than 5 ingredients on the list" or whatever, what if they do eat things that don't adhere to that rule, purposely, yet still claim they're eating clean? I have seen plenty people claim "no processed foods" who had in their diaries 2-3 protein shakes per day.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
I don't think this is a question of beliefs or values- at least not this sub conversation. It's frankly a question of knowledge. Most Americans probably assume an agricultural product like corn or apples or whatever are 'natural' because they know they grow in the ground (or the tree does)- and they have absolutely no knowledge of the level of human intervention required to make those products or that they wouldn't exist as we know them without manipulating nature. It certainly isn't the idyllic farmer image we cling to- way less romantic and frontiersy.
It's not a values thing for someone with more knowledge to point out that the definition someone is using without all the facts (or without correct facts) is based on inaccurate information. I'm not a rigid person, so maybe that's why I'm always so baffled when people are confronted with new information and reject it out of hand. I'm more like "Holy *kitten*! I'm going to explore this because this changes how I think about things- and that turns my *kitten* on."
I am glad to have turned on your kitten. Sorry, couldn't help myself...sometimes the *kitten* thing just makes for some hilarious posts.
I meant in general- not this thread specifically. I don't know why I'm surprised that folx resist new info, though, as I was raised by people who think the 5th horseman of the apocalypse is named Science.
0 -
mysteps2beauty wrote: »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.
Sadness. No more huitlachoche in our annual tamales. No one will eat them because of phonetics and orthography.
Does everyone who spells/pronounces it "expresso" have to give it up?
Does it count if I still rely on my autocorrect to fix the various ways I mangle "cappuccino" when I'm typing?
3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
I don't think this is a question of beliefs or values- at least not this sub conversation. It's frankly a question of knowledge. Most Americans probably assume an agricultural product like corn or apples or whatever are 'natural' because they know they grow in the ground (or the tree does)- and they have absolutely no knowledge of the level of human intervention required to make those products or that they wouldn't exist as we know them without manipulating nature. It certainly isn't the idyllic farmer image we cling to- way less romantic and frontiersy.
It's not a values thing for someone with more knowledge to point out that the definition someone is using without all the facts (or without correct facts) is based on inaccurate information. I'm not a rigid person, so maybe that's why I'm always so baffled when people are confronted with new information and reject it out of hand. I'm more like "Holy *kitten*! I'm going to explore this because this changes how I think about things- and that turns my *kitten* on."
I am glad to have turned on your kitten. Sorry, couldn't help myself...sometimes the *kitten* thing just makes for some hilarious posts.
I meant in general- not this thread specifically. I don't know why I'm surprised that folx resist new info, though, as I was raised by people who think the 5th horseman of the apocalypse is named Science.
Oh yeah I know you weren't talking about you personally or your response to something I said....but the "that turns my kitten on" line was hilarious as it made me picture someone's internet posts arousing my cat. Just had to quip off that.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
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions