Clean eating- does it matter?
Replies
-
My benchmark - are things listed on the label identifiable foods with sources I can know without a Google search or is it a chemical name I'd have to look up to locate the source?1
-
fasterpssycat wrote: »My benchmark - are things listed on the label identifiable foods with sources I can know without a Google search or is it a chemical name I'd have to look up to locate the source?
http://www.vocativ.com/culture/photos/scary-sounding-chemical-compounds-banana/18 -
I find that strictly clean eating for me doesn't work. It feels really regimented and diet like and that's when the wheels come off as I feel like i'm missing something so I binge on 'non clean foods' regardless of meeting by calorie goal or not. I have relaxed alot and don't stress about eating clean anymore, I balance my diet to have fruit, vege's and protein everyday for health reasons but allow for daily treats within my calorie goal and if I want something extra naughty I will just exercise a bit more that day. It has done wonders for me as I don't feel like im missing out and for once in my life I feel like im eating normally! I am slowly losing and am not fretting over food anymore - at the end of the day really is just calories in, calories out.3
-
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »I had a big salad for lunch and some sour patch kids, it's not "junk" to me.
What is junk?
I guess I should add...Solanum lycopersicum or Lycopersicon lycopersicum.
3 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »I had a big salad for lunch and some sour patch kids, it's not "junk" to me.
What is junk?
I guess I should add...Solanum lycopersicum or Lycopersicon lycopersicum.
11 -
^^^^hahahaha0
-
Carpentry can cause cancer. Hot beverages can cause cancer. Red meat can cause cancer. Don't roll down your windows because exhaust and general air pollution can cause cancer. Alcohol can cause cancer. The bacteria that causes most ulcers causes cancer. Birth control can cause cancer. Sunlight causes cancer. Cooking your food can cause cancer. Aloe Vera can cause cancer. Pickled vegetables can cause cancer. Coffee could cause cancer. Shift work could cause cancer. Obesity can cause cancer.
Somehow, cancer is still not the leading cause of death in the US.15 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »Carpentry can cause cancer. Hot beverages can cause cancer. Red meat can cause cancer. Don't roll down your windows because exhaust and general air pollution can cause cancer. Alcohol can cause cancer. The bacteria that causes most ulcers causes cancer. Birth control can cause cancer. Sunlight causes cancer. Cooking your food can cause cancer. Aloe Vera can cause cancer. Pickled vegetables can cause cancer. Coffee could cause cancer. Shift work could cause cancer. Obesity can cause cancer.
Somehow, cancer is still not the leading cause of death in the US.
I believe I read that the cancer rate is actually decreasing? I will have to google now.
Exception colon cancer among 20 something-39 year olds is rapidly increasing for some reason. Hits close to home with 2 family members with 2 different types of colon cancer (they are sisters).
ETA - death rate from cancer is actually down.0 -
fasterpssycat wrote: »My benchmark - are things listed on the label identifiable foods with sources I can know without a Google search or is it a chemical name I'd have to look up to locate the source?
This is why scientists get to eat a wider variety of food......30 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »fasterpssycat wrote: »My benchmark - are things listed on the label identifiable foods with sources I can know without a Google search or is it a chemical name I'd have to look up to locate the source?
This is why scientists get to eat a wider variety of food......
And lovers of Latin!14 -
WinoGelato wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »It might help to clarify which version of clean eating we're talking about.
Calories matter for weight loss. Good nutrition matters for things like hunger and health. But those can both be achieved with or without a "clean" diet.
Your diary shows a really low fat intake. I just want to be sure you're being smart about that because I can't imagine keeping my fat that low (and I have to stay low fat without my gallbladder).
Best of luck with your goals! :flowerforyou:
I have to eat low fat because fat cause my skin to break out and give me breakouts but I make sure I get my omegas from my greens on chronometer and if I don't, I'll have a tbsp of seeds. All my blood work is perfect for the first time in my life. I think eating clean just helps you feel full. For example, I'm going to feel a lot more full on a giant salad then two Oreos so I feel like it would be harder to feel full without eating clean
Who makes a choice between a giant salad, or two oreos? What harm will I come to, if I eat a salad AND eat Oreos, when I have room in my calories for both?
She already stated that eating Oreos would not make her feel full (and presumably would lead to overeating).
If you are someone who can eat anything, anytime and stay in tiptop shape, well then..hallelujah.
I make good steaks.
4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
Wow, I can see how that can be confusing. This is why I left my diary open so you guys can see what I mean but I'm in no way saying that everyone's clean has to look the same. Still, we all know the difference between healthy whole foods and junkdiannethegeek wrote: »Also, just because I can, here are the various definitions of clean eating I've seen: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10337480/what-is-clean-eating/p1
And something I should have said above, a little "junk" doesn't negate everything else that's nutritious in a diet. My matcha ice cream tonight won't change the number of veggies I'm eating. And it will help my calcium goal. If it fits in your calorie and nutrition goals, what's so wrong with a bit of "junk"? We don't get extra credit for going over what our nutrition needs are.
Yes. I agree with all that but you obviously know that brocolli is healthy and twinkles are junk. I'm not saying you can never eat them but we know what the healthier choices are in most situations. Of course, we all have different perspectives but we know what's healthy to us and what is just a treat1 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
Wow, I can see how that can be confusing. This is why I left my diary open so you guys can see what I mean but I'm in no way saying that everyone's clean has to look the same. Still, we all know the difference between healthy whole foods and junkdiannethegeek wrote: »Also, just because I can, here are the various definitions of clean eating I've seen: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10337480/what-is-clean-eating/p1
And something I should have said above, a little "junk" doesn't negate everything else that's nutritious in a diet. My matcha ice cream tonight won't change the number of veggies I'm eating. And it will help my calcium goal. If it fits in your calorie and nutrition goals, what's so wrong with a bit of "junk"? We don't get extra credit for going over what our nutrition needs are.
Yes. I agree with all that but you obviously know that brocolli is healthy and twinkles are junk. I'm not saying you can never eat them but we know what the healthier choices are in most situations. Of course, we all have different perspectives but we know what's healthy to us and what is just a treat
No we don't, given a lot of us are trying to lose weight.
Joking aside, it's actually very difficult to categorize the value of foods. Twinkies are very healthy for the mind or at least something. That's why they are very well known.
2 -
Sometimes in these "clean eating" conversations, the concept of nutrition seems to get lost. I see repeated statements that calorie deficit is THE ONLY THING that matters, and that food choices are an irrelevant personal preference. Sure, there's a certain physics involved in weight loss, and you could lose weight eating nothing but candy bars if you count calories accurately -- but our bodies are more than just numbers on a scale! There are a whole bunch of nutrients we need, and more of those nutrients exist in foods like lean meats, cheeses, beans, dark green vegetables, whole grains, etc., than exist in cupcakes and soda. Nutrition is actually a real science. What you put in your mouth matters for more reasons than just calories. It affects our brains, our cardiac systems, all the delicate chemistry of our bodies.
Furthermore, when you're eating fewer calories than you burn, every bite of food you take becomes more important in terms of meeting your body's needs. For instance, I'm eating at around 1200 calories a day plus most of my exercise calories. At 1200 calories, my body's nutritional demands simply don't leave any room for foods that aren't nutrient dense. I have to make sure every bite is maximally nutritious, or I'd end up thinner but malnourished.
I also see a lot of arguments that "clean eating" doesn't exist, because it doesn't have an ironclad definition. It seems sensible to substitute the phrase "nutrient dense" for "clean." That's objectively measurable. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of kale and chicken, you'll be getting protein, fiber, Vitamins A, K, C, B6, manganese, calcium, copper, potassium, magnesium, selenium, phosphorus, and more. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of 2 cookies, what do you get? Some fat, some refined carbs, and maybe a bit of protein from eggs in the recipe?
It's also worth noting that added sugars are not a nutrient our bodies need. While scientists are still disputing the exact health outcome of eating more sugar than we need, nobody claims that our bodies NEED added sugar. We can get all the sugars we need from eating fruits and vegies and grains that include fiber and other important nutrients in the same package.
So while we're eating fewer calories than we're burning, it doesn't make sense to squander those precious calories on something our bodies just don't need.13 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »It might help to clarify which version of clean eating we're talking about.
Calories matter for weight loss. Good nutrition matters for things like hunger and health. But those can both be achieved with or without a "clean" diet.
Your diary shows a really low fat intake. I just want to be sure you're being smart about that because I can't imagine keeping my fat that low (and I have to stay low fat without my gallbladder).
Best of luck with your goals! :flowerforyou:
I have to eat low fat because fat cause my skin to break out and give me breakouts but I make sure I get my omegas from my greens on chronometer and if I don't, I'll have a tbsp of seeds. All my blood work is perfect for the first time in my life. I think eating clean just helps you feel full. For example, I'm going to feel a lot more full on a giant salad then two Oreos so I feel like it would be harder to feel full without eating clean
Who makes a choice between a giant salad, or two oreos? What harm will I come to, if I eat a salad AND eat Oreos, when I have room in my calories for both?
She already stated that eating Oreos would not make her feel full (and presumably would lead to overeating).
If you are someone who can eat anything, anytime and stay in tiptop shape, well then..hallelujah.
I make good steaks.
Eating Oreos instead of a salad would not make her feel full. Me neither. I really can't think of a time when I was trying to decide between a salad, which I would consider a meal, and two Oreos, which I would consider dessert. My point is that why does there always have to be this false dilemma? Are there people who choose to eat Oreos instead of a sensible meal? Not that they choose to consume Oreos after a sensible meal, but instead of? Those are the scenarios that are always proposed in these threads and they just don't seem realistic to me.
Eat anything, any time and stay in tip top shape? I don't think I would go that far, but I don't see how my comments indicate that I believe that I do that. I'm not striving for top top shape.... I'm striving for generally healthy and happy, and a diet that includes a variety of Whole Foods, processed foods, and even Oreos in moderation - helps me achieve that.12 -
I disagree. Nutrition is never "lost" when you read the collective posts in these threads, someone will always mention nutrition.
If one picks out single posts then sure some say "the only thing you need is a calorie deficit" end point. But if you read the whole thread someone will come in and say something to the effect that over all nutrition is important.
ETA - I'd like to see one thread that someone hasn't pointed out that overall nutrition isn't important and I will correct it and others that are pointing this out should as well!
8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »It might help to clarify which version of clean eating we're talking about.
Calories matter for weight loss. Good nutrition matters for things like hunger and health. But those can both be achieved with or without a "clean" diet.
Your diary shows a really low fat intake. I just want to be sure you're being smart about that because I can't imagine keeping my fat that low (and I have to stay low fat without my gallbladder).
Best of luck with your goals! :flowerforyou:
I have to eat low fat because fat cause my skin to break out and give me breakouts but I make sure I get my omegas from my greens on chronometer and if I don't, I'll have a tbsp of seeds. All my blood work is perfect for the first time in my life. I think eating clean just helps you feel full. For example, I'm going to feel a lot more full on a giant salad then two Oreos so I feel like it would be harder to feel full without eating clean
Who makes a choice between a giant salad, or two oreos? What harm will I come to, if I eat a salad AND eat Oreos, when I have room in my calories for both?
She already stated that eating Oreos would not make her feel full (and presumably would lead to overeating).
If you are someone who can eat anything, anytime and stay in tiptop shape, well then..hallelujah.
I make good steaks.
Eating Oreos instead of a salad would not make her feel full. Me neither. I really can't think of a time when I was trying to decide between a salad, which I would consider a meal, and two Oreos, which I would consider dessert. My point is that why does there always have to be this false dilemma? Are there people who choose to eat Oreos instead of a sensible meal? Not that they choose to consume Oreos after a sensible meal, but instead of? Those are the scenarios that are always proposed in these threads and they just don't seem realistic to me.
Eat anything, any time and stay in tip top shape? I don't think I would go that far, but I don't see how my comments indicate that I believe that I do that. I'm not striving for top top shape.... I'm striving for generally healthy and happy, and a diet that includes a variety of Whole Foods, processed foods, and even Oreos in moderation - helps me achieve that.
If we didn't have the false dilemma there would be very little to argue about. The truly puritannical clean eaters, who insist that any goodie we might want to enjoy is going to poison us, eat as they do, and insist everyone else must do the same, because they have trouble seeing any kind of moderation or middle ground on these subjects.
On purely rational grounds, how on earth are 2 Oreos or a couple of squares of chocolate or one piece of cake ever going to ruin anyone? They can't, of course. You have to believe some kind of dogma to say otherwise.7 -
Sometimes in these "clean eating" conversations, the concept of nutrition seems to get lost. I see repeated statements that calorie deficit is THE ONLY THING that matters, and that food choices are an irrelevant personal preference. Sure, there's a certain physics involved in weight loss, and you could lose weight eating nothing but candy bars if you count calories accurately -- but our bodies are more than just numbers on a scale! There are a whole bunch of nutrients we need, and more of those nutrients exist in foods like lean meats, cheeses, beans, dark green vegetables, whole grains, etc., than exist in cupcakes and soda. Nutrition is actually a real science. What you put in your mouth matters for more reasons than just calories. It affects our brains, our cardiac systems, all the delicate chemistry of our bodies.
Furthermore, when you're eating fewer calories than you burn, every bite of food you take becomes more important in terms of meeting your body's needs. For instance, I'm eating at around 1200 calories a day plus most of my exercise calories. At 1200 calories, my body's nutritional demands simply don't leave any room for foods that aren't nutrient dense. I have to make sure every bite is maximally nutritious, or I'd end up thinner but malnourished.
I also see a lot of arguments that "clean eating" doesn't exist, because it doesn't have an ironclad definition. It seems sensible to substitute the phrase "nutrient dense" for "clean." That's objectively measurable. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of kale and chicken, you'll be getting protein, fiber, Vitamins A, K, C, B6, manganese, calcium, copper, potassium, magnesium, selenium, phosphorus, and more. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of 2 cookies, what do you get? Some fat, some refined carbs, and maybe a bit of protein from eggs in the recipe?
It's also worth noting that added sugars are not a nutrient our bodies need. While scientists are still disputing the exact health outcome of eating more sugar than we need, nobody claims that our bodies NEED added sugar. We can get all the sugars we need from eating fruits and vegies and grains that include fiber and other important nutrients in the same package.
So while we're eating fewer calories than we're burning, it doesn't make sense to squander those precious calories on something our bodies just don't need.
These threads always perplex me. Do you really believe that the people who say that a calorie is a calorie, or that clean eating isn't necessary for weight loss... don't think that nutrition is important? Did someone suggest that eating a diet of nothing but candy bars was a good idea? How does the statement that clean eating isn't necessary for weight loss always get construed as "people should never eat vegetables, lean meat, or whole grains and instead eat nothing but cupcakes and soda"? Why do I have to choose between a meal of kale and chicken, or two cookies? Why can't I have kale, chicken, and one cookie?24 -
Yes and no. I eat pretty clean by my standards. Mostly whole foods but also I eat a fair bit of fast food and some calories that could be more nutrient dense. Just do a mix! Nowhere is it written that you have to live off of virgin chicken breast and organic veggies, nor do all your calories have to come from pizza and pop tarts. I would think this is common sense but this question comes up a lot!6
-
Also wtf is a cancer meal? How absolutely disgusting to suggest that certain food causes cancer when I'm sure everyone on this forum knows someone affected by the illness THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. Tacky af17
-
This content has been removed.
-
I used to be exactly like your friend!!
This time around I've been eating clean, and it's clearly a better choice. I do know it's hard to not want to jump in and tell her that your way is better, even though it is (and I indulge sometimes) but I think the best thing you can do is just keep doing what you're doing, the more she sees your success and happiness, she's going to want to know how you're not starving when she is!
That's what I've been doing with my mom- we have both been working at weight loss, and while I don't think a full on lean cuisine diet is healthy, I have always congratulated her weight loss, as she does mine.. but now she's seeing my yummy food and that I'm not saying "I'm starving!" Every night, now she's starting to ask me how I made this or that.. I'm sure your friend will catch on!2 -
I only have so many calories in a day and I don't like to waste them on foods that aren't nutritionally dense. I do once in a while but I've made a habit of finding ways to make the "treats" I really like in a way that's more beneficial to me and my health. Things like using a whole grain flour instead of white flour or adding protein powder to baked goods to better keep on track with my protein goals. Making my own soups and stews that contain a higher concentration and much wider variety of vegetables and protein sources than most commercially available products, and without the long list of additives and preservatives. Eating plain sugarless yogurt and using stevia and whole berries/fruits to sweeten instead of HFCS found in most commercial yogurts. If I indulge with my yogurt I use maple syrup which is very high in manganese, good levels of B2 and Zinc and lower levels of other vitamins and minerals vs. white sugar which has no nutritional value beyond carbs. Making my own smoothies/protein shakes and including vegetables and greens.
The small choices I make really add up at the end of the day.5 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »Maybe. In order to get sufficient vitamins and minerals, you're going to have to dip into "clean eating" a little bit (whole grains, sufficient fruit and vegetables) but being extremist about it is just going to complicate things. Heck, sometimes processed stuff is better than fresh. Frozen and canned fruit/vegetables retain more of their vitamins than fresh fruit/vegetables. Unless you're getting it directly and promptly from the farm, the vitamins have already degraded significantly.
"University of California studies show that vegetables can lose 15 to 55 percent of vitamin C, for instance, within a week. Some spinach can lose 90 percent within the first 24 hours after harvest."
They don't cite the study in the article where the info came from. And no one in the UC cites only the UC for credit for research. There are 10 UCs and each one wants all the rep points it can get. Without the context of the actual study, the info seems a little suspect to me.2 -
I don't think there's anything wrong with a diet made up of predominantly "healthy" "clean" "nutritious" foods. But i also think there's nothing wrong with throwing in a treat or two here and there either.
As long as the junk food or treats don't overtake the nutritious foods then i don't see a problem with incorporating not 100% clean, nutrient dense food into the mix.8 -
I agree. It's easier to throw in treats if you have a higher calorie limit to work within. If you're restricting calories a lot, empty calories from treats are likely to crowd out more nutritious foods that you might need. But if your calorie limit is pretty high, you have more room for extras. It's basically a budget, as @JohnnyPenso mentioned.Christine_72 wrote: »I don't think there's anything wrong with a diet made up of predominantly "healthy" "clean" "nutritious" foods. But i also think there's nothing wrong with throwing in a treat or two here and there either.
As long as the junk food or treats don't overtake the nutritious foods then i don't see a problem with incorporating not 100% clean, nutrient dense food into the mix.2 -
I agree. It's easier to throw in treats if you have a higher calorie limit to work within. If you're restricting calories a lot, empty calories from treats are likely to crowd out more nutritious foods that you might need. But if your calorie limit is pretty high, you have more room for extras. It's basically a budget, as @JohnnyPenso mentioned.Christine_72 wrote: »I don't think there's anything wrong with a diet made up of predominantly "healthy" "clean" "nutritious" foods. But i also think there's nothing wrong with throwing in a treat or two here and there either.
As long as the junk food or treats don't overtake the nutritious foods then i don't see a problem with incorporating not 100% clean, nutrient dense food into the mix.
I eat pretty clean and have no trouble sneaking in a 150 calorie 'treat' on a 1200 calorie day. I still get my 800g of veggies a day, lean protein, a serve of dairy...3 -
FreyasRebirth wrote: »Maybe. In order to get sufficient vitamins and minerals, you're going to have to dip into "clean eating" a little bit (whole grains, sufficient fruit and vegetables) but being extremist about it is just going to complicate things. Heck, sometimes processed stuff is better than fresh. Frozen and canned fruit/vegetables retain more of their vitamins than fresh fruit/vegetables. Unless you're getting it directly and promptly from the farm, the vitamins have already degraded significantly.
"University of California studies show that vegetables can lose 15 to 55 percent of vitamin C, for instance, within a week. Some spinach can lose 90 percent within the first 24 hours after harvest."
They don't cite the study in the article where the info came from. And no one in the UC cites only the UC for credit for research. There are 10 UCs and each one wants all the rep points it can get. Without the context of the actual study, the info seems a little suspect to me.
Not to mention that although vitamin C is one of the more volatile vitamins in vegetables (lost more than other things in cooking but I'm highly doubting the numbers above for simple transport) it's so abundant that even if more than half of it is lost you can still end up way over DV if you like vegetables. For perspective, one yellow pepper has more than enough vitamin C even if 80% of it was lost (very doubtful). I'm consistently over 500% vitamin C and I don't eat clean. It doesn't take much to get adequate nutrition and clean eating (or focusing on frozen foods for that purpose for that matter) is majoring in minors and putting more focus on areas that don't need as much focus on a balanced diet.
3 -
I think the thing that bugs me the most about these "clean eating" posts, besides the fact that there is no actual definition, is that the zealots imply that they NEVER eat anything else. It's hard to believe so many people never have a glass of wine at a wedding, eat a Christmas cookie, a piece of pie in Thanksgiving, or a special dinner on vacation. Not to mention that plenty of the food they claim is unprocessed of course is - like 90% of food.12
-
I think the thing that bugs me the most about these "clean eating" posts, besides the fact that there is no actual definition, is that the zealots imply that they NEVER eat anything else. It's hard to believe so many people never have a glass of wine at a wedding, eat a Christmas cookie, a piece of pie in Thanksgiving, or a special dinner on vacation. Not to mention that plenty of the food they claim is unprocessed of course is - like 90% of food.
What bugs me even more is the closed-minded, binary thinking displayed in most "clean eating" threads. That there are only two possibilities - either you eat "clean" 100 percent of the time, or you lay around on the couch shoveling sugar and fat down your slovenly, nasty, dirty, sick and disease-ridden throat by the pound. No possibility whatsoever that there could be any sensible, reasonable middle ground between the two extremes.
Lyle McDonald wrote a great piece about exactly that topic: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/26
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions