:Talk:Clean eating

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)

:Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, {{tq|There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable.}} Also, per Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus {{tq|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)

::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 [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/clean-eating/ Harvard] source I presume they're talking about, and the negative side of the diet it refers to is: {{tq|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)

:::This is a good source from the European Food Information Council which gives a good overview [https://www.eufic.org/en/healthy-living/article/the-truth-about-clean-eating] Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clean_eating&diff=prev&oldid=1170235866 This] broad statement ({{tq|Health risks associated with this diet include food poisoning and diseases from parasites}}) is totally misrepresenting the source.

What exactly the source says is:

{{tq|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)

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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)