Processed "Gunk" vs "Clean" Eating

Options
13567

Replies

  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    Options
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Not to derail this thread too much, though that's probably inevitable, but...

    I understand why people balk at terms like clean or junk when talking about foods. But in most cases, it's not hard to understand what someone is trying to get at when asking these types of questions.

    There will always be people trying to be funny or snarky or whatever else and posts unhelpful things in response to these types of threads... but for those of us who are trying to be helpful, is there a better way to talk about these types of foods? Better terms to use? These types of threads aren't going away, and I do think they merit conversation for many people.

    Regarding "clean" foods... is it better to say something like whole foods?
    What about junk food... is there a better term?

    I just call it food. *shrug* Everything else is just extra to me.
  • crazyycatlady1
    crazyycatlady1 Posts: 292 Member
    Options
    LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    I'm still curious as to how the OP gained 90 pounds in 1 year. Whatever caused that, I don't think the answer lies in 'clean' vs 'gunk' eating.

    My first thought is something medical but, of course, I have no real idea. If it is medical what the OP eats may be at least as important as how much.

    My first thought was binge eating/ED, but yeah we need more info from the OP. That much weight gain in that amount of time is alarming.
  • LAWoman72
    LAWoman72 Posts: 2,846 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Not to derail this thread too much, though that's probably inevitable, but...

    I understand why people balk at terms like clean or junk when talking about foods. But in most cases, it's not hard to understand what someone is trying to get at when asking these types of questions.

    I actually think it is, and they don't always mean the same thing (OP assuming that cheerios and cheese sticks would be "clean" and not "processed," for example). That's why I try to (nicely and helpfully, I think) point out how very broad the category "processed" is and that it does not map to "high cal" or "not nutritionally dense."
    for those of us who are trying to be helpful, is there a better way to talk about these types of foods? Better terms to use? These types of threads aren't going away, and I do think they merit conversation for many people.

    I usually think the person is asking about eating a more nutrient dense diet, to some extent, so like to focus on eating healthfully, but IMO some processed foods (even including things like Quest bars or protein powder or occasional frozen meals if you find some nutritionally sound ones you enjoy) or quick service restaurant meals (like the Pret meals I mentioned or some at Snapkitchen or these salads I like at a local place called Protein Bar or many others) can be useful it making it easier to eat an overall nutritionally-sound diet without it being too overwhelming.
    Regarding "clean" foods... is it better to say something like whole foods?

    I like to say MOSTLY whole foods, and a nutrition-conscious diet, but it's not like anyone seems to prefer my responses to anyone else's, including the jokes, and I get accused of being anti nutrition as much as anyone.
    What about junk food... is there a better term?

    Lots of people disagree with me, but I think junk food is a fine term and use it. I don't think it includes anything processed, but high cal, not that nutritious foods. I'd probably use it for homemade cookies, however whole the ingredients when I started. And I don't see it as a particularly negative term given how it's mostly used.

    I use it and find it fits with certain foods.

    I can never figure out what foods are universally "clean" or not-clean.

    For someone doing low-carb, eating an apple is eating not-clean. For someone trying to eat as raw as possible, meat (unless it's literally consumed raw) is not-clean. For some people, "clean" is "minimally" processed; for others, organic but VERY processed is still clean (like "organic" cereals) even though exactly the same macros in a non-organic food is "not clean" and will "derail one's fitness goals". (Unfortunately...your body might not get that memo and will process the two foods the same way.)

    I get the extremes - a batter-dipped deep-fried Triple Mac with Doritos under the bun is probably a not-clean food in most people's estimation. But MOST of what we eat, unless it is literally a piece of fruit (raw), a veggie (raw) or a protein (steamed, boiled or baked), is processed in some way. Actually, all those foods have already been processed in picking, packing, cleaning and so on, but they're the least processed. After that, you can say they're "basically" unprocessed if you don't do anything at all to them except put them into your mouth.

    But the worst, to me, is the false hope. "I can eat what I want as long as it's clean" USUALLY (not always) means, to a person's psyche, bulk. It means a lot of food. It means getting to Go and collecting your $200 just by being given a free card, no effort. And that just doesn't generally pan out. Too many calories are too many calories. If you're talking a specific health concern/food restriction, or a way of life regardless of weight, then fine, pick a definition of "clean eating" and just do it, no judgment. But if you're assuming some sort of vague, ungrasp-able clean eating will allow you to bypass biology and just not gain even if you're eating more of it than of "junk" food, you're probably in for a disappointment, and I hate to see that. I hate to see people pin their hopes on something and have those hopes just dashed.

    JMO.
  • Xymheia
    Xymheia Posts: 65 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    It doesn't matter for weight loss, as you will lose weight providing you're on a calorie deficit and are otherwise healthy, but most processed foods ('processed' here means foods that have been stripped of their original nutritional content and had sodium, preservatives and other chemicals added), candy and certain fast foods (french fries) do not contain the nutrients and vitamins you need while providing a lot of energy. This means that, in particular if you're limiting your caloric intake a.k.a. aim to lose weight, they make it more likely for you to pick up a nutrient or vitamin deficiency. As such, it's not so much the cutting out of processed foods that helps you improve your health but the introduction of foods with vitamins and nutrients that you may have been missing out on with a diet high in processed foods.

    I consider clean eating to be eating everything that is mostly in its natural state, with the exception of processing that does not really affect the nutrition profile, such as freezing, drying and some canning (if only vitamin C = ascorbic acid is used as preservative). Of course yogurt is created with fermentation and that also doesn't really count as processed food. Also pasteurizing is done for safety reasons. However, this isn't the full story. An important aspect is learning that food is not meant to be a coping mechanism for mental distress. It is primarily fuel for your body. This means developing a healthy relationship with food: eat mostly fresh and sometimes a snack or processed food is fine. This does not mean that you don't get to enjoy your food but that you choose recipes that are both healthy and enjoyable. If you find yourself stress eating, try to release this stress in other ways for example with meditation, exercise (don't overdo it though), dealing with the source of your stress assertively or talking it out with friends.

    Foods that are quite easy to prepare are (I'm also a student):
    - Couscous: just bring water to a boil and add to the couscous (1g of water for 1g of medium couscous), let sit for 5 minutes and stir. In the meantime, stir fry vegetables with meat/chicken and chick peas and add to the couscous when ready.
    - Wholewheat wraps with beans, bell peppers, tomatoes, maize, meat, etc. There are dozens of nice and healthy recipes online.
    - Brown rice with vegetable stir fry.
    - Overnight oats.
    - Yogurt with fresh fruit.
    - Breakfast/snack smoothies.
    - Healthy pancakes.
    - Beans, peas and lentils are a healthy addition to meals or substitution of meat, you can buy them dried in bulk, let them soak overnight and they are ready to be used in meals. (Warning: some need to be cooked before eaten)

    Tldr: cutting out processed foods (i.e. high in preservatives, low in nutrition) leaves room for more nutritious foods that supply vitamins and minerals you may have been missing out on. I consider clean eating to be mostly cooking with fresh foods that you can easily recognize and foods that, I'd say, have undergone minor processing such as freezing, pasteurizing and drying. What is most important is to develop a healthy relationship with food and find recipes that you enjoy.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    The biggest problem with processed food is that they are loaded with sodium and sugar. While your body needs both sodium and sugar, too much sodium is harmful and foods loaded with sugar are usually lacking in nutrients. It really makes no difference for weight loss, as long as you stay at your goal calories. However, the whole reason processed foods are loaded with sodium and sugar is because they cause you to want to eat more.

    Some processed foods do have a lot of sodium and sugar. But a lot of them don't.

    Avoiding processed foods for this reason would be a completely arbitrary restriction. If someone is concerned about sodium and sugar, it would be a much better strategy to learn how to read labels so they don't eat the foods with added sodium and sugar.

    Alrighty then.
  • LowCarb4Me2016
    LowCarb4Me2016 Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    LAWoman72 wrote: »
    LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Not to derail this thread too much, though that's probably inevitable, but...

    I understand why people balk at terms like clean or junk when talking about foods. But in most cases, it's not hard to understand what someone is trying to get at when asking these types of questions.

    I actually think it is, and they don't always mean the same thing (OP assuming that cheerios and cheese sticks would be "clean" and not "processed," for example). That's why I try to (nicely and helpfully, I think) point out how very broad the category "processed" is and that it does not map to "high cal" or "not nutritionally dense."
    for those of us who are trying to be helpful, is there a better way to talk about these types of foods? Better terms to use? These types of threads aren't going away, and I do think they merit conversation for many people.

    I usually think the person is asking about eating a more nutrient dense diet, to some extent, so like to focus on eating healthfully, but IMO some processed foods (even including things like Quest bars or protein powder or occasional frozen meals if you find some nutritionally sound ones you enjoy) or quick service restaurant meals (like the Pret meals I mentioned or some at Snapkitchen or these salads I like at a local place called Protein Bar or many others) can be useful it making it easier to eat an overall nutritionally-sound diet without it being too overwhelming.
    Regarding "clean" foods... is it better to say something like whole foods?

    I like to say MOSTLY whole foods, and a nutrition-conscious diet, but it's not like anyone seems to prefer my responses to anyone else's, including the jokes, and I get accused of being anti nutrition as much as anyone.
    What about junk food... is there a better term?

    Lots of people disagree with me, but I think junk food is a fine term and use it. I don't think it includes anything processed, but high cal, not that nutritious foods. I'd probably use it for homemade cookies, however whole the ingredients when I started. And I don't see it as a particularly negative term given how it's mostly used.

    I use it and find it fits with certain foods.

    I can never figure out what foods are universally "clean" or not-clean.

    For someone doing low-carb, eating an apple is eating not-clean. For someone trying to eat as raw as possible, meat (unless it's literally consumed raw) is not-clean. For some people, "clean" is "minimally" processed; for others, organic but VERY processed is still clean (like "organic" cereals) even though exactly the same macros in a non-organic food is "not clean" and will "derail one's fitness goals". (Unfortunately...your body might not get that memo and will process the two foods the same way.)

    I get the extremes - a batter-dipped deep-fried Triple Mac with Doritos under the bun is probably a not-clean food in most people's estimation. But MOST of what we eat, unless it is literally a piece of fruit (raw), a veggie (raw) or a protein (steamed, boiled or baked), is processed in some way. Actually, all those foods have already been processed in picking, packing, cleaning and so on, but they're the least processed. After that, you can say they're "basically" unprocessed if you don't do anything at all to them except put them into your mouth.

    But the worst, to me, is the false hope. "I can eat what I want as long as it's clean" USUALLY (not always) means, to a person's psyche, bulk. It means a lot of food. It means getting to Go and collecting your $200 just by being given a free card, no effort. And that just doesn't generally pan out. Too many calories are too many calories. If you're talking a specific health concern/food restriction, or a way of life regardless of weight, then fine, pick a definition of "clean eating" and just do it, no judgment. But if you're assuming some sort of vague, ungrasp-able clean eating will allow you to bypass biology and just not gain even if you're eating more of it than of "junk" food, you're probably in for a disappointment, and I hate to see that. I hate to see people pin their hopes on something and have those hopes just dashed.

    JMO.

    Very true about the carbs and when I say junk food its the typical chips/candy and such that offer no nutritional value for the calorie impact they offer. Its not necessarily wrong or bad to eat them, but that doesn't make them good for you. To each their own on that. It drives me nuts when someone tells me what I should eat so I try not to do that to others.

    When it comes to the word processed I know that frozen broccoli, potatoes, rice and tuna fish are all processed and packaged, but I generally think things like mac n cheese when I see people here asking questions about it. Mac n cheese is not inherently bad, but it is rather processed. There are extremes in every way of eating and I think what we see at MFP is usually someone who has just discovered something new and has yet to do all of the homework. I do think going from eating boxes of mac n cheese to eating large salads would generally improve someone's overall health, though I understand they will still need to watch calories in order to actually lose weight. I understand what the posters are trying to ask, though, and clearer language would help a lot.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    Chef_Barbell wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Not to derail this thread too much, though that's probably inevitable, but...

    I understand why people balk at terms like clean or junk when talking about foods. But in most cases, it's not hard to understand what someone is trying to get at when asking these types of questions.

    There will always be people trying to be funny or snarky or whatever else and posts unhelpful things in response to these types of threads... but for those of us who are trying to be helpful, is there a better way to talk about these types of foods? Better terms to use? These types of threads aren't going away, and I do think they merit conversation for many people.

    Regarding "clean" foods... is it better to say something like whole foods?
    What about junk food... is there a better term?

    I just call it food. *shrug* Everything else is just extra to me.

    Yes.

    Perhaps if we get away from the 'good food/bad food' concept, we can focus on the real issue which is the overall diet.

    Did the food prevent me meeting my dietary requirements/goals?
    No? Then it was a good choice.
    Yes? Then I could have (and should have if this is a frequent issue) made a better choice.
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,134 Member
    Options
    I naturally read "gunk" with a soft G. I hang out with too many European, non-English speakers.
  • LAWoman72
    LAWoman72 Posts: 2,846 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    zyxst wrote: »
    I naturally read "gunk" with a soft G. I hang out with too many European, non-English speakers.

    Well, that's how I read it, too; otherwise it would have been spelled junk, yes?

    Junk is garbage or something useless...gunk is that stuff you wipe out of your eyes in the morning...so I stumble with the concept each time I re-read the thread title, LOL.

    The little things that stand out for us...humans are interesting...
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Not to derail this thread too much, though that's probably inevitable, but...

    I understand why people balk at terms like clean or junk when talking about foods. But in most cases, it's not hard to understand what someone is trying to get at when asking these types of questions.

    There will always be people trying to be funny or snarky or whatever else and posts unhelpful things in response to these types of threads... but for those of us who are trying to be helpful, is there a better way to talk about these types of foods? Better terms to use? These types of threads aren't going away, and I do think they merit conversation for many people.

    Regarding "clean" foods... is it better to say something like whole foods?
    What about junk food... is there a better term?

    A noble sentiment.
    Unfortunately definitions vary from comical to reasonable and often what people say is just a meaningless catch-phrase that doesn't stand up to any common-sense scrutiny.

    On the rare occasion a self-proclaimed "clean eater" has a public diary it bears a remarkable similarity to other people who delight in saying they aren't a clean eater.
    As for the original question...


    Overall I really like Alan Aragon's take on the subject.....
    http://www.simplyshredded.com/research-review-the-dirt-on-clean-eating-written-by-nutrition-expert-alan-aragon.html

    I also like Aragon's take on this, especially this part:

    Applying Moderation: The 10-20% Guideline

    For those hoping that I’ll tell you to have fun eating whatever you want, you’re in luck. But, like everything in life, you’ll have to moderate your indulgence, and the 10-20% guideline is the best way I’ve found to do this. There currently is no compelling evidence suggesting that a diet whose calories are 80-90% from whole & minimally processed foods is not prudent enough for maximizing health, longevity, body composition, or training performance.

    I have seen the 10-20% guideline from several other authorities and it makes sense. I would note though, to get adequate nutrition, those who are trying to lose weight and are on a fairly low calorie diet, IMO, probably need to be closer to 10% vs 20%.
  • Lives2Travel
    Lives2Travel Posts: 682 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    stealthq wrote: »

    Perhaps if we get away from the 'good food/bad food' concept, we can focus on the real issue which is the overall diet.

    Did the food prevent me meeting my dietary requirements/goals?
    No? Then it was a good choice.
    Yes? Then I could have (and should have if this is a frequent issue) made a better choice.

    Spot on.

    We've all probably been the lucky receipients of someone else's diet manifesto. People who have been or are being successful losing weigh sometimes want to believe they have all the answers. They do, but those answers are theirs and not universal. Whenever someone claims that some style of eating is necessary for success I immediately tune them out unless they are touting CICO.

    I lost 113 lbs in a year. And subsisted mostly on prepared foods from Trader Joe's and other grocery chains. Since I have no issues with sodium I did what was sustainable for me. Not cooking is the only diet I can stick too!

  • LowCarb4Me2016
    LowCarb4Me2016 Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    stealthq wrote: »
    Chef_Barbell wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Not to derail this thread too much, though that's probably inevitable, but...

    I understand why people balk at terms like clean or junk when talking about foods. But in most cases, it's not hard to understand what someone is trying to get at when asking these types of questions.

    There will always be people trying to be funny or snarky or whatever else and posts unhelpful things in response to these types of threads... but for those of us who are trying to be helpful, is there a better way to talk about these types of foods? Better terms to use? These types of threads aren't going away, and I do think they merit conversation for many people.

    Regarding "clean" foods... is it better to say something like whole foods?
    What about junk food... is there a better term?

    I just call it food. *shrug* Everything else is just extra to me.

    Yes.

    Perhaps if we get away from the 'good food/bad food' concept, we can focus on the real issue which is the overall diet.

    Did the food prevent me meeting my dietary requirements/goals?
    No? Then it was a good choice.
    Yes? Then I could have (and should have if this is a frequent issue) made a better choice.

    Isn't that what a lot of them are trying to do, though? They've realized that certain foods cause more problems than they alleviate and they're looking for a different way of eating. Its the language used that seems to cause controversy.
  • LowCarb4Me2016
    LowCarb4Me2016 Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    LAWoman72 wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    I naturally read "gunk" with a soft G. I hang out with too many European, non-English speakers.

    Well, that's how I read it, too; otherwise it would have been spelled junk, yes?

    Junk is garbage or something useless...gunk is that stuff you wipe out of your eyes in the morning...so I stumble with the concept each time I re-read the thread title, LOL.

    The little things that stand out for us...humans are interesting...

    I read it as gunk like you'd find in unpleasant areas of the bathroom, rather than junk like you'd find in a junk yard.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »
    Very true about the carbs and when I say junk food its the typical chips/candy and such that offer no nutritional value for the calorie impact they offer. Its not necessarily wrong or bad to eat them, but that doesn't make them good for you.

    I'd say they aren't helpful in meeting nutritional goals, but within the context of a diet that does they are neither bad nor good for you. It's a matter of what's going to help you create a sustainable diet, and people differ on that. Lately I do better not eating much junk food, because I've been struggling with emotional eating again and it is hard for me to control when that's the case. But telling myself I've cut it out (vs. am not eating it now) is likely to make it harder for me, since then I start wanting it even if I did not before. It's annoying, yeah.
    To each their own on that. It drives me nuts when someone tells me what I should eat so I try not to do that to others.

    Agree.
    When it comes to the word processed I know that frozen broccoli, potatoes, rice and tuna fish are all processed and packaged, but I generally think things like mac n cheese when I see people here asking questions about it.

    I don't, in part because I never really ate most of the highly processed things people talk about (at least not since I started cooking regularly in my late 20s, and in many cases never before -- I've never had a poptart, weirdly). When I used to obsess about eating "all natural" I did avoid things like dried pasta, canned beans, grocery store meats (I still do this, but have a more reasonable attitude about it).
    Mac n cheese is not inherently bad, but it is rather processed.

    The best mac n cheese (IMO) is homemade. It's more caloric (at least as I made it) than the Kraft stuff, and absolutely made with processed ingredients (butter, cheese, milk, dried pasta, among others, often bread crumbs), but oddly enough those are things that people seem often to say they don't mean by processed.
    I do think going from eating boxes of mac n cheese to eating large salads would generally improve someone's overall health, though I understand they will still need to watch calories in order to actually lose weight.

    Agreed, but going from boxed mac and cheese to homemade would not. Going from low cal frozen meals to high cal homemade meals would not. What matters is really eating a nutritious diet or not. People seem to think that talking about nutrition or things you can do while still eating some processed foods (eating vegetables) = boring, but talking about eating clean (giving up bread or whatever, depending on how it's defined) = cool.

    When I was first on my own (and mostly a vegetarian, which I am definitely not now), I ate a TON of processed rice and beans mixes with some feta cheese and vegetables added in. I also bought salads in a bag (came with croutons and dressing, I might add some other vegetables). These aren't things I'd eat now, probably, but scaring me away from them because NOT CLEAN (which obviously you are not doing), wouldn't have been very sensible. They were perfectly decent options, even though they were basically chosen because I was lazy and did not know how to cook well. Being able to transition from these things when I did learn to cook (and decided I'd cook most of my meals) was helpful.

    This is one reason I really dislike the "clean" concept, even though I'm a huge proponent of nutrition-conscious eating and cooking mostly from whole foods for those interested.
  • LowCarb4Me2016
    LowCarb4Me2016 Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »
    Very true about the carbs and when I say junk food its the typical chips/candy and such that offer no nutritional value for the calorie impact they offer. Its not necessarily wrong or bad to eat them, but that doesn't make them good for you.

    I'd say they aren't helpful in meeting nutritional goals, but within the context of a diet that does they are neither bad nor good for you. It's a matter of what's going to help you create a sustainable diet, and people differ on that. Lately I do better not eating much junk food, because I've been struggling with emotional eating again and it is hard for me to control when that's the case. But telling myself I've cut it out (vs. am not eating it now) is likely to make it harder for me, since then I start wanting it even if I did not before. It's annoying, yeah.
    To each their own on that. It drives me nuts when someone tells me what I should eat so I try not to do that to others.

    Agree.
    When it comes to the word processed I know that frozen broccoli, potatoes, rice and tuna fish are all processed and packaged, but I generally think things like mac n cheese when I see people here asking questions about it.

    I don't, in part because I never really ate most of the highly processed things people talk about (at least not since I started cooking regularly in my late 20s, and in many cases never before -- I've never had a poptart, weirdly). When I used to obsess about eating "all natural" I did avoid things like dried pasta, canned beans, grocery store meats (I still do this, but have a more reasonable attitude about it).
    Mac n cheese is not inherently bad, but it is rather processed.

    The best mac n cheese (IMO) is homemade. It's more caloric (at least as I made it) than the Kraft stuff, and absolutely made with processed ingredients (butter, cheese, milk, dried pasta, among others, often bread crumbs), but oddly enough those are things that people seem often to say they don't mean by processed.
    I do think going from eating boxes of mac n cheese to eating large salads would generally improve someone's overall health, though I understand they will still need to watch calories in order to actually lose weight.

    Agreed, but going from boxed mac and cheese to homemade would not. Going from low cal frozen meals to high cal homemade meals would not. What matters is really eating a nutritious diet or not. People seem to think that talking about nutrition or things you can do while still eating some processed foods (eating vegetables) = boring, but talking about eating clean (giving up bread or whatever, depending on how it's defined) = cool.

    When I was first on my own (and mostly a vegetarian, which I am definitely not now), I ate a TON of processed rice and beans mixes with some feta cheese and vegetables added in. I also bought salads in a bag (came with croutons and dressing, I might add some other vegetables). These aren't things I'd eat now, probably, but scaring me away from them because NOT CLEAN (which obviously you are not doing), wouldn't have been very sensible. They were perfectly decent options, even though they were basically chosen because I was lazy and did not know how to cook well. Being able to transition from these things when I did learn to cook (and decided I'd cook most of my meals) was helpful.

    This is one reason I really dislike the "clean" concept, even though I'm a huge proponent of nutrition-conscious eating and cooking mostly from whole foods for those interested.

    For the bolded part, I can see how forbidding something makes it more desirable. For me I had to switch it from forbidden outright to permissible in certain circumstances. Sweet Frog for my kids' birthday rather than the $2 box of Kroger ice cream. Pizza from a local specialty shop rather than Little Caesars. I can still have it, but its much more desirable to have it less often this way. Again-for me, others may need the Kroger ice cream and LC more often in their lives. I would eat the homemade mac n cheese someone made for me but I'll skip the Kraft. Even better, I'll really enjoy a loaded cauliflower and cheese dish. I agree about the scare tactics, though.

    We've done the boxed meals at home in the past. One of my past favorites because of cost, convenience, and volume was the Hamburger Helper brand chicken fried rice. Add 2 cans of chicken breast and 2 cans of peas and have dinner for 4 for a night and lunch for a week. I usually bought it when it was on sale for $1 a box, even with 2 boxes plus the chicken and peas it came out to around $6 total for several meals. I don't consider this meal unhealthy unless you have issues with insulin. Then you run into problems and its not so healthy. I do miss the convenience and cost aspects of higher carb, I won't lie.
  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,426 Member
    Options
    Fewer processed/packaged foods might mean you eat more vegetables, fruits, protein. In that case you may be meeting your nutritional needs better and feel better. You might get less sodium. You might use fewer calories on oils or sugar and eat more filling foods.
    Or you have a diet that is hard for you to sustain if you don't have the skills/equipment to prepare food, money to buy, storage space, access to lots of fresh foods, and all your friends and family are eating processed/packaged foods.
    My advice would be to start where you are and maybe add more vegetables and fruits to your diet. Apples, oranges, celery, spinach, cabbage, frozen vegetables or fruits, potatoes might be things you could get.

Categories