"Clean" or Flexible Eating - food for thought?
Options
Replies
-
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »So, what the study seems to be saying is that a flexible diet works and woo woo diets based on exclusion and bizarre eating patterns do not work, provided you don't have a diagnosed medical condition like coeliacs or peanut allergy.
Also, no-one has been able to offer any counter this other than 'dem feels'.
I'll offer you a counter: For every person diagnosed there might be many walking around with allergies or other issues affected by food who don't know it yet. Also, medical science is not a done deal, so more ailments affected by food may be discovered in the future.
Meanwhile, I know this doesn't qualify as a research worthy experiment, but I'd be an idiot not to listen to my body and try to figure out what it wants in order to be healthy, happy, and energetic. It is my body, shabby little temple though it may be, and I have to live in it.
If being thin and eating healthy ever becomes the end goal instead of the means to an end though, I'm in trouble and better seek help. That's the last thing I want, that's no life, and I'm already sometimes aggravated about how much time and energy I put into it. Except when I'm having fun trying to learn nutrition, that I enjoy, difficult though it is for me.
So, basically 'dem feels'?
You totally ignored the first part of my post in favor of mocking me, but for what? For going by how I feel after I eat certain foods? Mock away, then. I'm still going to do it. And I'm going to do my best to figure out exactly what foods make me feel the best.
Edit: By the way, if that ever turns out to be pop tarts, I'm going to eat them every day.
No I didn't. If you feel ill when you eat a food you go to the doctor. That either turns a subjective view into an objective diagnosis or it turns out it wasn't the food. If you believe certain foods are bad for you in absence of any medical evidence, it's probably psychosomatic.
Which is 'dem feels'. Anecdotes about food are all very well, but we know people can convince themselves that certain foods make them ill when the reality is that the problem is entirely in their heads. If you want an objective view then you study it, remove the confounding variables, and come to a conclusion, which is what the report did.
Yes, because everyone can afford a doctor and bloodwork whenever they suspect they might have negative reactions to some foods.
And again, when was the cause of celiac disease discovered? So by your logic the suffering of all celiacs was psychosomatic prior to the recognition of the role of gluten in the disease?
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. Plus if you're ill enough you'll find the money. Coeliac's has been known about since ancient Grecian times - the word coeliac comes from the Greek for abdominal.
We could do this indefinitely, but the fact remains: unless you have a diagnosed medical condition, exclusion diets are more likely to fail according to this study.
I live in the USA, and no, I won't find the money. Besides, what if I try a new food and break out in hives. Should I rush to the doctor ask her to hold my hand and take my bloodwork or just avoid that food?
No really though, I don't disagree, I will go get some bloodwork done when I can afford it. There is no finding the money, though.
Meanwhile, the cause of celiac disease was not known until the 20th century.
We aren't going to bicker indefinitely because I know from your other posts you are smart. You know perfectly well that just because medical science hasn't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I know perfectly well that when a new discovery is made regarding disease and causes of the disease, a lot of people are going to attribute their problems falsely to it. Because that's just dem humans being humans.
As you'll see from my edit, we knew coeliacs was a real problem for a very long time. In addition, change of diet was long recommended before gluten was identified as a culprit in the mid 20th century. So, not psychosomatic at all - it was very real disease with a very real solution; change of diet (Dr Haas' infamous banana diet as one example).
However, we now have immunological and antibody testing, which makes specific agent identification a lot easier, which is why it is correct to say that most eating disorders where no reaction is observed using immunological screening are, in fact, psychosomatic. Sure, there may be some unknowns out there, but this has become increasingly unlikely given we can analyse to molecular level now.
Which is why, unless it can be proven that a reaction to food is on a medical ground - such as an inability to absorb gluten effectively in people with Coeliac to the anaphylactic reaction of people with nut allergies - it is a pretty safe bet to say that it's psychosomatic not real.
Hence, 'dem feels'.
"It is a pretty safe bet". You saved yourself with that. But it's also an example of dem feels. You feel (and even I do, to some extent) that a lot of people have a tendency toward psychosomatic symptoms. That does not invalidate those who have figured out certain foods don't agree with them in truth, whether a doctor says so or even knows so or not. I want to be one of those people. I'm no more interested in playing headgames with myself than you are in hearing about people's headgames.
Edit: Come to think of it, I don't think you'd try to argue that 1000 calories of cake and 1000 calories of nuts, seeds, and vegetables are equally good foods prior to, for example, running a marathon. So when I work to eat foods that give me energy and try to avoid foods that cause me to be lethargic, what is the problem?
Mood of course is a more complex issue.
Again, the point is that, given the current state of molecular testing, it is highly unlikely that there are food group intolerances we are not aware of. Not impossible, but so unlikely that the probability becomes vanishing. That's quite different from 'dem feels' which is a belief in absence of proof.
However, we are way off the beaten track here, because the study's findings were that generally flexible dieting yields superior results to restrictive dieting in the general population. Granted, there may be a few exceptions to this, for known - and even, I'll concede - unknown reasons, but that's getting into special pleading territory.
So I'm quite comfortable in saying that, whilst there may be some very few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of the population would do better on a flexible diet, not a restrictive - in terms of food, not calories - diet.
They're just starting to learn about diabetes at the cellular level, so unless I misunderstand (very possible, science isn't unfortunately my background) there is plenty of room to learn more, especially regarding complex interactions, not to mention the epigenome which is really unexplored right now.
Meanwhile, I'm still not going to shovel cake in my face and expect to do my best time in a run, so why should I shove cake in my face and expect to have the same energy levels and feeling of wellbeing as shoving meats and veggies in my face?
That misses the point. We already know what diabetes is and how to treat it. Sure, more information on genetic susceptibility is welcome, but it won't tell us much more on how to avoid it or treat it.
But again, this is special pleading.
I don't see how it follows that it won't tell us more about how to avoid or treat it. And again, are you actually advocating a calorie is a calorie for health and wellbeing and energy and not just for simple weight loss or gain? Really? You can't be.
No. Hence the use of the term 'flexible'.
Hey, I'm flexible. I prefer grass fed beef, but I'm not turning my nose up at cornfed prime rib, ever!
0 -
I have eliminated red meat from my diet. It makes me feel like crap for days. Gluten makes me feel like crap too. Otherwise, I have a very healthy diet. Lots of lean proteins, vegetables, some fruit, whole grains, low-fat dairy. I cook most of my food with fresh ingredients and limit salt (because it makes me feel like crap). I limit added sugar, again because it makes me feel like crap. I rarely eat anything fried. I read labels and try to avoid anything that even remotely sounds like it was made in a chemistry lab. I eat out often, but order healthy options and try to stick with mom and pop places that use fresh ingredients. Do these "restrictions" make me feel deprived? Not at all. When I'm eating well, I feel great. I don't miss anything I've eliminated. I have treats all the time. I don't ever turn down an opportunity to socialize over a meal. Do I still overeat sometimes? Yep, but the quality of what I overeat is better.
Life is good.
I think this plays into what I was getting at earlier about the motivation/s behind the restrictions being a factor in their sustainability.
My vague digestive issues with meats (constipation and general gastric upset) come under the "feel like crap" category. They're motivating enough to give it up for good, especially since I'm quite content not dealing with the occasional textural issues I had with it.
This is miles away, though, from the typical dieting reason for categorical food restriction. Personal dietetic preference is not what the article is talking about, at least to my mind. The belief that totally eliminating a group of foods is the key to success in weight loss/attempting "healthy living" is rather the point in some dieter's minds, and it's generally doomed to failure because it's not grounded in anything other than magical thinking.
0 -
I disagree strongly. I suspect all the scientists who have devoted their lives to diabetes research would disagree as well.herrspoons wrote: »That misses the point. We already know what diabetes is and how to treat it. Sure, more information on genetic susceptibility is welcome, but it won't tell us much more on how to avoid it or treat it.
But again, this is special pleading.
Of course more information will likely help tell us more on how to avoid or treat it. In fact, they could potentially one day CURE it with enough research. And even before then, if they truly figure out the cause it will be much easier for people to avoid getting it in the first place and treatments can get even better than they are now.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »re: OP post, I think it is certainly possible to adhere to dietary restrictions long-term, as so many with religious restrictions or ethical restrictions (vegan, vegetarian) do. It's really a matter of seeing how restrictions function in your life. If they increase anxiety and/or obsessiveness to a problematic level, that is a problem, if more restrictions are continually added, that is a problem, if there is a restrict/over-indulge pattern, that is a problem, if there is an underlying sense of shame or lack of control, that is a problem.
This is something I've thought about in connection with "clean eating" concepts (and the choice of name, which as all may know by now, bugs me) ;-) as well as because I started reading that Matt Fitzgerald book Diet Cults and so far agree a lot (although have not finished it yet).
Specifically, I think food restrictions aren't that hard for people when they have a greater reason for them, which certainly does include things like ethical or religious reasons. But health reasons aren't really the same for most people, because the truth is that there's no health reason (outside of true allergies) to give up most things, so you end up in this discussion with yourself over how much is too much and then the amazing capacity of justification that most humans have kick in. But even so I don't think it's surprising that when I connect my eating to something else (either my vague ideas about eating in tune with nature, even if I half think it's silly, or a focus on working out) I eat better without really trying. So part of "clean eating" or "paleo" or the like is convincing yourself that you are following a way of life that enforces the eating habits. I mostly think that's fine, as long as you don't get too annoying, but clearly some people take it to unhealthy extremes.
The fact is it wouldn't work for me, though, because the claims that are made are simply not true and my mind nags me about that (WHY would eating a moderate amoutnof whatever be harmful?), and also basing something on false claims just seems screwed up to me.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
The only two studies mentioned in your OP...in fact the only references in the entire article relating to eating disorders... are from 1999 and 2002. Very old! That is what you chose to highlight, I am just following your lead. For an author who is obviously cherry picking to support his bias, I'm surprised he couldn't find something more recent to support his point.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I wasn't necessarily referring specifically to you, just a general observation.
The article really just ignores the reality that dietary guidelines and what the medical establishment...and eventually the public... views as "healthy" changes over time as new data becomes available. That is just the scientific method. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. In the late 1800's/early 1900s they widely used cocaine as a treatment for depression...this was before they discovered the addictive properties and other negative effects that went along with it. When they did, this changed...and thank God it did! The fact that new research sometimes invalidates older research does not mean no research is relevant.
Article is based on research so, no it doesn't ignore the scientific method. Nor does it ignore dietary guidelines. In fact, it cites the USDA and research on them.
Just like you stated that it was one article (wrong) from the 90 (wrong again), you are now wrong a third time - go back and do tell us were Alan Aragon is NOT referencing dietary guidelines....
-
Let's cite him.
"Coincidentally, the USDA’s discretionary calorie allotment averages at approximately 10-20% of total calories [27]. Take note that discretionary calories are not just confined to added sugars. Any food or beverage is fair game. The USDA’s system is still far from perfect, since it includes naturally-occurring fats in certain foods as part of the discretionary calorie allotment."In the 80's, they began pushing low fat diets based on available research. Obesity levels quickly skyrocketed. Earlier studies seemed to indicate dietary fat was responsible for obesity, heart disease, and a whole host of other things. More recent research has disproved that theory, or at least cast significant doubt on it, so recommendations are slowly changing.
Same thing goes for cholesterol and a lot of other things, not necessarily all related to weight management.
Yes, research evolves understanding.In terms of "restrictive dieting", the vast majority of people who restrict certain foods do not have eating disorders or unhealthy relationships with food. For every person out there who is so overcome with food issues that they develop an eating disorder or can never have a restaurant meal, there are many more who practice "flexible dieting" and can't control how much they eat and fail at their efforts to lose or maintain weight.
Post your research on the bolded quatifier - Alan posted his on the issues related to eating disorders. After all, given that research evolves and you support the scientific method, you must have research to support these claims, right?For some people, flexible probably does work better. There are many people here who swear that is the only thing that works for them. I'll take their work for it. However there are many people here for whom it doesn't. Weight Watchers and many other programs promote flexible dieting...at least some of their plans. My mother was once a member and she was permitted to eat anything. She failed because she still couldn't stick to it.
However, I would NEVER claim that her failure means it can't work for someone else. I just think it is ridiculous that there are people on here claiming that because they lost weight eating cookies or chocolate cake or chips every evening, that this works for everyone. They seem obsessed with telling people that if they try to limit certain foods they will fail. That is not helpful to people struggling. It is not accurate in most cases, or at least many. It is incredible irresponsible, in my opinion.
No one claims flexible dieting is a most for everyone. They question the thinking behind restrictive dieting because it is often born from myths, it's ok to challenge someone's thinking - it part of the scientific process you supported above - is the reasoning you are using based and supported by prior research? To what extent, what else might be going on? Is your knowledge base strong? Are you basing decisions on hearsay or fact?
BTW - the process for updating guidelines is awfully slow and outdated. Don't expect to be up to date if you base your habits on them alone without further understanding of how things evolve. American dietary guideline standards are still woefully behind in terms of still pushing low-fat diary and not full addressing trans-fats.
The author is very focused on the "inconsistency" (his word) of the definition of clean throughout the decades. He attempts to position the fact that beliefs change over time with new knowledge as a negative...I just can't take him seriously.
Believe whatever you like though.
The OP starts with a link to the article - you didn't even bother reading it before criticizing it. But hey, I'll leave the references here for you, below.
Research remains valid until someone comes along and offers counter references. You haven't even tried.
You can't take Alan Aragon seriously. Ok, but you think the argument of reference age is serious from a short 10-15 line excerpt? C'mon you can at least try to address the content. You're just using so many fallacies here: personal incredulity, ad hom, no true scotsman, you could at least address the actual content of what is posted.
References
1. Kleiner SM, et al. Metabolic profiles, diet, and health practices of championship male and female bodybuilders. J Am Diet Assoc. 1990 Jul;90(7):962-7.
2. Kleiner SM, et al. Nutritional status of nationally ranked elite bodybuilders. Int J Sport Nutr. 1994 Mar;4(1):54-69.
3. Keith RE, et al. Nutritional status and lipid profiles of trained steroid-using bodybuilders. Int J Sport Nutr. 1996 Sep;6(3):247-54.Hoffman JR, Falvo MJ. Protein-which is best? J Sport Sci Med 2004; 3: 118-30.
4. Bamman MM, et al. Changes in body composition, diet, and strength of bodybuilders during the 12 weeks prior to competition. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1993 Dec;33(4):383-91.
5. Hoffman JR, Falvo MJ. Protein-which is best? J Sport Sci Med 2004; 3: 118-30.
6. Hulmi JJ, et al. Effect of protein/essential amino acids and resistance training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy: A case for whey protein. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2010 Jun 17;7:51.
7. Xu R. Effect of whey protein on the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts. J Dairy Sci. 2009 Jul;92(7):3014-8.
8. Krissansen GW. Emerging health properties of whey proteins and their clinical implications. J Am Coll Nutr. 2007 Dec;26(6):713S-23S.
9. Parodi PW. A role for milk proteins and their peptides in cancer prevention. Curr Pharm Des. 2007;13(8):813-28.
10. Marshall K. Therapeutic applications of whey protein. Altern Med Rev. 2004 Jun;9(2):136-56.
11. Miller GD, et al. It is time for a positive approach to dietary guidance using nutrient density as a basic principle. J Nutr. 2009 Jun;139(6):1198-202.
12. Fulgoni VL 3rd, et al. Development and validation of the nutrient-rich foods index: a tool to measure nutritional quality of foods. J Nutr. 2009 Aug;139(8):1549-54.
13. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. We can! Go, Slow and Whoa foods. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/wecan/downloads/gswtips.pdf
14. Drewnowski A, Fulgoni V 3rd. Comparing the nutrient rich foods index with “Go,” “Slow,” and “Whoa,” foods. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011 Feb;111(2):280-4.
15. Surwit RS, et al. Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4):908-15.
16. Madero M, et al. The effect of two energy-restricted diets, a low-fructose diet versus a moderate natural fructose diet, on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters: a randomized controlled trial. Metabolism. 2011 May 27. [Epub ahead of print]
17. Mozaffarian D, Clarke R. Quantitative effects on cardiovascular risk factors and coronary heart disease risk of replacing partially hydrogenated vegetable oils with other fats and oils. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;63 Suppl 2:S22-33.
18. Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D. Trans-fatty acids and nonlipid risk factors. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2009 Nov;11(6):423-33.
19. Chardingny JM, et al. Do trans fatty acids from industrially produced sources and from natural sources have the same effect on cardiovascular disease risk factors in healthy subjects? Results of the trans Fatty Acids Collaboration (TRANSFACT) study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):558-66.
20. Field CJ, et al. Human health benefits of vaccenic acid. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2009 Oct;34(5):979-91.
21. Bratman S. What is orthorexia? Accessed August 2011. http://www.orthorexia.com/index.php?page=katef
22. Smith CF, et al. Flexible vs. Rigid dieting strategies: relationship with adverse behavioral outcomes. Appetite. 1999 Jun;32(3):295-305.
23. Stewart TM, et al. Rigid vs. flexible dieting: association with eating disorder symptoms in nonobese women. Appetite. 2002 Feb;38(1):39-44.
24. Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. 2005.
25. Gibson SA. Dietary sugars intake and micronutrient adequacy: a systematic review of the evidence. Nutr Res Rev. 2007 Dec;20(2):121-31.
26. DGAC Advisory Committee, USDA. Part D, Section 3: Discretionary Calories. The Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005.
27. Center for Nutrition Policy & Promotion. My Pyramid: Food intake patterns, 2005. http://www.choosemyplate.gov/downloads/MyPyramid_Food_Intake_Patterns.pdf
28. Hession M, et al. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of low-carbohydrate vs. low-fat/low-calorie diets in the management of obesity and its comorbidities. Obes Rev. 2009 Jan;10(1):36-50.
29. Leenen R, et al. Relative effects of weight loss and dietary fat modification on serum lipid levels in the dietary treatment of obesity. J Lipid Res. 1993 Dec;34(12):2183-91.
30. Johnson RJ, Murray R. Fructose, exercise, and health. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2010 Jul-Aug;9(4):253-8.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »They seem obsessed with telling people that if they try to limit certain foods they will fail.
I don't think anyone takes issue with limiting foods. We all limit foods, except for those lucky enough to just naturally only want to eat at their TDEE (which is probably not all that many in the losing weight section of this forum, if any).
Nor do I think anyone questions whether it makes sense to have different limits on some kinds of foods (cake) vs. others (vegetables).
What I think is generally unhealthy (although I never tell anyone they will fail) is a permanent elimination of a food that you really want to eat--if you love pizza, telling yourself you can never have pizza again--or the related effort to convince yourself that a food you desire is disgusting and undesirable (that pizza is filthy and nasty and full of FAT, ick). That's actually one of the reasons that the "clean eating" thing seems kind of perverted to me, rather akin to someone trying to convince themselves that sex acts they desire are dirty or disgusting.
But perhaps I shouldn't go there. ;-)
However, as with people who do that re sex, it seems not possible for people caught up in that approach toward food to become judgmental about what others eat (see thread about how pop is a disgusting habit for disgusting stinky people, among many others, and also common imagery about how people who don't eliminate food are stuffing their faces with Twinkies--no doubt without use of a napkin--24/7). When I see that kind of obsession and focus in particular, it seems unhealthy to me.
(And also rather insulting and obnoxious, of course.)0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »So, what the study seems to be saying is that a flexible diet works and woo woo diets based on exclusion and bizarre eating patterns do not work, provided you don't have a diagnosed medical condition like coeliacs or peanut allergy.
Also, no-one has been able to offer any counter this other than 'dem feels'.
I'll offer you a counter: For every person diagnosed there might be many walking around with allergies or other issues affected by food who don't know it yet. Also, medical science is not a done deal, so more ailments affected by food may be discovered in the future.
Meanwhile, I know this doesn't qualify as a research worthy experiment, but I'd be an idiot not to listen to my body and try to figure out what it wants in order to be healthy, happy, and energetic. It is my body, shabby little temple though it may be, and I have to live in it.
If being thin and eating healthy ever becomes the end goal instead of the means to an end though, I'm in trouble and better seek help. That's the last thing I want, that's no life, and I'm already sometimes aggravated about how much time and energy I put into it. Except when I'm having fun trying to learn nutrition, that I enjoy, difficult though it is for me.
So, basically 'dem feels'?
You totally ignored the first part of my post in favor of mocking me, but for what? For going by how I feel after I eat certain foods? Mock away, then. I'm still going to do it. And I'm going to do my best to figure out exactly what foods make me feel the best.
Edit: By the way, if that ever turns out to be pop tarts, I'm going to eat them every day.
No I didn't. If you feel ill when you eat a food you go to the doctor. That either turns a subjective view into an objective diagnosis or it turns out it wasn't the food. If you believe certain foods are bad for you in absence of any medical evidence, it's probably psychosomatic.
Which is 'dem feels'. Anecdotes about food are all very well, but we know people can convince themselves that certain foods make them ill when the reality is that the problem is entirely in their heads. If you want an objective view then you study it, remove the confounding variables, and come to a conclusion, which is what the report did.
Yes, because everyone can afford a doctor and bloodwork whenever they suspect they might have negative reactions to some foods.
And again, when was the cause of celiac disease discovered? So by your logic the suffering of all celiacs was psychosomatic prior to the recognition of the role of gluten in the disease?
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. Plus if you're ill enough you'll find the money. Coeliac's has been known about since ancient Grecian times - the word coeliac comes from the Greek for abdominal.
We could do this indefinitely, but the fact remains: unless you have a diagnosed medical condition, exclusion diets are more likely to fail according to this study.
I live in the USA, and no, I won't find the money. Besides, what if I try a new food and break out in hives. Should I rush to the doctor ask her to hold my hand and take my bloodwork or just avoid that food?
No really though, I don't disagree, I will go get some bloodwork done when I can afford it. There is no finding the money, though.
Meanwhile, the cause of celiac disease was not known until the 20th century.
We aren't going to bicker indefinitely because I know from your other posts you are smart. You know perfectly well that just because medical science hasn't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I know perfectly well that when a new discovery is made regarding disease and causes of the disease, a lot of people are going to attribute their problems falsely to it. Because that's just dem humans being humans.
As you'll see from my edit, we knew coeliacs was a real problem for a very long time. In addition, change of diet was long recommended before gluten was identified as a culprit in the mid 20th century. So, not psychosomatic at all - it was very real disease with a very real solution; change of diet (Dr Haas' infamous banana diet as one example).
However, we now have immunological and antibody testing, which makes specific agent identification a lot easier, which is why it is correct to say that most eating disorders where no reaction is observed using immunological screening are, in fact, psychosomatic. Sure, there may be some unknowns out there, but this has become increasingly unlikely given we can analyse to molecular level now.
Which is why, unless it can be proven that a reaction to food is on a medical ground - such as an inability to absorb gluten effectively in people with Coeliac to the anaphylactic reaction of people with nut allergies - it is a pretty safe bet to say that it's psychosomatic not real.
Hence, 'dem feels'.
"It is a pretty safe bet". You saved yourself with that. But it's also an example of dem feels. You feel (and even I do, to some extent) that a lot of people have a tendency toward psychosomatic symptoms. That does not invalidate those who have figured out certain foods don't agree with them in truth, whether a doctor says so or even knows so or not. I want to be one of those people. I'm no more interested in playing headgames with myself than you are in hearing about people's headgames.
Edit: Come to think of it, I don't think you'd try to argue that 1000 calories of cake and 1000 calories of nuts, seeds, and vegetables are equally good foods prior to, for example, running a marathon. So when I work to eat foods that give me energy and try to avoid foods that cause me to be lethargic, what is the problem?
Mood of course is a more complex issue.
Again, the point is that, given the current state of molecular testing, it is highly unlikely that there are food group intolerances we are not aware of. Not impossible, but so unlikely that the probability becomes vanishing. That's quite different from 'dem feels' which is a belief in absence of proof.
However, we are way off the beaten track here, because the study's findings were that generally flexible dieting yields superior results to restrictive dieting in the general population. Granted, there may be a few exceptions to this, for known - and even, I'll concede - unknown reasons, but that's getting into special pleading territory.
So I'm quite comfortable in saying that, whilst there may be some very few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of the population would do better on a flexible diet, not a restrictive - in terms of food, not calories - diet.
They're just starting to learn about diabetes at the cellular level, so unless I misunderstand (very possible, science isn't unfortunately my background) there is plenty of room to learn more, especially regarding complex interactions, not to mention the epigenome which is really unexplored right now.
Meanwhile, I'm still not going to shovel cake in my face and expect to do my best time in a run, so why should I shove cake in my face and expect to have the same energy levels and feeling of wellbeing as shoving meats and veggies in my face?
That misses the point. We already know what diabetes is and how to treat it. Sure, more information on genetic susceptibility is welcome, but it won't tell us much more on how to avoid it or treat it.
But again, this is special pleading.
I don't see how it follows that it won't tell us more about how to avoid or treat it. And again, are you actually advocating a calorie is a calorie for health and wellbeing and energy and not just for simple weight loss or gain? Really? You can't be.
No. Hence the use of the term 'flexible'.
Hey, I'm flexible. I prefer grass fed beef, but I'm not turning my nose up at cornfed prime rib, ever!
Weren't you a vegan just a little bit ago? I'm not objecting--I'm a meat-eater myself--but you seem more gleeful in your meat eating than I would expect given that.
Just curious.
(Anyway, I happen to agree with your statement above.)0 -
You say "health reasons aren't really the same for most people, because the truth is that there's no health reason (outside of true allergies) to give up most things, so you end up in this discussion with yourself over how much is too much and then the amazing capacity of justification that most humans have kick in."lemurcat12 wrote: »Specifically, I think food restrictions aren't that hard for people when they have a greater reason for them, which certainly does include things like ethical or religious reasons. But health reasons aren't really the same for most people, because the truth is that there's no health reason (outside of true allergies) to give up most things, so you end up in this discussion with yourself over how much is too much and then the amazing capacity of justification that most humans have kick in. But even so I don't think it's surprising that when I connect my eating to something else (either my vague ideas about eating in tune with nature, even if I half think it's silly, or a focus on working out) I eat better without really trying. So part of "clean eating" or "paleo" or the like is convincing yourself that you are following a way of life that enforces the eating habits. I mostly think that's fine, as long as you don't get too annoying, but clearly some people take it to unhealthy extremes.
The fact is it wouldn't work for me, though, because the claims that are made are simply not true and my mind nags me about that (WHY would eating a moderate amoutnof whatever be harmful?), and also basing something on false claims just seems screwed up to me.
Well, YOU don't believe there are legitimate health reasons so, of course, that doesn't work for you. But the people who restrict these things without a diagnosis of a specific disease DO believe there are health reasons. So for them it is enough.
I don't want to debate specific foods, that's not the point of this thread. However, many people do believe certain foods aren't good for them for a whole variety of reasons. Whether that is based on research indicating negative long term health effects, or something as simple as it making them feel lethargic, or getting more cravings, or not keeping them full so that they then overeat, or making them jittery...those are all health reasons and all legitimate. For them, that is more than enough to give it up.
By the way, I believe you when you say food restrictions based on health don't work for you. Of course, your idea of connecting your eating to a vague idea of eating in tune with nature does not work for me. We are all different. Just because restriction out of a belief that restricting certain foods is healthier doesn't work for you, doesn't mean that it doesn't work for others. It does work for me and for many others.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »They seem obsessed with telling people that if they try to limit certain foods they will fail.
I don't think anyone takes issue with limiting foods. We all limit foods, except for those lucky enough to just naturally only want to eat at their TDEE (which is probably not all that many in the losing weight section of this forum, if any).
Nor do I think anyone questions whether it makes sense to have different limits on some kinds of foods (cake) vs. others (vegetables).
What I think is generally unhealthy (although I never tell anyone they will fail) is a permanent elimination of a food that you really want to eat--if you love pizza, telling yourself you can never have pizza again--or the related effort to convince yourself that a food you desire is disgusting and undesirable (that pizza is filthy and nasty and full of FAT, ick). That's actually one of the reasons that the "clean eating" thing seems kind of perverted to me, rather akin to someone trying to convince themselves that sex acts they desire are dirty or disgusting.
But perhaps I shouldn't go there. ;-)
However, as with people who do that re sex, it seems not possible for people caught up in that approach toward food to become judgmental about what others eat (see thread about how pop is a disgusting habit for disgusting stinky people, among many others, and also common imagery about how people who don't eliminate food are stuffing their faces with Twinkies--no doubt without use of a napkin--24/7). When I see that kind of obsession and focus in particular, it seems unhealthy to me.
(And also rather insulting and obnoxious, of course.)
I think what gets irritating in these conversations is when statements like those above are made directly or shortly after someone else insists anyone who uses anything but IIFYM is using a "woo woo diet". You don't take issue with people limiting food. I think it's very disingenuous to suggest nobody else runs around evangelizing IIFYM every chance they get.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »They seem obsessed with telling people that if they try to limit certain foods they will fail.
I don't think anyone takes issue with limiting foods. )
For real? On MFP no one takes issue with limiting foods? Are you joking? Post that you want to limit sugar, or *gasp* junk food. Or even that you don't want to eat a piece of cake someone left in the break room at work.
You'll get issue.0 -
The fact that everything is self reported is in and of itself a red flag. I've done both and found that with flexible dieting I was more obsessed with what I could fit into my diet than with just clean eating. I wasn't worried so much with 'how much' i was eating with clean eating rather just how I felt and listening to my body. Ironically, though, this is a self reported post so what difference does it make anyway lol0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »They seem obsessed with telling people that if they try to limit certain foods they will fail.
I don't think anyone takes issue with limiting foods. )
For real? On MFP no one takes issue with limiting foods? Are you joking? Post that you want to limit sugar, or *gasp* junk food. Or even that you don't want to eat a piece of cake someone left in the break room at work.
You'll get issue.
A bunch of people that patrol these message boards are going to get totally p*ssed that you call a food "junk food" and demand that you define it 15 different ways, then attack your definition, and then ridicule you for not being an IIFYM fanatic until the thread gets shut down. I hope you're proud of yourself, lol0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Well, YOU don't believe there are legitimate health reasons so, of course, that doesn't work for you. But the people who restrict these things without a diagnosis of a specific disease DO believe there are health reasons. So for them it is enough.
Hmm. Well, first I want to point out a shift you made. We were talking about elimination and specifically religious and ethical ones, and you moved to "restrictions." But while vegans NEVER eat meat or eggs, etc., IME, and people who keep kosher seriously don't cheat with the occasional cheeseburger (although there are levels of keeping kosher) and I simply DON'T eat meat on Fridays in Lent, everyone I know who buys into the paleo claims "cheats" all the time, just like my dad, who doesn't eat red meat for health reasons eats red meat on special occasions, and so on. Absent an actual allergy health restrictions tend to function differently. To the extent they don't (people who truly buy into some kind of "clean" vs. "dirty" foods) something beyond health considerations are going on, because it's just not reasonable to think that you will be less healthy if one bite of steak passes your lips.
The related problem with claiming the health reason as a rationale is that as a justification for these eating systems (eliminating foods) it's bogus. So you either stop having it work or have to delude yourself, neither of which seems ideal.
I'm thinking of someone who goes paleo, for example (which I think one can do and be perfectly healthy). The paleo claim is that there's something unhealthy in general about eating grains or dairy or legumes. That's, of course, false. A particular person who has a negative reaction to one or more of those foods might be able to keep it up on a health basis honestly (a gluten sensitivity, assuming there is such a thing, or of course lactose intolerance, which is reasonably common). But that's not going to be a good reason for people who don't share those issues, and--I would hope--at some point that nagging realization that the whole thing is based on a lie, that wheat and dairy and legumes are bad for all, ought to bother anyone. But maybe it doesn't, and that's the part that I find a little difficult to understand. (This is quite different than the obvious claim that a celiac should avoid gluten.)By the way, I believe you when you say food restrictions based on health don't work for you.
I want to be clear that this doesn't mean that the idea of eating a healthy diet doesn't work for me, as it does. A health rationale for never eating ice cream wouldn't work for me, because I know that eating a bit of ice cream wouldn't negatively affect my health. So to claim it would to avoid eating it would require knowingly lying to myself, and I simply don't understand how anyone could operate in that way.Of course, your idea of connecting your eating to a vague idea of eating in tune with nature does not work for me.
Sure, I'm reasonably certain I didn't suggest it should, as I noted that it was a little silly even from my POV; it's just something that works for me.
0 -
I think what gets irritating in these conversations is when statements like those above are made directly or shortly after someone else insists anyone who uses anything but IIFYM is using a "woo woo diet". You don't take issue with people limiting food. I think it's very disingenuous to suggest nobody else runs around evangelizing IIFYM every chance they get.
I'm not into any labeled eating--NeedsToExercise's suggestion that she just eats a sensible balanced diet is basically how I think of it too--but I don't think it's accurate to suggest that someone pro IIFYM would be anti limiting foods. By definition fitting your macros requires that you limit things. People have this weird way of confusing limiting and elimination.
Also, of course, no one claims you should eat foods that you don't like or whose calories aren't worth it to you. I don't eat bread except on rare occasion--I've decided the calories aren't worth it to me--and the only people who have said I should (due to the wonders of whole grains) are people I'd class as more "clean" leaning. Now, if I started a thread about how HARD it is not to eat bread (it's not, I don't like most bread that much, although there are exceptions), I'd fully expect people to ask me why I wasn't eating it then or to tell me I can fit it in to a healthy diet. I'd think that was appropriate and why people get upset by stuff like that I don't get.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Post that you want to limit sugar, or *gasp* junk food.
Pretty much everyone here limits sugar and junk food. They may not call it junk food and they may not count how much sugar they eat (I rarely count how much sugar I eat, although I am currently), but everyone makes choices about what foods to eat that mean that they prioritize some kinds of food, like protein and veggies, and limit others, like high calorie "treats." And that last category includes most of what people who go on about added sugar and junk food are talking about.
Limiting and cutting out aren't the same, although I've found that if you have a reason even for cutting stuff out for a while (which I do) and don't make comments about how those who eat it are unhealthy (because they aren't) and don't post about how much you are struggling (suggesting that it's not an approach that's working for you) that you don't get flack or advice about better ways to do it.
Obviously lots of people do think you should do it their way, which is the best. That's how diet topics are, and it's certainly the case from the "clean" folks, as well as the IIFYMs ones.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Now, if I started a thread about how HARD it is not to eat bread (it's not, I don't most bread that much, although there are exceptions), I'd fully expect people to ask me why I wasn't eating it then or to tell me I can fit it in to a healthy diet. I'd think that was appropriate and why people get upset by stuff like that I don't get.
Reflecting on the choice of the word hard. I think maybe that's part of the key to long-term success, it's getting to a place where your style of eating is not particularly hard. Flexible dieting with being careful about certain types of carbohydrates is not hard for me. I eat a lot of whole foods and look at my macro balance, it all fits who I am as a person. I want to be able to eat out with friends have have a pasta dish and a portion of a dessert. I can fit these things in. I don't necessarily have them every day because there are lots of other foods that I love that work better with insulin resistance/my history of problematic cravings/overeating.
There is a sense of security in yourself and your ability to manage food that underlies a more flexible way of eating. I can overdo it on dessert one day, and I might even have more cravings if I do so for several days in a row, but I know that I can get back on track so it's something to be aware of but not something to be afraid of.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Well, YOU don't believe there are legitimate health reasons so, of course, that doesn't work for you. But the people who restrict these things without a diagnosis of a specific disease DO believe there are health reasons. So for them it is enough.
Hmm. Well, first I want to point out a shift you made. We were talking about elimination and specifically religious and ethical ones, and you moved to "restrictions." But while vegans NEVER eat meat or eggs, etc., IME, and people who keep kosher seriously don't cheat with the occasional cheeseburger (although there are levels of keeping kosher) and I simply DON'T eat meat on Fridays in Lent, everyone I know who buys into the paleo claims "cheats" all the time, just like my dad, who doesn't eat red meat for health reasons eats red meat on special occasions, and so on. Absent an actual allergy health restrictions tend to function differently. To the extent they don't (people who truly buy into some kind of "clean" vs. "dirty" foods) something beyond health considerations are going on, because it's just not reasonable to think that you will be less healthy if one bite of steak passes your lips.
The related problem with claiming the health reason as a rationale is that as a justification for these eating systems (eliminating foods) it's bogus. So you either stop having it work or have to delude yourself, neither of which seems ideal.
I'm thinking of someone who goes paleo, for example (which I think one can do and be perfectly healthy). The paleo claim is that there's something unhealthy in general about eating grains or dairy or legumes. That's, of course, false. A particular person who has a negative reaction to one or more of those foods might be able to keep it up on a health basis honestly (a gluten sensitivity, assuming there is such a thing, or of course lactose intolerance, which is reasonably common). But that's not going to be a good reason for people who don't share those issues, and--I would hope--at some point that nagging realization that the whole thing is based on a lie, that wheat and dairy and legumes are bad for all, ought to bother anyone. But maybe it doesn't, and that's the part that I find a little difficult to understand. (This is quite different than the obvious claim that a celiac should avoid gluten.)By the way, I believe you when you say food restrictions based on health don't work for you.
I want to be clear that this doesn't mean that the idea of eating a healthy diet doesn't work for me, as it does. A health rationale for never eating ice cream wouldn't work for me, because I know that eating a bit of ice cream wouldn't negatively affect my health. So to claim it would to avoid eating it would require knowingly lying to myself, and I simply don't understand how anyone could operate in that way.Of course, your idea of connecting your eating to a vague idea of eating in tune with nature does not work for me.
Sure, I'm reasonably certain I didn't suggest it should, as I noted that it was a little silly even from my POV; it's just something that works for me.
Bingo. Basically, motivation based on bs/pseudo science "just because" isn't sustainable, because basically, that niggling doubt eventually will out.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Hmm. Well, first I want to point out a shift you made. We were talking about elimination and specifically religious and ethical ones, and you moved to "restrictions." But while vegans NEVER eat meat or eggs, etc., IME, and people who keep kosher seriously don't cheat with the occasional cheeseburger (although there are levels of keeping kosher) and I simply DON'T eat meat on Fridays in Lent, everyone I know who buys into the paleo claims "cheats" all the time, just like my dad, who doesn't eat red meat for health reasons eats red meat on special occasions, and so on. Absent an actual allergy health restrictions tend to function differently. To the extent they don't (people who truly buy into some kind of "clean" vs. "dirty" foods) something beyond health considerations are going on, because it's just not reasonable to think that you will be less healthy if one bite of steak passes your lips.
The related problem with claiming the health reason as a rationale is that as a justification for these eating systems (eliminating foods) it's bogus. So you either stop having it work or have to delude yourself, neither of which seems ideal.
I'm thinking of someone who goes paleo, for example (which I think one can do and be perfectly healthy). The paleo claim is that there's something unhealthy in general about eating grains or dairy or legumes. That's, of course, false. A particular person who has a negative reaction to one or more of those foods might be able to keep it up on a health basis honestly (a gluten sensitivity, assuming there is such a thing, or of course lactose intolerance, which is reasonably common). But that's not going to be a good reason for people who don't share those issues, and--I would hope--at some point that nagging realization that the whole thing is based on a lie, that wheat and dairy and legumes are bad for all, ought to bother anyone. But maybe it doesn't, and that's the part that I find a little difficult to understand. (This is quite different than the obvious claim that a celiac should avoid gluten.)By the way, I believe you when you say food restrictions based on health don't work for you.
I want to be clear that this doesn't mean that the idea of eating a healthy diet doesn't work for me, as it does. A health rationale for never eating ice cream wouldn't work for me, because I know that eating a bit of ice cream wouldn't negatively affect my health. So to claim it would to avoid eating it would require knowingly lying to myself, and I simply don't understand how anyone could operate in that way.Of course, your idea of connecting your eating to a vague idea of eating in tune with nature does not work for me.
Sure, I'm reasonably certain I didn't suggest it should, as I noted that it was a little silly even from my POV; it's just something that works for me.
I said "restrictions" because that is the word you used. There was no shift on my part. You wrote this:Specifically, I think food restrictions aren't that hard for people when they have a greater reason for them, which certainly does include things like ethical or religious reasons.
That's what I responded to. And btw, I know MANY vegans who occasionally eat animal products. Not on a daily basis, but many of them do occasionally cheat. I also have Muslim and Jewish friends who occasionally eat bacon...they then feel guilty, but every once in a while they give in...not daily, or even weekly, but it happens. So I think your distinction between religion, ethics, health is artificial and really doesn't apply to many people. People you know may have fit what you said, but that is not true in my social circles.
You now say:The related problem with claiming the health reason as a rationale is that as a justification for these eating systems (eliminating foods) it's bogus. So you either stop having it work or have to delude yourself, neither of which seems ideal.
Once again, that is YOUR belief. Most people don't see anything "bogus" in eliminating unhealthy foods. So they don't need to delude themselves, and the fact that many stick with it seems to indicate it does work for them. Again, just because YOU believe something does not mean the rest of the world does. Many people...most I suspect... believe WHAT you eat matters as much as how much you eat.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think what gets irritating in these conversations is when statements like those above are made directly or shortly after someone else insists anyone who uses anything but IIFYM is using a "woo woo diet". You don't take issue with people limiting food. I think it's very disingenuous to suggest nobody else runs around evangelizing IIFYM every chance they get.
I'm not into any labeled eating--NeedsToExercise's suggestion that she just eats a sensible balanced diet is basically how I think of it too--but I don't think it's accurate to suggest that someone pro IIFYM would be anti limiting foods. By definition fitting your macros requires that you limit things. People have this weird way of confusing limiting and elimination.
Also, of course, no one claims you should eat foods that you don't like or whose calories aren't worth it to you. I don't eat bread except on rare occasion--I've decided the calories aren't worth it to me--and the only people who have said I should (due to the wonders of whole grains) are people I'd class as more "clean" leaning. Now, if I started a thread about how HARD it is not to eat bread (it's not, I don't like most bread that much, although there are exceptions), I'd fully expect people to ask me why I wasn't eating it then or to tell me I can fit it in to a healthy diet. I'd think that was appropriate and why people get upset by stuff like that I don't get.
You're not into labeling, others are, so whenever you make the statements like "no one claims", it feels like whitewashing. People DO claim. People have done so right in this thread. I personally view it all as more of a reality show than anything, because for all of their hemming and hawing, it doesn't apply to me. I do wonder, however, how often people give up on the site completely rather than endure the verbal onslaught any time they use the "wrong" word or speak colloquially instead of literally.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Post that you want to limit sugar, or *gasp* junk food.
Pretty much everyone here limits sugar and junk food. They may not call it junk food and they may not count how much sugar they eat (I rarely count how much sugar I eat, although I am currently), but everyone makes choices about what foods to eat that mean that they prioritize some kinds of food, like protein and veggies, and limit others, like high calorie "treats." And that last category includes most of what people who go on about added sugar and junk food are talking about.
Limiting and cutting out aren't the same, although I've found that if you have a reason even for cutting stuff out for a while (which I do) and don't make comments about how those who eat it are unhealthy (because they aren't) and don't post about how much you are struggling (suggesting that it's not an approach that's working for you) that you don't get flack or advice about better ways to do it.
Obviously lots of people do think you should do it their way, which is the best. That's how diet topics are, and it's certainly the case from the "clean" folks, as well as the IIFYMs ones.
I'm aware that everyone limits foods, that was not my point. My point was that PLENTY of people take issue with others limiting foods.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions