The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Once upon a time I collected a list of definitions of clean eating from these forums. These were all given as off the cuff answers to a question about what clean eating is. I formatted a few of them to match others, but most of them are copy/pasted directly from the posts in which they were posted.
Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
Nothing at all with a barcode.
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
No added sugar.
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown.
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.
I love this!
Yesterday someone in a thread had two scenarios, it may have been what prompted NDJ to post this thread.
Scenario A - McDonalds Egg McMuffin
Scenario B - Greek Yogurt, Navel Orange, Hard Boiled Egg, and Coffee with Coffeemate creamer
I asked which one was the processed scenario and the poster thought I was being snarky in not being able to label one of those definitively clean and the other one definitively processed.
Yeah, still trying to figure out how on earth the creamer fit in with the definition of 'clean' eating lol0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Once upon a time I collected a list of definitions of clean eating from these forums. These were all given as off the cuff answers to a question about what clean eating is. I formatted a few of them to match others, but most of them are copy/pasted directly from the posts in which they were posted.
Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
Nothing at all with a barcode.
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
No added sugar.
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown.
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.
so basically drink water and eat vegetables...oh wait, those have chemicals.0 -
the one thing that is funny about threads like this is that usual suspects always show up.0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
0 -
"Highly processed foods are made from combinations of unprocessed food, minimally processed
food and processed food ingredients.4 Many are designed with consumer convenience in mind.4
They are often portable, can be eaten anywhere (while driving, working at the office and watching
TV, for example) and require little or no preparation.4,11 Discussions of “processed foods” in the
popular media often refer to products in this category. Highly processed foods include snacks and
desserts, such as cereal bars, biscuits, chips, cakes and pastries, ice cream and soft drinks;4 as well
as breads, pasta, breakfast cereals and infant formula.4,5,11 Highly processed animal products
include smoked, canned, salted and cured meats11 and products made from extruded remnants of
meat, such as nuggets, hot dogs and some sausages and burgers.5 Many vegetarian alternatives to
meat are also highly processed.11 Highly processed foods are made using techniques like mixing,
baking, frying, curing, smoking and the addition of vitamins and minerals.4
Given the wide variety of foods that could qualify as highly processed and the lack of any clear,
widely accepted criteria for defining them as such, it is difficult to make any generalizations about
the nutritional value of highly processed foods. Some health professionals, however, have
expressed concern over the growing popularity of certain highly processed foods in diets."
So baking something makes it highly processed? If I bake chicken does that mean it is highly processed?
If I make a turkey sandwich and can hold it in my hand and eat while watching tv it is then highly processed?
This is why this whole processed = bad argument gets ludicrous.
If you refer to the link I gave you, cooking food at home doesn't change it's category. Obviously the categories aren't perfect, they're just general guidelines. Although baking the chicken would significantly increase the calories one could absorb from it.
You seem pretty determined to simply argue semantics. Since there aren't perfect definitions for most of the terms we've used I guess you could argue semantics all day long.0 -
-
WAIT! My husband sometimes doesn't wash fruit or vegetables. (ick). Does that make them UNclean!???? hehe0
-
diannethegeek wrote: »Once upon a time I collected a list of definitions of clean eating from these forums. These were all given as off the cuff answers to a question about what clean eating is. I formatted a few of them to match others, but most of them are copy/pasted directly from the posts in which they were posted.
Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
Nothing at all with a barcode.
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
No added sugar.
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown.
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.
I remember that thread.
My favorite response (and one I'd not heard before): "Don't eat products that have a TV commercial"
The poster apparently didn't realize that bananas, beef, corn, potatoes, etc - all had TV commercials. Who could forget Chiquita Banana?0 -
"Highly processed foods are made from combinations of unprocessed food, minimally processed
food and processed food ingredients.4 Many are designed with consumer convenience in mind.4
They are often portable, can be eaten anywhere (while driving, working at the office and watching
TV, for example) and require little or no preparation.4,11 Discussions of “processed foods” in the
popular media often refer to products in this category. Highly processed foods include snacks and
desserts, such as cereal bars, biscuits, chips, cakes and pastries, ice cream and soft drinks;4 as well
as breads, pasta, breakfast cereals and infant formula.4,5,11 Highly processed animal products
include smoked, canned, salted and cured meats11 and products made from extruded remnants of
meat, such as nuggets, hot dogs and some sausages and burgers.5 Many vegetarian alternatives to
meat are also highly processed.11 Highly processed foods are made using techniques like mixing,
baking, frying, curing, smoking and the addition of vitamins and minerals.4
Given the wide variety of foods that could qualify as highly processed and the lack of any clear,
widely accepted criteria for defining them as such, it is difficult to make any generalizations about
the nutritional value of highly processed foods. Some health professionals, however, have
expressed concern over the growing popularity of certain highly processed foods in diets."
So baking something makes it highly processed? If I bake chicken does that mean it is highly processed?
If I make a turkey sandwich and can hold it in my hand and eat while watching tv it is then highly processed?
This is why this whole processed = bad argument gets ludicrous.
If you refer to the link I gave you, cooking food at home doesn't change it's category. Obviously the categories aren't perfect, they're just general guidelines. Although baking the chicken would significantly increase the calories one could absorb from it.
You seem pretty determined to simply argue semantics. Since there aren't perfect definitions for most of the terms we've used I guess you could argue semantics all day long.
nope, not arguing semantics. I am just pointing out that defining things has highly processed gets complicated.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
was anyone saying that metabolic adaptation is not a thing????0 -
I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
It's a loaded question because you didn't define "clean food" and there isn't any real definition. Furthermore your "moderate diet" could be almost anything. For the sake of argument, I'll just assume the person eating "clean" is eating mostly minimally processed foods. And I'll assume the moderate diet includes a lot of highly processed foods.
In that case the person eating "clean" would lose slightly more weight. This is because calories are determined by "Atwater" calculations. Atwater tends to underestimate calories in highly processed foods and overestimate calories in minimally processed foods. The reason is that highly processed and cooked foods are absorbed more readily in your GI tract (nothing to do with "thermal effect").
Yup
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?ref=health&_r=1
I'm not saying people need to eat "clean" to lose weight (I certainly don't). But it's a gross oversimplification to say all calories are equal (for weight loss).
This is a good article; food for thought.
In finding that not all food is fully digested:
"It counts not just how much energy (or calories) are available in a food, but what the body can actually use of that energy. Additional calculations are made to consider the energy expended by the body in digestion and the degree to which the food is processed."
"The body resists weight loss by increasing hunger, he said. In his clinic, patients are not expected to count calories, but instead learn how to choose types and quantities of food that will reduce hunger and promote weight loss without calorie restriction."
0 -
"Highly processed foods are made from combinations of unprocessed food, minimally processed
food and processed food ingredients.4 Many are designed with consumer convenience in mind.4
They are often portable, can be eaten anywhere (while driving, working at the office and watching
TV, for example) and require little or no preparation.4,11 Discussions of “processed foods” in the
popular media often refer to products in this category. Highly processed foods include snacks and
desserts, such as cereal bars, biscuits, chips, cakes and pastries, ice cream and soft drinks;4 as well
as breads, pasta, breakfast cereals and infant formula.4,5,11 Highly processed animal products
include smoked, canned, salted and cured meats11 and products made from extruded remnants of
meat, such as nuggets, hot dogs and some sausages and burgers.5 Many vegetarian alternatives to
meat are also highly processed.11 Highly processed foods are made using techniques like mixing,
baking, frying, curing, smoking and the addition of vitamins and minerals.4
Given the wide variety of foods that could qualify as highly processed and the lack of any clear,
widely accepted criteria for defining them as such, it is difficult to make any generalizations about
the nutritional value of highly processed foods. Some health professionals, however, have
expressed concern over the growing popularity of certain highly processed foods in diets."
So baking something makes it highly processed? If I bake chicken does that mean it is highly processed?
If I make a turkey sandwich and can hold it in my hand and eat while watching tv it is then highly processed?
This is why this whole processed = bad argument gets ludicrous.
If you refer to the link I gave you, cooking food at home doesn't change it's category. Obviously the categories aren't perfect, they're just general guidelines. Although baking the chicken would significantly increase the calories one could absorb from it.
You seem pretty determined to simply argue semantics. Since there aren't perfect definitions for most of the terms we've used I guess you could argue semantics all day long.
nope, not arguing semantics. I am just pointing out that defining things has highly processed gets complicated.
So then going back to your original question, how would you define the difference between the two diets? What are you considering "clean" eating for this purpose? It's kind of hard to answer your question when you disagree with any interpretation of it.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.0 -
Diet composition has very little impact on body mass:
0 -
"Highly processed foods are made from combinations of unprocessed food, minimally processed
food and processed food ingredients.4 Many are designed with consumer convenience in mind.4
They are often portable, can be eaten anywhere (while driving, working at the office and watching
TV, for example) and require little or no preparation.4,11 Discussions of “processed foods” in the
popular media often refer to products in this category. Highly processed foods include snacks and
desserts, such as cereal bars, biscuits, chips, cakes and pastries, ice cream and soft drinks;4 as well
as breads, pasta, breakfast cereals and infant formula.4,5,11 Highly processed animal products
include smoked, canned, salted and cured meats11 and products made from extruded remnants of
meat, such as nuggets, hot dogs and some sausages and burgers.5 Many vegetarian alternatives to
meat are also highly processed.11 Highly processed foods are made using techniques like mixing,
baking, frying, curing, smoking and the addition of vitamins and minerals.4
Given the wide variety of foods that could qualify as highly processed and the lack of any clear,
widely accepted criteria for defining them as such, it is difficult to make any generalizations about
the nutritional value of highly processed foods. Some health professionals, however, have
expressed concern over the growing popularity of certain highly processed foods in diets."
So baking something makes it highly processed? If I bake chicken does that mean it is highly processed?
If I make a turkey sandwich and can hold it in my hand and eat while watching tv it is then highly processed?
This is why this whole processed = bad argument gets ludicrous.
If you refer to the link I gave you, cooking food at home doesn't change it's category. Obviously the categories aren't perfect, they're just general guidelines. Although baking the chicken would significantly increase the calories one could absorb from it.
You seem pretty determined to simply argue semantics. Since there aren't perfect definitions for most of the terms we've used I guess you could argue semantics all day long.
nope, not arguing semantics. I am just pointing out that defining things has highly processed gets complicated.
So then going back to your original question, how would you define the difference between the two diets? What are you considering "clean" eating for this purpose? It's kind of hard to answer your question when you disagree with any interpretation of it.
I think the solution here is to develop two prototypes. One daily meal that is defined as "clean" and one that is "not clean". Put those two up (after stipulation to each being categorized properly) and see what the real differences are for the same caloric intake.0 -
I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
It's a loaded question because you didn't define "clean food" and there isn't any real definition. Furthermore your "moderate diet" could be almost anything. For the sake of argument, I'll just assume the person eating "clean" is eating mostly minimally processed foods. And I'll assume the moderate diet includes a lot of highly processed foods.
In that case the person eating "clean" would lose slightly more weight. This is because calories are determined by "Atwater" calculations. Atwater tends to underestimate calories in highly processed foods and overestimate calories in minimally processed foods. The reason is that highly processed and cooked foods are absorbed more readily in your GI tract (nothing to do with "thermal effect").
Yup
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?ref=health&_r=1
I'm not saying people need to eat "clean" to lose weight (I certainly don't). But it's a gross oversimplification to say all calories are equal (for weight loss).
This is a good article; food for thought.
In finding that not all food is fully digested:
"It counts not just how much energy (or calories) are available in a food, but what the body can actually use of that energy. Additional calculations are made to consider the energy expended by the body in digestion and the degree to which the food is processed."
"The body resists weight loss by increasing hunger, he said. In his clinic, patients are not expected to count calories, but instead learn how to choose types and quantities of food that will reduce hunger and promote weight loss without calorie restriction."
That's what I was doing. Very good post my friend.0 -
annaskiski wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »My answer is that it would be more useful to think of the subject of clean eating in terms that actually have some relevance to real life.
The real life relevance is that no one can eat 'clean' (whatever that is) forever.
I'm skeptical that even those who claim they do, really eat clean 100% of the time.
(Really? you don't eat cake on someone's birthday? You don't indulge on vacation? You never eat out?)
I think the real life relevance is that in reality, the type A person doesn't exist. They claim that they do, but when caught with (gasp, coffee creamer), there is some excuse......
Yeah, it's very interesting (and IMO telling) that these people nearly universally do not have pictures of themselves, will not say how much progress they've made, how much exercise of what kinds they can and do perform, how many calories they can eat in a day, and keep their diary locked down. Yet they're more than happy to tell everyone that their diet and health are better than yours.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
was anyone saying that metabolic adaptation is not a thing????
I didn't see anyone suggest it. I am pretty sure the majority of us know about adaptive thermogenesis.
Although, I do believe the assertion of "metabolics" is blown way out of proportion.0 -
"Highly processed foods are made from combinations of unprocessed food, minimally processed
food and processed food ingredients.4 Many are designed with consumer convenience in mind.4
They are often portable, can be eaten anywhere (while driving, working at the office and watching
TV, for example) and require little or no preparation.4,11 Discussions of “processed foods” in the
popular media often refer to products in this category. Highly processed foods include snacks and
desserts, such as cereal bars, biscuits, chips, cakes and pastries, ice cream and soft drinks;4 as well
as breads, pasta, breakfast cereals and infant formula.4,5,11 Highly processed animal products
include smoked, canned, salted and cured meats11 and products made from extruded remnants of
meat, such as nuggets, hot dogs and some sausages and burgers.5 Many vegetarian alternatives to
meat are also highly processed.11 Highly processed foods are made using techniques like mixing,
baking, frying, curing, smoking and the addition of vitamins and minerals.4
Given the wide variety of foods that could qualify as highly processed and the lack of any clear,
widely accepted criteria for defining them as such, it is difficult to make any generalizations about
the nutritional value of highly processed foods. Some health professionals, however, have
expressed concern over the growing popularity of certain highly processed foods in diets."
So baking something makes it highly processed? If I bake chicken does that mean it is highly processed?
If I make a turkey sandwich and can hold it in my hand and eat while watching tv it is then highly processed?
This is why this whole processed = bad argument gets ludicrous.
If you refer to the link I gave you, cooking food at home doesn't change it's category. Obviously the categories aren't perfect, they're just general guidelines. Although baking the chicken would significantly increase the calories one could absorb from it.
You seem pretty determined to simply argue semantics. Since there aren't perfect definitions for most of the terms we've used I guess you could argue semantics all day long.
nope, not arguing semantics. I am just pointing out that defining things has highly processed gets complicated.
You have to define it because that makes the art of studying it more objective. Otherwise, we are all providing our subjectivity into the analysis and then we all disagree based upon that problem. We have to have clear definitions for your original question agreed to for the purposes of study and analysis.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
About Jade Teta
Integrative Physician, Author The Metabolic Effect Diet, Founder CEO Metabolic Effect Inc., Health, Fitness and fat loss expert
Uses this as basis: http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v37/n6/full/ijo2012124a.html?WT.ec_id=IJO-201306
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
What was his product, his own business? Advice? He wasn't selling anything I could tell other than advice and analysis.0 -
Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
What was his product, his own business? Advice? He wasn't selling anything I could tell other than advice and analysis.
Either you're lying or completely oblivious to what you're linking to. You really didn't see all the ads for his products on the sidebar? And get the pop-up for the "free chapter" to his book?0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
About Jade Teta
Integrative Physician, Author The Metabolic Effect Diet, Founder CEO Metabolic Effect Inc., Health, Fitness and fat loss expert
Integrative physician is just another word for naturopath (aka quack).
Nobody said adaptive thermogenesis doesn't exist. But "clean eating" has nothing to do with it.
BTW: This is what your link recommends:
Nutrition= 3 meals – 2 of those three meals should be 30-50g protein shakes and 1 regular meal that includes carbs preferably at the end of the day (it aids sleep).
Sounds like a far cry from what you said you were doing.
-2 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
What was his product, his own business? Advice? He wasn't selling anything I could tell other than advice and analysis.
Either you're lying or completely oblivious to what you're linking to. You really didn't see all the ads for his products on the sidebar? And get the pop-up for the "free chapter" to his book?
Who cares? Did he sell those things in what he wrote? If he said "but if you just buy my products, then you will circumnavigate the issue" He never did never implies it. Just a simple article.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
About Jade Teta
Integrative Physician, Author The Metabolic Effect Diet, Founder CEO Metabolic Effect Inc., Health, Fitness and fat loss expert
Integrative physician is just another word for naturopath (aka quack).
Nobody said adaptive thermogenesis doesn't exist. But "clean eating" has nothing to do with it.
BTW: This is what your link recommends:
Nutrition= 3 meals – 2 of those three meals should be 30-50g protein shakes and 1 regular meal that includes carbs preferably at the end of the day (it aids sleep).
Sounds like a far cry from what you said you were doing.
Try again - you are libeling me and I don't like it one bit. My diary speaks for itself. Read it from today and yesterday - I have two meals of protein shakes that are custom - and my last meal is with a baked potato.-1 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
You can minimize and/or eliminate metabolic adaptation through weight training and higher protein diets. In fact, I will see if I can find the article from the same website that did an experiment with an 800 calorie diet with two groups of people... one with resistance training and one with cardio. The cardio group had a down tick in metabolic rate, while WT group had an up tick.
Edit: here is the NIH study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
0 -
Today's meal post-lunch
Meal 3
Generic - Silk Pure Almond Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk, 2 cup 60 2 5 1 1 4
Nancy's - Organic Whole Milk Plain Yogurt, 0.5 cup 90 6 4 8 0 0
Woodstock - Frozen Chopped Kale, 1 cup 25 2 0 3 2 4
Generic - Chia Seed, 1 Tbsp 75 3 5 7 5 3
Legion - Pulse Pre Workout, 2 rounded scoops 5 0 0 5 0 0
Woodstock Farms - Organic Frozen Raspberries, 1 cup 70 2 0 17 9 6
Natural Force Organic Whey - Whey Protein, 44 g 173 32 3 5 1 3
Add Food Quick Tools
498 47 17 46 18 20
Meal 4
Nancy's - Organic Whole Milk Plain Yogurt, 0.5 cup 90 6 4 8 0 0
Generic - Silk Pure Almond Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk, 2 cup 60 2 5 1 1 4
Legion Supplements - Recharge, 7 Grams 2 0 0 1 0 0
Bananas - Raw, 210 g 187 2 1 48 5 3
Strawberries - Frozen, unsweetened, 140 g 49 1 0 13 3 6
Natural Force Organic Whey - Whey Protein, 44 g 173 32 3 5 1 3
Add Food Quick Tools
561 43 13 76 10 16
Meal 5
Potatoes - Russet, flesh and skin, baked, 323 g(s) 313 8 0 69 7 19
Generic - Filet Mignon, 9 oz 362 57 13 0 0 17
Add Food Quick Tools
675 65 13 69 7 36
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 439 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions