Clean eating- does it matter?

garber6th wrote: »

cassandrarodriguez89 wrote: »

Cancer meal means that ingredients in the food have been proven to cause cancer or cause death. When they make white bread and white rice in the process they get rid of good nutrition. This is in every single science article and all over the news almost every day in the past several decades.

Even though I am Jewish I gave up snarkiness for lent and this post is torturing me.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I don't agree with that at all (and I'm someone who goes into an "I hate vegetables" thread and says that they are important and the person should work on learning to like them, and give cookbook recommendations.

I get kind of offended by such claims really, since I so frequently post about how important nutrition is (a real understanding of nutrition, not nonsensical clean eating) and enjoy talking about it, and see many others who are similar. It also suggests that most of us are recommending bad diets, and I've never seen that.

I would be interested in your comments on my posts in this thread, specifically the ones distinguishing between clean eating and nutrition. That I think processed foods can be fine or occasional treats does NOT mean I am not focused on nutrition or recommending it, and that people insist on reading things that way is IMO offensive and prevents real discussion.

I post posts like here, and yet people in the discussion continue making false dichotomies between those who "clean eat" and the rest who care nothing about nutrition. How is that not an intentional misunderstanding?

When somene comes along and says, "Oh I can't stop eating cookies", they are barraged with.....understanding and acceptance. I find it especially funny how the oreos are globbed onto as if the OP wasn't just using oreos as an example to illustrate a point.

Again, not what I see at all. I am one of many people who often gives advice on dealing with difficulties controlling food consumption, including sweets. I just don't happen to think the one and only answer for everyone is never eat them. (And as I said above, I don't personally care about Oreos. I suspect one thing about them is that just one is quite low cal, much lower cal than the homemade cookies I have in my recipe box.)

Are you asking about this thread? Are you interested in actually having a conversation about it? If so, that would be nice.

The answer is because OP did not just say "I find it helpful to eat this way." She said "do you think clean eating matters" and gave an example that it did based a difference between her very specific diet (low fat and vegan as well as whole foods based) and her friend who supposedly eats only small portions of "junk." I 100% agree that some diets are more satiating than others -- I could not happily survive on only junk, as I understand that term -- but I also don't think one NEEDS to eat "clean" (let alone low fat and vegan) to be satisfied on a deficit, and that's why I don't think clean eating matters. Also, for nutrition I don't think clean eating matters or is even necessarily a good diet. I think eating a nutrient dense and balanced or complete diet matters, yes. Maybe for weight loss, if like many of us it helps you be sated, and definitely for nutrition.

But my answer to OP's question is still no, I don't think it matters, and the only alternative to her kind of clean eating is not a non nutrition and non sating diet.

You seem to be ignoring the question OP asked. I don't think people have been telling her to eat differently. If she likes how she eats it's great for her, and I certainly did not say otherwise.

(Of course this post will be ignored, the better to continue an argument against strawmen rather than what is actually being said.)

RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

i am late to the game, but what definition of clean are we operating off of?

I should have just said a healthy balanced diet rich in whole foods

RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »

IrisFlute wrote: »

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.

I completely agree. I think if a lot of people checked their food intake on chronometer.com (which shows your whole RDA) instead of just MyFitnessPal, they'd realize how many nutrient deficiencies their diet may be contributing to. I think you'll have an easier time excercise he, sticking to a diet and generally moving around your life if you are eating a nutrient rich diet with minimally processed foods

You haven't read a single thing we've posted, have you? YOU CAN STILL EAT A NUTRIENT RICH DIET AND NOT EAT CLEAN. In fact, from your description above you're doing it right now.

I've read everything. My definition of clean is just healthy. All I'm talking about is healthy vs the standard American diet

comeonnow142857 wrote: »

Foods lacking in nutrients are not "unhealthy"...... "Unhealthy" only exists in CONTEXT (dosage of poisons, overall malnourishment, allergies, etc).

A DIET lacking in nutrients (which a 100% "clean" diet is completely capable of being) is unhealthy.

"Nutrient rich & balanced diet" >>>> "Clean eating".