DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Clean eating

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Inaccurate

[edit]

I realise that the lead description may have 'consensus', but the the moniker of 'fad diet' is pejorative, inaccurate and the sources are weak. Two Guardian articles (a left-wing British newspaper) by people who are substantially gossip columnists does not constitute science. Both Harvard and Yale medical journals have produced articles on Clean Eating where the word 'fad' is nowhere mentioned. Could we focus on what is true instead of achieving'consensus' on things that aren't? 109.154.231.60 (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. Also, per Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals. What you regard to be true is not the prevailing consensus. I think you'll need something more than this to succeed. -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel the article is sorta confusing. It seems to suggest, as-written, that eating minimally processed foods such as whole grains, fruit & veg, etc, and reducing intake of convenience and processed foods, is bad for ones health, or some sort of psuedoscientific diet. This would totally defy years of research on diet, and I presume is not what this article is trying to say.
I took a look at sources the IP editor refers to, e.g. a Harvard source I presume they're talking about, and the negative side of the diet it refers to is: Clean eating taken to an extreme has been associated with an increased risk of disordered eating patterns, such as orthorexia nervosa. - further it emphasises the broad nature of the term, how different people interpret it to mean different things, and the mislabelling of products.
This article should emphasise that more. I agree some of the stuff promoted by bloggers is probably taken to extremes and detrimental to health. However, the concept of a healthy diet, which is effectively what the first sentence of the lead describes, does not seem to me to be problematic. Conversely, reading this article, the first impression I get is that it's trying to say convenience/processed foods are fine? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good source from the European Food Information Council which gives a good overview [1] Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source misrepresentation

[edit]

This broad statement (Health risks associated with this diet include food poisoning and diseases from parasites) is totally misrepresenting the source.

What exactly the source says is: Diseases caused by parasites. Consumption of raw meat increases the risk of contracting trichinosis, and eating raw fish increases the risk of infection by flukes and other parasitic worms. -- so the eating of raw meat increases the risk of infection by parasites... Which is not at all what the article said.

Aside from that, this is buried within a sub-section, with the bulk of the sub-section talking about the risks of eating processed foods. An honest representation of the source would include all that content too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sources/Dubious claims

[edit]

There is - as far as I can research - no basis for calling Clean Eating a 'fad diet', yet this bizarre claim has gone untested here for some time. The description is clearly proprietorial, and I wonder about two dubious articles in The Guardian (hardly The Lancet). Poor sources indeed. This is everything that is wrong about Wiki. The concept seems to essentially echo many basic principles of The Mediterranean Diet, yet we do not describe that as a 'fad diet'. What is going on here? Consensus - however cordial - does not mean the claim is truthful. 86.153.86.158 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Clean Eating is definitely a fad diet because it involves making pseudoscientific claims about avoiding dairy and gluten and processed foods. Clean eating is very different than the Mediterranean Diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only certain extreme versions of the diet, and there is no uniformly accepted version of what 'Clean Eating' actually means.
This problem is outlined in a Harvard University article called 'Clean Eating: the good and the bad'. Please take a look.
I don't object to crank versions of the diet being described as fad, but to dismiss the entire concept of clean eating as such is inaccurate. And to do so in the opening sentence is misleading.
This is sloppy, lazy work. And I repeat that the sources are quite insubstantial. The Guardian is a left-leaning UK newspaper which prints a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff: often just to fill pages.
It's hardly a peer-reviewed article in a reputable academic or scientific journal (university or otherwise) in which people actually know what they're talking about. 86.153.86.158 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the article needs is probably someone willing to do the research, find the best quality sources out there, and rewrite some parts in a way that clearly summarises the sources. That would take some time investment, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing the description

[edit]

I'd like to suggest a slight rephrasing of the opening description: 'Clean eating is an umbrella term for a variety of diets based on the belief that consuming whole foods and avoiding convenience food and other processed foods offers certain health benefits.'

While the general sentiment is understandable, I believe it could benefit from more nuance. Firstly, the distinction between 'processed foods' and 'ultra-processed foods' is crucial. Scientific consensus generally supports that ultra-processed foods are associated with negative health outcomes, whereas many minimally processed foods (e.g., canned vegetables, pasteurized milk) are healthy and contribute to food security. Lumping all 'processed foods' together could be misleading.

Secondly, the current phrasing 'based on the belief that...' frames the health benefits as a mere conviction. In fact, the positive health impacts of consuming whole, unprocessed foods and the negative impacts of ultra-processed foods are supported by a substantial body of scientific evidence. It's not just a belief, but a well-established nutritional principle.

Thirdly, the definition of 'clean eating' itself often lacks a universally agreed-upon consensus. It's more of a philosophy or a trend with varying interpretations among its adherents, rather than a clearly defined set of dietary guidelines. Perhaps emphasizing this lack of a singular definition would add valuable clarity.

Therefore, I propose something closer to: 'Clean eating is an umbrella term for a variety of dietary approaches that prioritize consuming whole, unprocessed foods and avoiding ultra-processed foods, consistent with established nutritional science regarding their respective health impacts. The specific interpretation of "clean" often varies widely among proponents, and there is no single, universally agreed-upon definition of clean eating.'

This revision would, in my opinion, provide a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the topic. Miiversal (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it's unsourced and doesn't really summarise the article, but which leaning eating is not really about UPF, and has some decidedly non-healthy variants. So it was better before. Bon courage (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand that. However, I still contend that "based on the belief that consuming whole foods and avoiding convenience food and other processed foods offers certain health benefits" is misleading or poorly phrased. The idea that whole, unprocessed foods are generally beneficial and ultra-processed foods are detrimental is widely supported by nutritional science. Framing it simply as a 'belief' downplays this evidence.
While I agree that clean eating isn't solely about UPF and can have problematic interpretations (e.g. demonizing certain food groups, such as dairy or whole grains), the initial phrasing's broad brushstroke of 'processed foods' is still an issue. Many minimally processed and processed foods are perfectly healthy and important for modern diets. Pipelinking "processed foods" to UPF is misleading. Miiversal (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clean eating as a concept predates UPF as a concept by many years, so that's not really relevant (unless there are sources discussing UPF and clean eating?). Whether processed food is better than unprocessed depends on many factors. Pasteurised milk is healthier than raw milk for example. The article goes into detail about how some "clean eating" fads are far from wise. Bon courage (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the reply.
You've actually hit on the exact distinction I'm trying to make with your pasteurized milk example. You're right, it's processed (for safety) and a healthy choice.
The key is that it's processed, but not ultra-processed. It isn't an industrial formulation of emulsifiers, flavorings, and additives.
The current article's wording, by lumping all "processed foods" together, is what causes the confusion. It fails to make this distinction, which is how rational, evidence-based choices (like avoiding UPFs) get conflated with the pseudoscientific "fads" (like demonizing pasteurized milk).
This is why the word "belief" remains so problematic. By using "belief," the article incorrectly frames the scientific conclusion (that UPFs are detrimental to health) as being on the same level as a pseudoscientific belief (that all processed food, including pasteurized milk, is bad). One is based on evidence; the other is not.
And while the term "clean eating" may predate the term "UPF," that's a bit of an appeal to tradition fallacy. The concept of avoiding industrially manufactured "junk" food is not new, even if the scientific classification "UPF" is. We should be able to apply modern nutritional science to the concept. Miiversal (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The word "belief" violates NPOV regarding whole foods vs. UPF

[edit]

I'm posting again because my concerns were ignored. I understand the need to highlight that "Clean Eating" is a vague marketing term often co-opted by pseudoscience. However, the current phrasing in the lead ("based on the belief that consuming whole foods... offers certain health benefits") is problematic and scientifically inaccurate.

It frames the health superiority of whole foods over ultra-processed foods (UPF) as a subjective "belief" or fringe theory. This contradicts the overwhelming consensus of modern nutritional science (FAO, WHO, and national dietary guidelines).

We need to distinguish between:

  1. The "influencer" version (demonizing gluten/GMOs without evidence, moralizing food).
  2. The core principle of prioritizing unprocessed foods (NOVA Group 1) over ultra-processed foods (NOVA Group 4).

There is widely accepted evidence (not just "belief") that reducing UPF intake lowers the risk of chronic disease. By using the word "belief" for the entire concept, this article inadvertently categorizes standard, evidence-based dietary advice as pseudoscience.

I propose we rephrase to acknowledge this distinction. For example: "Clean eating is an umbrella term... often promoting the consumption of whole foods and the avoidance of ultra-processed foods, aligning with broader dietary guidelines, though the term is also associated with restrictive fads and pseudoscientific claims."

It would separate the valid nutritional strategy from the social media pseudoscience surrounding it.

Again, here's links from reputable organizations that prove this:

Miiversal (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of what a description that satisfies both viewpoints (1. The scientific truth that avoiding highly processed food is good for you vs. 2. the sociological truth that "clean eating" is a messy, unregulated marketing term often used to sell lies) could look like:
"Clean eating is a marketing term and dietary philosophy that advocates for the consumption of whole, unprocessed foods and the avoidance of highly processed or refined foods.
While the core principle of prioritizing whole foods aligns with major public health guidelines, the term "clean eating" lacks a standardized scientific definition. Interpretations vary widely: moderate approaches simply emphasize fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, while more extreme variations may restrict entire food groups (such as gluten, dairy, or cooked foods) and have been criticized for promoting pseudoscience and disordered eating behaviors like orthorexia." Miiversal (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you therefore suggest a word other than "belief" that is less problematic? My reading of it does not suggest the opening sentence is pushing a position. ~2025-37528-61 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Eating

[edit]

Describing it as a "marketing term" is both pejorative and inaccurate. One may as well describe Islam or Christianity as marketing terms (which, in a sense they are - though both are also deeply held beliefs). I think "dietary practice" is more straightforward. Warsaw73 (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]