Clean Eating?

My trainer advised that I eat Paleo. This involves eliminating all foods from your diet that you could not have consumed in the Paleolithic period. Basically, you eat anything you can grow, gather or kill. This eliminates all refined grains and sugars among other things.

You got it, no processed foods, including boxed foods. I would say stick to fresh veggies and fruit, grains. like rices, oats, beans breads, meats if you eat them.. I am not sure if clean eating is organic but totally clean eating would include that in my opinion. I too try to have a clean eating diet and it includes making my own sauces for spaghetti and all sorts of things I would normally buy canned.

This topic baffles me as I thought it was NO PROCESSED foods. YET, last night at the bookstore I grabbed the Clean Eating Magazine and they had all kinds of recipes that had processed foods like pasta. WTH??? Anyway, I would agree with everyone about no processed foods. Make it what you want!

To me, that means that I make everything from scratch, with "real" ingredients, pref. organic, as much as possible. Anything that comes out of a box or can has to be free of any additives of any type, and pref. organic as well. I do a lot of shopping in the organic sections/natural foods sections of stores, and unfort. my grocery bill has skyrocketed, but to me, it's worth it.

Everyone has their own thoughts on clean eating.

I consider clean eating to be fresh fruits / veggies / lean meats and items like rice / flour etc that have less than 5 ingredients. Clean eating to me is trying to get back to the basics. Also, being able to read the ingredients listed, if you can't read the word it is most likely a chemical.

bump

bump

My trainer advised that I eat Paleo. This involves eliminating all foods from your diet that you could not have consumed in the Paleolithic period. Basically, you eat anything you can grow, gather or kill. This eliminates all refined grains and sugars among other things.

Here's the thing with the Paleo craze. The Paleolithic Era ended around 10,000 BC. At that point, humans were milling grains for baking bread (about 30,000 BC) and cultivating and processing rice (about 15,000 BC.) True, processed sugar would be eliminated, since crystalized sugar wasn't around until about 5,000 BC, but most other grains and carbs were staples of the human diet at that point.

It's a logical framework from which to make research-based nutritional choices and do individual investigation about what works best, not a historical reenactment.

My trainer advised that I eat Paleo. This involves eliminating all foods from your diet that you could not have consumed in the Paleolithic period. Basically, you eat anything you can grow, gather or kill. This eliminates all refined grains and sugars among other things.

Here's the thing with the Paleo craze. The Paleolithic Era ended around 10,000 BC. At that point, humans were milling grains for baking bread (about 30,000 BC) and cultivating and processing rice (about 15,000 BC.) True, processed sugar would be eliminated, since crystalized sugar wasn't around until about 5,000 BC, but most other grains and carbs were staples of the human diet at that point.

It's a logical framework from which to make research-based nutritional choices and do individual investigation about what works best, not a historical reenactment.

Well you say research based, the Paleolithic Era is about 2 and a half million years long, and consists of HUGE evolutionary, technological and societal changes, which led to many, many, many changes of the human diet and condition. Exactly which point are you supposed to research and pick the diet from? "Paleo" is really nothing more than a marketing term.

Nobody really knows what humans ate in the Paleolithic Era, as there is no written record. Some scientists think they ate a lot of meat, most scientists think they didn't, as most tools for hunting meat and fishing weren't developed until the very end. Some scientists theorize that potatoes (well, tubers) were the main food source for Paleolithic humans.

Well you say research based, the Paleolithic Era is about 2 and a half million years long, and consists of HUGE evolutionary, technological and societal changes, which led to many, many, many changes of the human diet and condition. Exactly which point are you supposed to research and pick the diet from? "Paleo" is really nothing more than a marketing term.

Nobody really knows what humans ate in the Paleolithic Era, as there is no written record. Some scientists think they ate a lot of meat, most scientists think they didn't, as most tools for hunting meat and fishing weren't developed until the very end. Some scientists theorize that potatoes (well, tubers) were the main food source for Paleolithic humans.

Very true and this is why you won't find complete agreement in those studying paleo nutrition or "ancestral health" (as it might be more appropriately called), which is why the second part of the equation (finding what works for you) is necessary. If "paleo" is a marketing term, what exactly is being marketed? A few books about nutrition and diet? Big deal.

REAL food? Oh, if only that were true. But I don't see real, grass-fed beef, pastured eggs, and kale from the local farmer's market getting a whole lot of air play.

It certainly isn't a line of processed foods (despite what Snackwells might be up to).

Edited to add a link to an interesting blog post about this topic: http://chriskresser.com/beyond-paleo-moving-from-a-paleo-diet-to-a-paleo-template

For a definition of clean eating, I abridged/adapted this definition from Clean Eating Magazine (they include it in every issue):


"The soul of clean eating is consuming food in its most natural state, or as close to it as possible. It is not a diet; it's a lifestyle approach to food and its preparation, leading to an improved life- one meal at a time.

Eat five to six times a day- three meals and two to three small snacks. Include a lean protein, plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables, and a complex carbohydrate with each meal. This keeps the body energized and burning calories efficiently all day long.

Get label savvy- Clean foods contain just one or two ingredients. Any product with a long ingredient list is human-made and not considered clean.

Avoid processed and refined foods such as white flour, sugar, bread and pasta. Enjoy complex carbs such as whole grains instead.

Steer clear of anything high in saturated and trans fats, anything fried or anything high in sugar.

Consume healthy fats (essential fatty acids, or EFAs) every day."

I hope this helps clarify. Feel free to let me know if I can answer any questions.

My trainer advised that I eat Paleo. This involves eliminating all foods from your diet that you could not have consumed in the Paleolithic period. Basically, you eat anything you can grow, gather or kill. This eliminates all refined grains and sugars among other things.

Here's the thing with the Paleo craze. The Paleolithic Era ended around 10,000 BC. At that point, humans were milling grains for baking bread (about 30,000 BC) and cultivating and processing rice (about 15,000 BC.) True, processed sugar would be eliminated, since crystalized sugar wasn't around until about 5,000 BC, but most other grains and carbs were staples of the human diet at that point.

It's a logical framework from which to make research-based nutritional choices and do individual investigation about what works best, not a historical reenactment.

Well you say research based, the Paleolithic Era is about 2 and a half million years long, and consists of HUGE evolutionary, technological and societal changes, which led to many, many, many changes of the human diet and condition. Exactly which point are you supposed to research and pick the diet from? "Paleo" is really nothing more than a marketing term.

Nobody really knows what humans ate in the Paleolithic Era, as there is no written record. Some scientists think they ate a lot of meat, most scientists think they didn't, as most tools for hunting meat and fishing weren't developed until the very end. Some scientists theorize that potatoes (well, tubers) were the main food source for Paleolithic humans.

I've been thinking about this comment some more and I am interested in hearing what you suggested as a jumping off point for forming research questions regarding human nutrition. Is there a more appropriate place to begin than attempting to understand what we evolved to eat and going from there?

Yes. There is a more appropriate place to begin learning about a healthy diet. Watch the movie "Forks Over Knives". The doctors highlighted in the film have studied healthy societies for decades now. There are clear differences in the rates of heart disease, diabetes and cancers in these societies as opposed to those consuming the Standard American Diet. You can also read "The China Study" which details and references countless studies on nutrition and diet.

Yes. There is a more appropriate place to begin learning about a healthy diet. Watch the movie "Forks Over Knives". The doctors highlighted in the film have studied healthy societies for decades now. There are clear differences in the rates of heart disease, diabetes and cancers in these societies as opposed to those consuming the Standard American Diet.

I have not seen the film, but it is on my list of things to watch. But according to what you say, those researchers are starting from (approximately) the same place as those researching ancestral health -- healthy people. Those studying ancestral health are also not just guessing at what "cavemen" did, they are looking at modern "hunter gatherer" people and studying the myriad of different diets they have, how they are similar and how they are different.

Please explain in more detail how the starting place you are referencing is better than the one I am talking about.

You can also read "The China Study" which details and references countless studies on nutrition and diet.

Indeed. I have also read many of the arguments against T. Colin Campbell's ultimate conclusions, including Denise Minger's well-known smackdown: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

Why can we look at cows who are fed grain and so easily say "Well, duh. Of course they get fat and sick! That's not what they have been designed to eat!" and yet people think it is so absurd to ask the same questions about what optimal diets for humans might consist of?

Well, I guess I just don't understand your question. I thought you were asking about where we start (at what point in human history/evolution) to learn about health and nutrition. My point was that we don't have to go back further than 10,000 years into human history and piece together clues about what they ate, particularly when their life spans weren't all that great. We can look to recent societies eating different, but similar diets and compare their rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and death.

I have read Denise Minger's comments regarding "The China Study". I have read critiques by others as well. I also factored in age, education, history, and references of those critical to Dr. Campbell's conclusions and I was far more impressed by the technical, logical and practical nature of Dr. Campbell's conclusions. As an engineer and a skeptic, I like to do my research.

Another interesting read about early man and the development of civilization and how organized agriculture played a key role in forming modern societies, is "Guns, Germs and Steel".

Well, I guess I just don't understand your question. I thought you were asking about where we start (at what point in human history/evolution) to learn about health and nutrition. My point was that we don't have to go back further than 10,000 years into human history and piece together clues about what they ate, particularly when their life spans weren't all that great.

10,000 years seems like a drop in the bucket if we consider when the the homo genus is thought to have diverged. It makes more logical sense to me to attempt to consider as much of the human record as possible.

We can look to recent societies eating different, but similar diets and compare their rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and death.

Indeed. This is what many ancestral researchers do, although, from what I understand, they tend to focus on non-agricultural groups of people, who appear to have very few incidences of the diseases of modern agricultural societies (not just Americans). Take, for example, the Kitvans: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/kitavans-wisdom-from-pacific-islands.html or the Inuit: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/inuit-lessons-from-arctic.html

I have read Denise Minger's comments regarding "The China Study". I have read critiques by others as well. I also factored in age, education, history, and references of those critical to Dr. Campbell's conclusions and I was far more impressed by the technical, logical and practical nature of Dr. Campbell's conclusions. As an engineer and a skeptic, I like to do my research.

So, as an engineer and skeptic who likes to do your research, are you really suggesting that because some researchers are older and have a PhD that they are to be believed more? Isn't science about evaluating the data and the arguments?

But, you are right in that age and experience do certainly have a say in our paradigms and, to paraphrase Max Plank, "Science progresses one funeral at a time."

But, you are right in that age and experience do certainly have a say in our paradigms and, to paraphrase Max Plank, "Science progresses one funeral at a time."

And by "Plank" I mean "Planck." Heh.