Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

TOPIC: Eating clean and butter

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
February 19, 2013 5:20 PM
QUOTE:

Butter is processed and therefore not clean


This is actually true. It must suck to have to give up butter. devil
  25631519
February 19, 2013 5:23 PM
QUOTE:

I thought the definition of eating "clean" is, - if the label has any ingredients that were chemically processed or added to it to make it have a longer shelf life - then it isn't "clean"... In other words, if you cannot recognize or buy the ingredients when you look at it, make it yourself, or are more than one step from the original source or farm (cream/milk to butter), then it would be processed.

For instance, Natural Peanut Butter... Label says: peanuts, salt. Period. The fact that someone else mechanically made the peanuts into the peanut butter shouldn't matter, should it?


Personally, I refuse to get wrapped around the axle about whether I'm eating 'clean'. I choose organic when I can but dang! a lot of times that stuff is way more expensive. I mean seriously, one trip to Whole Paycheck,.... sorry, Whole Foods, and one SMALL bag of groceries with fruit, eggs, milk, some staples, and maybe a piece of fish or meat... $50+ bucks? Seriously? I mean, how could anyone (other than people making SERIOUS money- 6 figure type) afford to eat that way?

For me, Clean is something to try your best to do but is it always realistic? No.


Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.
  25631519
February 19, 2013 5:27 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I thought the definition of eating "clean" is, - if the label has any ingredients that were chemically processed or added to it to make it have a longer shelf life - then it isn't "clean"... In other words, if you cannot recognize or buy the ingredients when you look at it, make it yourself, or are more than one step from the original source or farm (cream/milk to butter), then it would be processed.

For instance, Natural Peanut Butter... Label says: peanuts, salt. Period. The fact that someone else mechanically made the peanuts into the peanut butter shouldn't matter, should it?


Personally, I refuse to get wrapped around the axle about whether I'm eating 'clean'. I choose organic when I can but dang! a lot of times that stuff is way more expensive. I mean seriously, one trip to Whole Paycheck,.... sorry, Whole Foods, and one SMALL bag of groceries with fruit, eggs, milk, some staples, and maybe a piece of fish or meat... $50+ bucks? Seriously? I mean, how could anyone (other than people making SERIOUS money- 6 figure type) afford to eat that way?

For me, Clean is something to try your best to do but is it always realistic? No.


Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


happy
February 19, 2013 5:29 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I thought the definition of eating "clean" is, - if the label has any ingredients that were chemically processed or added to it to make it have a longer shelf life - then it isn't "clean"... In other words, if you cannot recognize or buy the ingredients when you look at it, make it yourself, or are more than one step from the original source or farm (cream/milk to butter), then it would be processed.

For instance, Natural Peanut Butter... Label says: peanuts, salt. Period. The fact that someone else mechanically made the peanuts into the peanut butter shouldn't matter, should it?


Personally, I refuse to get wrapped around the axle about whether I'm eating 'clean'. I choose organic when I can but dang! a lot of times that stuff is way more expensive. I mean seriously, one trip to Whole Paycheck,.... sorry, Whole Foods, and one SMALL bag of groceries with fruit, eggs, milk, some staples, and maybe a piece of fish or meat... $50+ bucks? Seriously? I mean, how could anyone (other than people making SERIOUS money- 6 figure type) afford to eat that way?

For me, Clean is something to try your best to do but is it always realistic? No.


Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


flowerforyou flowerforyou flowerforyou
February 19, 2013 5:30 PM
coconut oil is a good substitute flavor wise if you want to stop having butter.
February 19, 2013 5:32 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


flowerforyou flowerforyou flowerforyou


See I couldn't decide if I should do the smiley, flower or cup. I'm thinking I should have went with the flower now.
Edited by 3dogsrunning On February 19, 2013 5:35 PM
February 19, 2013 5:34 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


flowerforyou flowerforyou flowerforyou


See I couldn't decide if I should do the smiley, flower or cup. I'm thinking I should have sent with the flower now.


Beat ya to it! tongue tongue tongue hehehe glasses flowerforyou
February 19, 2013 5:36 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

clean eating

Then I think it's fine. Try Kerrygold butter. It's from grass fed cows.


I believe this is fine on Primal (Paleo w/dairy) eating.
February 19, 2013 5:39 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

clean eating

Then I think it's fine. Try Kerrygold butter. It's from grass fed cows.


^^^ Agreed (I don't use Kerrygold, but I do make sure I use organic and grass fed--it's also super easy to make your own butter).
  997885
February 19, 2013 5:44 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

clean eating

Then I think it's fine. Try Kerrygold butter. It's from grass fed cows.


^^^ Agreed (I don't use Kerrygold, but I do make sure I use organic and grass fed--it's also super easy to make your own butter).


Exactly what I was going to say. Its really easy to make your own...And SOOOO yummy! :)
  867134
February 19, 2013 5:45 PM
Here is a fun way to make butter with young children.

Into a clean pint mason jar drop in 1 or 2 cleaned smooth beach stones or marbles. Pour in 1c of fresh cream (old cream will not churn). This leaves plenty of space in the jar for shaking--but secure the lid first. During story time pass the jar around each child shaking and shaking (this will take about 20 or so minutes). For the longest time, it appears that nothing is happening. Then it seems that the viscosity of the cream is less. Soon someone might see yellow specs in white. Then it all begins to happen to quite fast. Foamy. Thick. Separation. You will be tempted to call it butter when the whey first separates from the fat, but chances are it is still a minute or two too soon. Shake some more to get out all the whey--otherwise the butter will begin to smell cheesey in a few days. After you believe you have a chunk of butter. Pour out the whey (maybe using it in pancakes or some other quick bread recipe) and lay the hunk of butter on a board and will a paddle or spatula press the butter to squeeze out any trapped whey. Then put your butter in dish or shape it before serving. You will find that butter from grain or hay (winter) fed cows is pale, but if you get fresh cream in Spring or Summer from grass fed cows, the butter will have soft yellow hue (chlorophyll).
Edited by lpina2mi On February 19, 2013 5:48 PM
  36002775
February 19, 2013 5:46 PM
A pro-butter article in Clean Eating Magazine, which seems applicable to the conversation at hand: http://cleaneatingmag.com/Personalities/Article/Reconsider-Butter.aspx
  36420259
February 19, 2013 5:47 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I thought the definition of eating "clean" is, - if the label has any ingredients that were chemically processed or added to it to make it have a longer shelf life - then it isn't "clean"... In other words, if you cannot recognize or buy the ingredients when you look at it, make it yourself, or are more than one step from the original source or farm (cream/milk to butter), then it would be processed.

For instance, Natural Peanut Butter... Label says: peanuts, salt. Period. The fact that someone else mechanically made the peanuts into the peanut butter shouldn't matter, should it?


Personally, I refuse to get wrapped around the axle about whether I'm eating 'clean'. I choose organic when I can but dang! a lot of times that stuff is way more expensive. I mean seriously, one trip to Whole Paycheck,.... sorry, Whole Foods, and one SMALL bag of groceries with fruit, eggs, milk, some staples, and maybe a piece of fish or meat... $50+ bucks? Seriously? I mean, how could anyone (other than people making SERIOUS money- 6 figure type) afford to eat that way?

For me, Clean is something to try your best to do but is it always realistic? No.


Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


What term would you used instead then? I don't find anything wrong with the term "clean," it seems rather forward and conveys what it is. It's certainly more efficient than saying "organic, local (when possible), simple kind of crap." You could try "unprocessed," but I eat soy products that are organic and are processed but with a few simple ingredients, so I consider them clean (not unprocessed). The term "whole foods" would have this same fault. It seems that most definitions of clean eating are just an extension of Michael Pollan's "Food Rules;" it seems a more than fitting name. However, I think we'd all welcome some constructive criticism of the term were other options offered.
  997885
February 19, 2013 5:53 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I thought the definition of eating "clean" is, - if the label has any ingredients that were chemically processed or added to it to make it have a longer shelf life - then it isn't "clean"... In other words, if you cannot recognize or buy the ingredients when you look at it, make it yourself, or are more than one step from the original source or farm (cream/milk to butter), then it would be processed.

For instance, Natural Peanut Butter... Label says: peanuts, salt. Period. The fact that someone else mechanically made the peanuts into the peanut butter shouldn't matter, should it?


Personally, I refuse to get wrapped around the axle about whether I'm eating 'clean'. I choose organic when I can but dang! a lot of times that stuff is way more expensive. I mean seriously, one trip to Whole Paycheck,.... sorry, Whole Foods, and one SMALL bag of groceries with fruit, eggs, milk, some staples, and maybe a piece of fish or meat... $50+ bucks? Seriously? I mean, how could anyone (other than people making SERIOUS money- 6 figure type) afford to eat that way?

For me, Clean is something to try your best to do but is it always realistic? No.


Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


What term would you used instead then? I don't find anything wrong with the term "clean," it seems rather forward and conveys what it is. It's certainly more efficient than saying "organic, local (when possible), simple kind of crap." You could try "unprocessed," but I eat soy products that are organic and are processed but with a few simple ingredients, so I consider them clean (not unprocessed). The term "whole foods" would have this same fault. It seems that most definitions of clean eating are just an extension of Michael Pollan's "Food Rules;" it seems a more than fitting name. However, I think we'd all welcome some constructive criticism of the term were other options offered.


Did you read the link posted? I thought it has some good points.
February 19, 2013 5:55 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I thought the definition of eating "clean" is, - if the label has any ingredients that were chemically processed or added to it to make it have a longer shelf life - then it isn't "clean"... In other words, if you cannot recognize or buy the ingredients when you look at it, make it yourself, or are more than one step from the original source or farm (cream/milk to butter), then it would be processed.

For instance, Natural Peanut Butter... Label says: peanuts, salt. Period. The fact that someone else mechanically made the peanuts into the peanut butter shouldn't matter, should it?


Personally, I refuse to get wrapped around the axle about whether I'm eating 'clean'. I choose organic when I can but dang! a lot of times that stuff is way more expensive. I mean seriously, one trip to Whole Paycheck,.... sorry, Whole Foods, and one SMALL bag of groceries with fruit, eggs, milk, some staples, and maybe a piece of fish or meat... $50+ bucks? Seriously? I mean, how could anyone (other than people making SERIOUS money- 6 figure type) afford to eat that way?

For me, Clean is something to try your best to do but is it always realistic? No.


Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


What term would you used instead then? I don't find anything wrong with the term "clean," it seems rather forward and conveys what it is. It's certainly more efficient than saying "organic, local (when possible), simple kind of crap." You could try "unprocessed," but I eat soy products that are organic and are processed but with a few simple ingredients, so I consider them clean (not unprocessed). The term "whole foods" would have this same fault. It seems that most definitions of clean eating are just an extension of Michael Pollan's "Food Rules;" it seems a more than fitting name. However, I think we'd all welcome some constructive criticism of the term were other options offered.


I don't use a term. I just call it eating a variety of foods with some staple items. For me, butter is a staple item. I eat a bit of it on most days. I think people set up too many rules that just turns the act of eating into something rather stressful. I have enough stress trying to feed a family of four on a budget. But I have found that generally, if we only buy single ingredient items at the store, we save a lot of money. (Of course that means it's more work to cook, but the food tastes better most of the time.)

I'm an "outside-the-box" kinda gal anyway. I am bit rebellious, even toward rules that I make for myself. So I keep my rules simple, that way I am less likely to rebel. wink

My main rule is my favorite: eat as many different kinds of foods, or the same food prepared in a variety of different ways, as much as possible. Corollary: enjoy what you eat or it's a waste. flowerforyou
  25631519
February 19, 2013 5:59 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I thought the definition of eating "clean" is, - if the label has any ingredients that were chemically processed or added to it to make it have a longer shelf life - then it isn't "clean"... In other words, if you cannot recognize or buy the ingredients when you look at it, make it yourself, or are more than one step from the original source or farm (cream/milk to butter), then it would be processed.

For instance, Natural Peanut Butter... Label says: peanuts, salt. Period. The fact that someone else mechanically made the peanuts into the peanut butter shouldn't matter, should it?


Personally, I refuse to get wrapped around the axle about whether I'm eating 'clean'. I choose organic when I can but dang! a lot of times that stuff is way more expensive. I mean seriously, one trip to Whole Paycheck,.... sorry, Whole Foods, and one SMALL bag of groceries with fruit, eggs, milk, some staples, and maybe a piece of fish or meat... $50+ bucks? Seriously? I mean, how could anyone (other than people making SERIOUS money- 6 figure type) afford to eat that way?

For me, Clean is something to try your best to do but is it always realistic? No.


Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


What term would you used instead then? I don't find anything wrong with the term "clean," it seems rather forward and conveys what it is. It's certainly more efficient than saying "organic, local (when possible), simple kind of crap." You could try "unprocessed," but I eat soy products that are organic and are processed but with a few simple ingredients, so I consider them clean (not unprocessed). The term "whole foods" would have this same fault. It seems that most definitions of clean eating are just an extension of Michael Pollan's "Food Rules;" it seems a more than fitting name. However, I think we'd all welcome some constructive criticism of the term were other options offered.


Did you read the link posted? I thought it has some good points.


I'm sorry, but I don't know if my eyes are shot or what...I don't see a link and I just went through the pages a few times over (again, sorry if I've missed it--my dog has been in surgery all day and I might be a bit spent).
  997885
February 19, 2013 6:00 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


flowerforyou flowerforyou flowerforyou


See I couldn't decide if I should do the smiley, flower or cup. I'm thinking I should have sent with the flower now.


Beat ya to it! tongue tongue tongue hehehe glasses flowerforyou


bigsmile flowerforyou smokin


Flowers, smilies................ I really wanted chocolate. laugh
  25631519
February 19, 2013 6:06 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I thought the definition of eating "clean" is, - if the label has any ingredients that were chemically processed or added to it to make it have a longer shelf life - then it isn't "clean"... In other words, if you cannot recognize or buy the ingredients when you look at it, make it yourself, or are more than one step from the original source or farm (cream/milk to butter), then it would be processed.

For instance, Natural Peanut Butter... Label says: peanuts, salt. Period. The fact that someone else mechanically made the peanuts into the peanut butter shouldn't matter, should it?


Personally, I refuse to get wrapped around the axle about whether I'm eating 'clean'. I choose organic when I can but dang! a lot of times that stuff is way more expensive. I mean seriously, one trip to Whole Paycheck,.... sorry, Whole Foods, and one SMALL bag of groceries with fruit, eggs, milk, some staples, and maybe a piece of fish or meat... $50+ bucks? Seriously? I mean, how could anyone (other than people making SERIOUS money- 6 figure type) afford to eat that way?

For me, Clean is something to try your best to do but is it always realistic? No.


Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


What term would you used instead then? I don't find anything wrong with the term "clean," it seems rather forward and conveys what it is. It's certainly more efficient than saying "organic, local (when possible), simple kind of crap." You could try "unprocessed," but I eat soy products that are organic and are processed but with a few simple ingredients, so I consider them clean (not unprocessed). The term "whole foods" would have this same fault. It seems that most definitions of clean eating are just an extension of Michael Pollan's "Food Rules;" it seems a more than fitting name. However, I think we'd all welcome some constructive criticism of the term were other options offered.


I don't use a term. I just call it eating a variety of foods with some staple items. For me, butter is a staple item. I eat a bit of it on most days. I think people set up too many rules that just turns the act of eating into something rather stressful. I have enough stress trying to feed a family of four on a budget. But I have found that generally, if we only buy single ingredient items at the store, we save a lot of money. (Of course that means it's more work to cook, but the food tastes better most of the time.)

I'm an "outside-the-box" kinda gal anyway. I am bit rebellious, even toward rules that I make for myself. So I keep my rules simple, that way I am less likely to rebel. wink

My main rule is my favorite: eat as many different kinds of foods, or the same food prepared in a variety of different ways, as much as possible. Corollary: enjoy what you eat or it's a waste. flowerforyou


I see your reasoning--for sure. I never really ate much processed food growing up (my parents are from Germany and never brought much boxed or packaged stuff home and I did my undergraduate in France and never encountered much processed food their either) and I make everything I can from scratch, but I do find terms convenient when discussing dietary choices. As I mentioned, I never used "clean" prior to re-committing to MFP 44 days ago, but it does happen to encapsulate my diet. I'm also glad I can say things like "I'm a pescatarian" or "I'm kosher," and don't necessarily have to detail that I eat fish and dairy and eggs, but not the meat of land animals (which just ends up being wordy). I think it's just a matter of linguistic convenience.
  997885
February 19, 2013 6:08 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I thought the definition of eating "clean" is, - if the label has any ingredients that were chemically processed or added to it to make it have a longer shelf life - then it isn't "clean"... In other words, if you cannot recognize or buy the ingredients when you look at it, make it yourself, or are more than one step from the original source or farm (cream/milk to butter), then it would be processed.

For instance, Natural Peanut Butter... Label says: peanuts, salt. Period. The fact that someone else mechanically made the peanuts into the peanut butter shouldn't matter, should it?


Personally, I refuse to get wrapped around the axle about whether I'm eating 'clean'. I choose organic when I can but dang! a lot of times that stuff is way more expensive. I mean seriously, one trip to Whole Paycheck,.... sorry, Whole Foods, and one SMALL bag of groceries with fruit, eggs, milk, some staples, and maybe a piece of fish or meat... $50+ bucks? Seriously? I mean, how could anyone (other than people making SERIOUS money- 6 figure type) afford to eat that way?

For me, Clean is something to try your best to do but is it always realistic? No.


Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


What term would you used instead then? I don't find anything wrong with the term "clean," it seems rather forward and conveys what it is. It's certainly more efficient than saying "organic, local (when possible), simple kind of crap." You could try "unprocessed," but I eat soy products that are organic and are processed but with a few simple ingredients, so I consider them clean (not unprocessed). The term "whole foods" would have this same fault. It seems that most definitions of clean eating are just an extension of Michael Pollan's "Food Rules;" it seems a more than fitting name. However, I think we'd all welcome some constructive criticism of the term were other options offered.


Did you read the link posted? I thought it has some good points.


I'm sorry, but I don't know if my eyes are shot or what...I don't see a link and I just went through the pages a few times over (again, sorry if I've missed it--my dog has been in surgery all day and I might be a bit spent).


Chrisdavey posted it. Although because it is not a MFP link you have to copy and paste it.

Hope the dog is feeling better. I've been there more than once and can relate.
February 19, 2013 6:23 PM
QUOTE:


Hay doesn't have the same DM protein as silage, and you can get more cuts per year of silage and make more of the growing season.

I still cant see a Fresian, Aryshire or Holstein (or a Jersey for that matter) not getting any concentrates. I'm guessing 'grassfed' means: "sometimes eats grass"




I've seen (and eaten from) a few grass fed dairies, and, for the most part, they just eat grass. I think the overwhelming bulk of the cow's diet needs to be from grass or hay to be called grass fed - certainly none of the grass fed dairies I visited fed any silage (the big dairies around here all do, though, for the reasons you cited). The exception would be a little grain while actually being milked. Now, of the grass fed dairies I've seen, all but two hand milked, so we're talking pretty small scale, and keeping the cow occupied with a bucket of grain just makes things nicer for everyone... Most of those dairies used Jerseys or Jerseys crossed with something (Dexters or Holsteins mostly).

Whether all of your cow's mineral needs can be supplied merely with pasture and hay is going to be dependent on local soils. From my area, you have to offer the cows and mineral block to lick (or kick around the pasture...) to make up for selenium deficiencies.

The other thing of note is that grass fed milk, or the butter produced from it, is not a consistent product. As the forage changes throughout the year, so too does the milk. Spring grass fed butter in this area, for example, is bright yellow and tastes "grassy." It can be fairly assertive. Good if you plan on it and highlight that flavor, and outright annoying if you're looking for just a light "butter" taste. And production goes -way- down in winter when the cows are eating hay rather than fresh pasture.

From what I can tell, grass fed dairying is more about growing/managing pasture than it is about raising cows. I think.

It's great to see someone else on here interested in how food is actually produced! So few people seem even vaguely interested, outside of labels like "organic," "conventional," "clean," etc. Which is probably why the nutritional value of so many foods has declined so much since even the 1950's (did you know, for example, that asparagus in 1950 has 63.2% more vitamin C than asparagus in 1999, according to the USDA?).

QUOTE:

I also can't believe in some countries you can label something "butter" which is plainly not butter because it has other stuff in it. Over here I think it has to be called 'spread'.


A lot of those things are not actually labeled "butter," even though people call them such. If you look at the label, they're actually called things like "buttery spread," "spread with sweet cream," "butter blended with ...." I don't buy much in the way of commercially packaged groceries, so the non-butter "butters" actually labeled as such that people are reporting may exist, but folks also may not be reading the actual label...
  35788377
February 19, 2013 6:38 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I thought the definition of eating "clean" is, - if the label has any ingredients that were chemically processed or added to it to make it have a longer shelf life - then it isn't "clean"... In other words, if you cannot recognize or buy the ingredients when you look at it, make it yourself, or are more than one step from the original source or farm (cream/milk to butter), then it would be processed.

For instance, Natural Peanut Butter... Label says: peanuts, salt. Period. The fact that someone else mechanically made the peanuts into the peanut butter shouldn't matter, should it?


Personally, I refuse to get wrapped around the axle about whether I'm eating 'clean'. I choose organic when I can but dang! a lot of times that stuff is way more expensive. I mean seriously, one trip to Whole Paycheck,.... sorry, Whole Foods, and one SMALL bag of groceries with fruit, eggs, milk, some staples, and maybe a piece of fish or meat... $50+ bucks? Seriously? I mean, how could anyone (other than people making SERIOUS money- 6 figure type) afford to eat that way?

For me, Clean is something to try your best to do but is it always realistic? No.


Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


What term would you used instead then? I don't find anything wrong with the term "clean," it seems rather forward and conveys what it is. It's certainly more efficient than saying "organic, local (when possible), simple kind of crap." You could try "unprocessed," but I eat soy products that are organic and are processed but with a few simple ingredients, so I consider them clean (not unprocessed). The term "whole foods" would have this same fault. It seems that most definitions of clean eating are just an extension of Michael Pollan's "Food Rules;" it seems a more than fitting name. However, I think we'd all welcome some constructive criticism of the term were other options offered.


Did you read the link posted? I thought it has some good points.


I'm sorry, but I don't know if my eyes are shot or what...I don't see a link and I just went through the pages a few times over (again, sorry if I've missed it--my dog has been in surgery all day and I might be a bit spent).


Chrisdavey posted it. Although because it is not a MFP link you have to copy and paste it.

Hope the dog is feeling better. I've been there more than once and can relate.


I totally missed it. Thanks for clarifying; I just finished reading it. I certainly agree with a lot of things said--I'll be the first one to point out that "clean" eating isn't a dietary eden where everything is effortless. I mean, I've been what most would probably call a "clean" eater for most of my life and I've been over 250lbs (5'7) since the 5th grade (though I'd certainly thank the quality and variety of food for keeping my blood pressure and both hdl/ldl ideal despite being morbidly obese). I hadn't heard other diets described as clean; I guess that's something the article picks up on that I had not experienced. I certainly witnessed the anti-fat, pro-low carb, anti-sugar, etc waves, but yes, I guess I hadn't noticed the particular word clean attached to them (but am certainly aware of the good/bad food villainization process). The term "orthorexia nervosa" is certainly new to me. It seems quite likely and certainly explains the frantic nature of some eating clean worries/obsessions. I guess I'd just push people in more of a "food rules" direction, which is really rather moderate. Thanks again for sharing that link!
  997885
February 19, 2013 6:46 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I thought the definition of eating "clean" is, - if the label has any ingredients that were chemically processed or added to it to make it have a longer shelf life - then it isn't "clean"... In other words, if you cannot recognize or buy the ingredients when you look at it, make it yourself, or are more than one step from the original source or farm (cream/milk to butter), then it would be processed.

For instance, Natural Peanut Butter... Label says: peanuts, salt. Period. The fact that someone else mechanically made the peanuts into the peanut butter shouldn't matter, should it?


Personally, I refuse to get wrapped around the axle about whether I'm eating 'clean'. I choose organic when I can but dang! a lot of times that stuff is way more expensive. I mean seriously, one trip to Whole Paycheck,.... sorry, Whole Foods, and one SMALL bag of groceries with fruit, eggs, milk, some staples, and maybe a piece of fish or meat... $50+ bucks? Seriously? I mean, how could anyone (other than people making SERIOUS money- 6 figure type) afford to eat that way?

For me, Clean is something to try your best to do but is it always realistic? No.


Technically, peanuts and salt are both chemicals. And it's a process. So, yeah, even if you make your own, it's technically chemically processed, which is why the term "clean food" is just kinda silly.


What term would you used instead then? I don't find anything wrong with the term "clean," it seems rather forward and conveys what it is. It's certainly more efficient than saying "organic, local (when possible), simple kind of crap." You could try "unprocessed," but I eat soy products that are organic and are processed but with a few simple ingredients, so I consider them clean (not unprocessed). The term "whole foods" would have this same fault. It seems that most definitions of clean eating are just an extension of Michael Pollan's "Food Rules;" it seems a more than fitting name. However, I think we'd all welcome some constructive criticism of the term were other options offered.


I don't use a term. I just call it eating a variety of foods with some staple items. For me, butter is a staple item. I eat a bit of it on most days. I think people set up too many rules that just turns the act of eating into something rather stressful. I have enough stress trying to feed a family of four on a budget. But I have found that generally, if we only buy single ingredient items at the store, we save a lot of money. (Of course that means it's more work to cook, but the food tastes better most of the time.)

I'm an "outside-the-box" kinda gal anyway. I am bit rebellious, even toward rules that I make for myself. So I keep my rules simple, that way I am less likely to rebel. wink

My main rule is my favorite: eat as many different kinds of foods, or the same food prepared in a variety of different ways, as much as possible. Corollary: enjoy what you eat or it's a waste. flowerforyou


I see your reasoning--for sure. I never really ate much processed food growing up (my parents are from Germany and never brought much boxed or packaged stuff home and I did my undergraduate in France and never encountered much processed food their either) and I make everything I can from scratch, but I do find terms convenient when discussing dietary choices. As I mentioned, I never used "clean" prior to re-committing to MFP 44 days ago, but it does happen to encapsulate my diet. I'm also glad I can say things like "I'm a pescatarian" or "I'm kosher," and don't necessarily have to detail that I eat fish and dairy and eggs, but not the meat of land animals (which just ends up being wordy). I think it's just a matter of linguistic convenience.


I just hate giving something a label because at some point, it won't fit. I like variety. Also, I am blessed to have no intolerances/allergies, so I can pretty much eat whatever I want. I just try to get enough protein and fats each day and stay under my calories. And I try to eat fruits and veggies every day as well. Sometimes my veggies are just potatoes or tomatoes though, and some people want to label those two as being "other than" veggies, but whatever. I eat what I like. I finally figured out how to eat correctly so that I'm losing weight now, instead of gradually gaining weight. I see food as simply one part of life. You have to sleep, you have to work, and you have to eat. That's life. I try to enjoy each of those three in proper proportions. bigsmile
  25631519
February 19, 2013 7:05 PM
^^^^Who is against tomatoes? I will battle. ;)
Edited by nataliescalories On February 19, 2013 7:05 PM
  997885
February 19, 2013 7:07 PM
QUOTE:

^^^^Who is against tomatoes? I will battle. ;)


*shrugs*. Technically they are a fruit.















Totally not serious.
February 20, 2013 1:44 AM
Thanks for all the replies and I will have a red through the attached posts

Reply

Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.