Processed "Gunk" vs "Clean" Eating
Replies
-
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.
I had a similar gain last year. I had surgery then 2 weeks later my mother became ill and passed away. I was also mostly responsible for getting her house ready to sell. I stress eat and that is exactly what I did.
I ate nutritious food, I ate less nutritious food, I drank, and I stopped working out. Basically, I ate way too much. My fitness deteriorated significantly but my overall health did not. BP stayed good, lipids went up a bit, A1C went up a bit.
I have been back on track for 3 months now and all of my health markers are good plus I have lost an average of 7 lb per month. "On track" to me means eating below my TDEE and making those calories count with nutrient dense foods and a few treats thrown in as I can fit them in. I do not distinguish between convenience foods, home made foods, etc. I eat what fits my targets and my macros and tastes good to me.3 -
I understand that weight loss comes down to CICO, but I was wondering what positive effects come from cutting out processes foods. I am a college student so I eat alot of processes foods like canned soup and microwavable dinners that are under 300 calories. This is my second time using MFP since I have regained about 90 lbs in a year (after maintaining for about a year and a half) and this time I am struggling a lot harder to lose the weight. I was wondering if eating cleaner helps people drop more weight initially as well as the other positive effects, it can have on the body compared to eating foods like soup. Also what do you consider eating clean (with examples please)? Im also looking for some more healthy convenient foods I can make/keep in my dorm. I currently have carrots and Greek yogurts, cheese sticks, soups, baggies of almonds, hard boiled eggs, cheerios, strawberries,and 100 calorie bags of popcorn.
To me 'clean eating' means limiting processed foods and trying to select foods as close to their natural state as possible. When I started my journey I would eat takeaways 4-5 times per week as well as crisps, chocolate and lots of alcohol.
I think eating a larger selection of whole foods does help you lose weight. For example, eating more fruit and vegetables gives you extra fibre, maintaining gut health and ensuring food is processed well. Eating lean protein (animal or not) helps to keep you fuller and maintain muscle mass (essential, as more muscle = more passive calorie burn). These kinds of food are generally much more micro-nutrient dense as well contributing to better health alongside the weight loss.
For me, it started with cutting out added sugars. Yes it was hard and I got the cravings mentioned by others but after a few weeks that subsides. I still eat chocolate, icecream, crisps and takeaways but these are a treat and I don't often crave them.
TLDR: Foods as close to their natural state are more nutrient rich, less calorie dense, which keeps you fuller for longer making sticking to a diet easier.
If your gut is more efficient at extracting nutrients from foods it stands to reason it would also draw more energy from those foods. AKA calories. And thus actually slow weight loss.
OP I eat a lot of so called processed (everyone has a different definition), convenience and pre-prepared foods. It's a way to manage health conditions for me, I might burn my kitchen down or as happens regularly, stand in the produce aisle unable to make any sort of decision or what to put in my basket/trolley.
These foods have nutrition, often plenty of it. In the UK the quality and choice of convenience foods is great with a variety of choices with low salt, reduced calories, higher protein etc. I have absolutely no issue with those making up a large percentage of my intake. I also eat take out, again plenty of good quality ones to choose from.
I have lost exactly as expected, 63lbs so far.
Clean vs dirty just isn't a thing.10 -
I understand that weight loss comes down to CICO, but I was wondering what positive effects come from cutting out processes foods. I am a college student so I eat alot of processes foods like canned soup and microwavable dinners that are under 300 calories. This is my second time using MFP since I have regained about 90 lbs in a year (after maintaining for about a year and a half) and this time I am struggling a lot harder to lose the weight. I was wondering if eating cleaner helps people drop more weight initially as well as the other positive effects, it can have on the body compared to eating foods like soup. Also what do you consider eating clean (with examples please)? Im also looking for some more healthy convenient foods I can make/keep in my dorm. I currently have carrots and Greek yogurts, cheese sticks, soups, baggies of almonds, hard boiled eggs, cheerios, strawberries,and 100 calorie bags of popcorn.
here is how you should look at it.
1. a calorie is a calorie in that they all provide energy
2. not all calories have the same nutritional content and that is where they differ
3. ideally, one should make sure that they hit their calorie targets, meet macro nutrients (keep protein high), and get adequate nutrition (micro nutrients)
4. there are a million different definitions of clean, and I would not even bother worrying about them.
5. what matters most is context and dosage. There are no bad foods, just bad diets. No, this does not mean eat adieat of 90% pizza and oreos, but rather make sure that you are getting vegetables, fruits, whole grains, etc, and then fill in with foods that you enjoy.
eating cleaner (whatever that is) makes no difference in weight loss, what matters is your calorie deficit.6 -
I understand that weight loss comes down to CICO, but I was wondering what positive effects come from cutting out processes foods. I am a college student so I eat alot of processes foods like canned soup and microwavable dinners that are under 300 calories. This is my second time using MFP since I have regained about 90 lbs in a year (after maintaining for about a year and a half) and this time I am struggling a lot harder to lose the weight. I was wondering if eating cleaner helps people drop more weight initially as well as the other positive effects, it can have on the body compared to eating foods like soup. Also what do you consider eating clean (with examples please)? Im also looking for some more healthy convenient foods I can make/keep in my dorm. I currently have carrots and Greek yogurts, cheese sticks, soups, baggies of almonds, hard boiled eggs, cheerios, strawberries,and 100 calorie bags of popcorn.
To me 'clean eating' means limiting processed foods and trying to select foods as close to their natural state as possible. When I started my journey I would eat takeaways 4-5 times per week as well as crisps, chocolate and lots of alcohol.
I think eating a larger selection of whole foods does help you lose weight. For example, eating more fruit and vegetables gives you extra fibre, maintaining gut health and ensuring food is processed well. Eating lean protein (animal or not) helps to keep you fuller and maintain muscle mass (essential, as more muscle = more passive calorie burn). These kinds of food are generally much more micro-nutrient dense as well contributing to better health alongside the weight loss.
For me, it started with cutting out added sugars. Yes it was hard and I got the cravings mentioned by others but after a few weeks that subsides. I still eat chocolate, icecream, crisps and takeaways but these are a treat and I don't often crave them.
TLDR: Foods as close to their natural state are more nutrient rich, less calorie dense, which keeps you fuller for longer making sticking to a diet easier.
is pasta out of a bag close to its natural state or highly processed?
this whole processed vs close to nature vs highly processed definition is really ridiculous3 -
And the idea that all foods that come dried in a packet are full of salt, additives and 'CHEMICALZ" is kind of ridiculous. Again here in the UK you can get perfectly good ones that are literally the dried starch (rice, pasta, couscous etc), freeze dried veg and freeze dried herbs with some spices. Positively terrible right?1
-
VintageFeline wrote: »And the idea that all foods that come dried in a packet are full of salt, additives and 'CHEMICALZ" is kind of ridiculous. Again here in the UK you can get perfectly good ones that are literally the dried starch (rice, pasta, couscous etc), freeze dried veg and freeze dried herbs with some spices. Positively terrible right?
Yep, even in the US you can. Weird, right?0 -
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
Thank you for this! This is definitely a "drop the mic" moment!1 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Chef_Barbell 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.
You mean the people wanting to eat 'clean' or not eat 'junk'?
I presume they want to eat better, whatever that means to them.
Some just want to lose weight and think cutting out that stuff is the fastest or only way to do it.
Others think that if they eat that stuff it means they can't have a good diet.
I don't notice that many who want to change their diets in this way seem to know what exactly their diets are lacking (save appropriate calorie limits if they want to lose or gain weight). I don't notice posts about how they're not meeting macro and micro goals and that's why they want to cut out processed foods and junk. In fact, the one or two threads I remember where OP wanted to eat 'clean' and mentioned macros or micros were about whether it was OK to include protein powder because they weren't meeting protein goals while eating 'clean'.
I do notice posts where people are concerned about not getting enough of a specific macro or micro, but I don't recall one where OP wanted to change their whole diet because of it. They ask 'what foods are good sources of X', and presumably alter their diet to fit more of those things.
Obviously, trigger foods and food sensitivities should be at the least reduced and preferably eliminated. But these wouldn't encompass the entire group of processed foods or the entire group of 'junk' foods - the groups are too broad.0 -
When did soup become dirty? I figure it's cheap, low calorie, has the full range of macros as long as it's more than tomato soup, is easily storable and heat-able in a dorm.3
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »And the idea that all foods that come dried in a packet are full of salt, additives and 'CHEMICALZ" is kind of ridiculous. Again here in the UK you can get perfectly good ones that are literally the dried starch (rice, pasta, couscous etc), freeze dried veg and freeze dried herbs with some spices. Positively terrible right?
Yep, even in the US you can. Weird, right?
So weird! I never make assumptions about what is available and haven't ventured down those aisles in US supermarkets. I will say I would have been surprised had there not given the amount of food adverts making all kinds of arbitrary "clean" claims on the TV! The variety of ready meals from the fridge are a lot more limited in the US though.0 -
-
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Chef_Barbell 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.
You mean the people wanting to eat 'clean' or not eat 'junk'?
I presume they want to eat better, whatever that means to them.
Some just want to lose weight and think cutting out that stuff is the fastest or only way to do it.
Others think that if they eat that stuff it means they can't have a good diet.
I don't notice that many who want to change their diets in this way seem to know what exactly their diets are lacking (save appropriate calorie limits if they want to lose or gain weight). I don't notice posts about how they're not meeting macro and micro goals and that's why they want to cut out processed foods and junk. In fact, the one or two threads I remember where OP wanted to eat 'clean' and mentioned macros or micros were about whether it was OK to include protein powder because they weren't meeting protein goals while eating 'clean'.
I do notice posts where people are concerned about not getting enough of a specific macro or micro, but I don't recall one where OP wanted to change their whole diet because of it. They ask 'what foods are good sources of X', and presumably alter their diet to fit more of those things.
Obviously, trigger foods and food sensitivities should be at the least reduced and preferably eliminated. But these wouldn't encompass the entire group of processed foods or the entire group of 'junk' foods - the groups are too broad.
I agree that people are in different places educationally speaking. I think if someone eats a lot of Doritos and mac n cheese and decides to start eating more fresh made salads and grilled chicken, they are in fact attempting to change their macros even if they don't use the proper MFP lingo. Maybe they'll do well and maybe they won't but they are at least attempting to better their health. Eventually they'll come around to discussing adding back in Doritos if they find they still need them and are serious about continuing on. There are people who eliminate certain foods they used to love and find they just don't need it in their lives. To me its just as harmful to tell someone wanting to eat "clean" that they're wrong as it for the "clean" eater to tell others not to eat processed food. Neither are opening the lines of communication, which brings me back to the point I was originally addressing regarding language.2 -
I understand that weight loss comes down to CICO, but I was wondering what positive effects come from cutting out processes foods. I am a college student so I eat alot of processes foods like canned soup and microwavable dinners that are under 300 calories. This is my second time using MFP since I have regained about 90 lbs in a year (after maintaining for about a year and a half) and this time I am struggling a lot harder to lose the weight. I was wondering if eating cleaner helps people drop more weight initially as well as the other positive effects, it can have on the body compared to eating foods like soup. Also what do you consider eating clean (with examples please)? Im also looking for some more healthy convenient foods I can make/keep in my dorm. I currently have carrots and Greek yogurts, cheese sticks, soups, baggies of almonds, hard boiled eggs, cheerios, strawberries,and 100 calorie bags of popcorn.
To me 'clean eating' means limiting processed foods and trying to select foods as close to their natural state as possible. When I started my journey I would eat takeaways 4-5 times per week as well as crisps, chocolate and lots of alcohol.
I think eating a larger selection of whole foods does help you lose weight. For example, eating more fruit and vegetables gives you extra fibre, maintaining gut health and ensuring food is processed well. Eating lean protein (animal or not) helps to keep you fuller and maintain muscle mass (essential, as more muscle = more passive calorie burn). These kinds of food are generally much more micro-nutrient dense as well contributing to better health alongside the weight loss.
For me, it started with cutting out added sugars. Yes it was hard and I got the cravings mentioned by others but after a few weeks that subsides. I still eat chocolate, icecream, crisps and takeaways but these are a treat and I don't often crave them.
TLDR: Foods as close to their natural state are more nutrient rich, less calorie dense, which keeps you fuller for longer making sticking to a diet easier.
is pasta out of a bag close to its natural state or highly processed?
this whole processed vs close to nature vs highly processed definition is really ridiculous
Pasta is highly processed. This includes "organic" or "whole grain" pasta. However, even if you were to try to eat a stalk of wheat (BLEAH, it's all but impossible, anybody ever tried this?), it's already, as is common in agriculture, been messed with genetically (as have been many foods...this really isn't anything new; humans have always bred for manipulation purposes) even before that processing. And don't forget you have two processes (from this genetically played-with plant): first you need to process something that would be semi-toxic to many animals and would cut your tongue if you tried to eat its head into flour. THEN there's the processing into pasta, bread, etc.
So...no.
Wheat - actually, a variety of grains, but wheat to a mega extent - has been bred to be shorter and denser, to mature faster, to be more "glutinous" (sticky) once processed, and even to be pest-resistant. Yet another reason "natural state" is dubious. WhoTF knows at this point...you know?
Is a lovely red apple picked with gentle care by mermaids after being flown over by a leaky pesticide-containing airplane still "close to its natural state"? What about if that apple has been bred for many hundreds of generations so that it in no way (except for general roundness and a stem) resembles its common hard, small, green, tart/sour, tough ancestor?
Almost none of us eat "close to its natural state" foods...it's a hallmark of humanity (not knocking this) to manipulate our environment, including our foods, both bleating and rooted, so...whatever. Your guess is as good as mine...and the "unprocessed" definition only gets murkier the deeper you go into it.
My advice: drop the idea of "clean"...and do what works for you. I know...revolutionary.
6 -
Poor pizza, so undeserving of its bad reputation!2 -
Poor pizza, so undeserving of its bad reputation!
Pizza is horrible. You shouldn't be eating that! Hand it over. And go to your room.
7 -
Poor pizza, so undeserving of its bad reputation!
Until you have really good pizza and then you realize some of the reputation is well-deserved.0 -
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?
Given that the OP explicitly asks "what do you mean by clean," it's odd that you think we should understand what was intended. OP doesn't know what's intended.
I also don't see what's wrong with attempting to define the assumptions in a question or discussion. If we're not talking about the same thing, there's going to be a lot of talking past each other. And since everyone has their own definition of "clean" or "junk" or "processed" or "gunk," the questions have to be asked of each OP, unless they define it in their original post.3 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Chef_Barbell 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.
You mean the people wanting to eat 'clean' or not eat 'junk'?
I presume they want to eat better, whatever that means to them.
Some just want to lose weight and think cutting out that stuff is the fastest or only way to do it.
Others think that if they eat that stuff it means they can't have a good diet.
I don't notice that many who want to change their diets in this way seem to know what exactly their diets are lacking (save appropriate calorie limits if they want to lose or gain weight). I don't notice posts about how they're not meeting macro and micro goals and that's why they want to cut out processed foods and junk. In fact, the one or two threads I remember where OP wanted to eat 'clean' and mentioned macros or micros were about whether it was OK to include protein powder because they weren't meeting protein goals while eating 'clean'.
I do notice posts where people are concerned about not getting enough of a specific macro or micro, but I don't recall one where OP wanted to change their whole diet because of it. They ask 'what foods are good sources of X', and presumably alter their diet to fit more of those things.
Obviously, trigger foods and food sensitivities should be at the least reduced and preferably eliminated. But these wouldn't encompass the entire group of processed foods or the entire group of 'junk' foods - the groups are too broad.
I agree that people are in different places educationally speaking. I think if someone eats a lot of Doritos and mac n cheese and decides to start eating more fresh made salads and grilled chicken, they are in fact attempting to change their macros even if they don't use the proper MFP lingo. Maybe they'll do well and maybe they won't but they are at least attempting to better their health. Eventually they'll come around to discussing adding back in Doritos if they find they still need them and are serious about continuing on. There are people who eliminate certain foods they used to love and find they just don't need it in their lives. To me its just as harmful to tell someone wanting to eat "clean" that they're wrong as it for the "clean" eater to tell others not to eat processed food. Neither are opening the lines of communication, which brings me back to the point I was originally addressing regarding language.
Which to me would be opened up if we got away from terms without a standard definition like 'clean' and 'junk'.
Ask someone what they mean by 'clean' or 'junk' and the next thing you know there's a full-on debate and/or OP gets offended, assuming you are pretending ignorance.
On the other hand, if the topic is 'I want to eat better, help', I can respond with 'what does your diet look like now?', 'Are there specific things you want to improve?' and not be taken for a jerk by OP or spark a bunch of back and forth on the definition of vague terms.3 -
Pizza is only dirty if you eat the ingredients together. If they're separate it's totally fine.4
-
Not going to weigh in on "clean" eating, but I know there's a book about eating healthy while living in a dorm that might be helpful. I believe it's called The Dorm Room Diet. It might have ideas to cope with some of the challenges of eating healthy while not having a kitchen to prepare a lot of things from scratch.0
-
-
lynn_glenmont 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?
Given that the OP explicitly asks "what do you mean by clean," it's odd that you think we should understand what was intended. OP doesn't know what's intended.
I also don't see what's wrong with attempting to define the assumptions in a question or discussion. If we're not talking about the same thing, there's going to be a lot of talking past each other. And since everyone has their own definition of "clean" or "junk" or "processed" or "gunk," the questions have to be asked of each OP, unless they define it in their original post.
Yes, you captured what I was thinking.
To my mind the frustrating thing about the whole "clean eating" discussion is the fact that "clean" is poorly defined. Words are the building blocks of ideas, so a poorly-defined word means a badly thought-out idea.
This is why we hear so much discussion in these kinds of threads where the poster says "To me, clean eating means..." If everyone gets to define their terms like Humpty Dumpty, who said "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less", what kind of meaningful discussion can we have?
We have many vigorous debates about all kinds of topics here: veganism, keto, caloric burn estimates, what to do with the poster above, etc. - but this is the only one where we don't even all know what we're talking about!3 -
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?
Haha, I always only eat whole foods, the whole cupcake, the whole pizza, the whole can of Red Bull lol. I actually totally get what you are saying here, that is just what came to my mind when you said whole foods lol. Back to the regularly scheduled discussion.3 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »
What if the dough is dirty? I mean have you seen some of those kitchens?2 -
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?
Haha, I always only eat whole foods, the whole cupcake, the whole pizza, the whole can of Red Bull lol. I actually totally get what you are saying here, that is just what came to my mind when you said whole foods lol. Back to the regularly scheduled discussion.
OMG...
...totally going on the whole-foods diet now.
Thanks for the tip. #in2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »
What if the dough is dirty? I mean have you seen some of those kitchens?
I always presumed the debris were spices
2 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Chef_Barbell 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.
You mean the people wanting to eat 'clean' or not eat 'junk'?
I presume they want to eat better, whatever that means to them.
Some just want to lose weight and think cutting out that stuff is the fastest or only way to do it.
Others think that if they eat that stuff it means they can't have a good diet.
I don't notice that many who want to change their diets in this way seem to know what exactly their diets are lacking (save appropriate calorie limits if they want to lose or gain weight). I don't notice posts about how they're not meeting macro and micro goals and that's why they want to cut out processed foods and junk. In fact, the one or two threads I remember where OP wanted to eat 'clean' and mentioned macros or micros were about whether it was OK to include protein powder because they weren't meeting protein goals while eating 'clean'.
I do notice posts where people are concerned about not getting enough of a specific macro or micro, but I don't recall one where OP wanted to change their whole diet because of it. They ask 'what foods are good sources of X', and presumably alter their diet to fit more of those things.
Obviously, trigger foods and food sensitivities should be at the least reduced and preferably eliminated. But these wouldn't encompass the entire group of processed foods or the entire group of 'junk' foods - the groups are too broad.
I agree that people are in different places educationally speaking. I think if someone eats a lot of Doritos and mac n cheese and decides to start eating more fresh made salads and grilled chicken, they are in fact attempting to change their macros even if they don't use the proper MFP lingo. Maybe they'll do well and maybe they won't but they are at least attempting to better their health. Eventually they'll come around to discussing adding back in Doritos if they find they still need them and are serious about continuing on. There are people who eliminate certain foods they used to love and find they just don't need it in their lives. To me its just as harmful to tell someone wanting to eat "clean" that they're wrong as it for the "clean" eater to tell others not to eat processed food. Neither are opening the lines of communication, which brings me back to the point I was originally addressing regarding language.
Which to me would be opened up if we got away from terms without a standard definition like 'clean' and 'junk'.
Ask someone what they mean by 'clean' or 'junk' and the next thing you know there's a full-on debate and/or OP gets offended, assuming you are pretending ignorance.
On the other hand, if the topic is 'I want to eat better, help', I can respond with 'what does your diet look like now?', 'Are there specific things you want to improve?' and not be taken for a jerk by OP or spark a bunch of back and forth on the definition of vague
I agree with what you're saying, I do. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect a newbie to use the same terminology as the veteran MFP'ers. And if the veterans have an idea of what the person is asking, why bog the discussion down with a dozen pages of semantics? I'm not trying to be accusatory, I'm just trying to figure out a way to help those just getting started.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »
What if the dough is dirty? I mean have you seen some of those kitchens?
I always presumed the debris were spices
Didn't you ever hear the weight-loss rule that you never mix crushed roach with carbs?1 -
This article is questionable as it references Katy Perry in the first paragraph but it sums up what I think when someone mentions clean eating.
"At its simplest, clean eating is about eating whole foods, or "real" foods — those that are un- or minimally processed, refined, and handled, making them as close to their natural form as possible. "
http://www.fitnessmagazine.com/weight-loss/plans/diets/clean-eating/?page=0
Not saying I think it's better than any other eating plan.1
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