The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »curlygirlkrissie wrote: »I would tend to say that, generally speaking, 1500 calories is 1500 calories. (note "generally") The benefits of a clean diet far outweigh that of a diet consisting of processed foods and snacks. Creating a 3500 deficit will, in fact, result in a 1lb loss no matter how you arrive at the deficit.
Exactly. Eating clean foods is not about weight loss, it's about nutrition and health. I could eat one big meal of 1,500 calories but I would feel like crap. I'd rather spread out healthy meals and have a small indulgence.
Satiety also comes into play because you can eat the wrong foods that won't fill you up and you end up overeating.
For long term success it's best to have a nutritious diet that way you become accustomed to eating healthy.
But again, eating 1500 calories in one meal or over 3 meals doesn't really have anything to do with clean eating, right? I mean, I could eat 1500 calories of clean food in one meal, too, and still feel just as bad. The non-clean-eaters (team moderation) often space out their meals. And their meals can be just as healthy and include a small indulgence.
try eating 1500 calories of broccoli and kale in one sitting and tell me how you feel...
You're falling into the same trap as the junk-food-all-the-time posters. Broccoli and kale are not the only clean foods. Are you really telling me you couldn't build a 1500-calorie clean meal?
I was being facetious....
I don't think I can build a 1500 clean meal because no one knows what that is.
Take the other thread going on right now where someone is making the idiotic claim that if you de skin and chop up tomatoes that they are no longer clean....0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »curlygirlkrissie wrote: »I would tend to say that, generally speaking, 1500 calories is 1500 calories. (note "generally") The benefits of a clean diet far outweigh that of a diet consisting of processed foods and snacks. Creating a 3500 deficit will, in fact, result in a 1lb loss no matter how you arrive at the deficit.
Exactly. Eating clean foods is not about weight loss, it's about nutrition and health. I could eat one big meal of 1,500 calories but I would feel like crap. I'd rather spread out healthy meals and have a small indulgence.
Satiety also comes into play because you can eat the wrong foods that won't fill you up and you end up overeating.
For long term success it's best to have a nutritious diet that way you become accustomed to eating healthy.
But again, eating 1500 calories in one meal or over 3 meals doesn't really have anything to do with clean eating, right? I mean, I could eat 1500 calories of clean food in one meal, too, and still feel just as bad. The non-clean-eaters (team moderation) often space out their meals. And their meals can be just as healthy and include a small indulgence.
try eating 1500 calories of broccoli and kale in one sitting and tell me how you feel...
You're falling into the same trap as the junk-food-all-the-time posters. Broccoli and kale are not the only clean foods. Are you really telling me you couldn't build a 1500-calorie clean meal?
I was being facetious....
I don't think I can build a 1500 clean meal because no one knows what that is.
Take the other thread going on right now where someone is making the idiotic claim that if you de skin and chop up tomatoes that they are no longer clean....
Happy thoughts and well-wishes on a bed of organic kale.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »curlygirlkrissie wrote: »I would tend to say that, generally speaking, 1500 calories is 1500 calories. (note "generally") The benefits of a clean diet far outweigh that of a diet consisting of processed foods and snacks. Creating a 3500 deficit will, in fact, result in a 1lb loss no matter how you arrive at the deficit.
Exactly. Eating clean foods is not about weight loss, it's about nutrition and health. I could eat one big meal of 1,500 calories but I would feel like crap. I'd rather spread out healthy meals and have a small indulgence.
Satiety also comes into play because you can eat the wrong foods that won't fill you up and you end up overeating.
For long term success it's best to have a nutritious diet that way you become accustomed to eating healthy.
But again, eating 1500 calories in one meal or over 3 meals doesn't really have anything to do with clean eating, right? I mean, I could eat 1500 calories of clean food in one meal, too, and still feel just as bad. The non-clean-eaters (team moderation) often space out their meals. And their meals can be just as healthy and include a small indulgence.
It would be extremely hard to eat 1,500 calories of food in a "clean" meal. And you definitely would feel bad afterwards because it would be a lot more food than an unhealthy meal.
I don't eat clean all the time, I eat in moderation. Trying to lose weight by saving all of your calories for pizza just seems like a potentially destructive path. It doesn't teach you how to adjust your eating habits for the long term to keep the weight off.
Eating within my calorie range seems to be working for me. But in order for me to feel full, energized, and healthy (and stay within my calorie goal) I have to incorporate a lot of healthy foods in my diet.
Nah
Based on the definitions of "clean" before, I have to agree with this.
Pretty sure I've done it on occasion.
My own versions of Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner tend to meet the guidelines for "clean" (at least if one leaves out dessert, since I think sugar may disqualify even homemade treats, but who knows).0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »curlygirlkrissie wrote: »I would tend to say that, generally speaking, 1500 calories is 1500 calories. (note "generally") The benefits of a clean diet far outweigh that of a diet consisting of processed foods and snacks. Creating a 3500 deficit will, in fact, result in a 1lb loss no matter how you arrive at the deficit.
Exactly. Eating clean foods is not about weight loss, it's about nutrition and health. I could eat one big meal of 1,500 calories but I would feel like crap. I'd rather spread out healthy meals and have a small indulgence.
Satiety also comes into play because you can eat the wrong foods that won't fill you up and you end up overeating.
For long term success it's best to have a nutritious diet that way you become accustomed to eating healthy.
But again, eating 1500 calories in one meal or over 3 meals doesn't really have anything to do with clean eating, right? I mean, I could eat 1500 calories of clean food in one meal, too, and still feel just as bad. The non-clean-eaters (team moderation) often space out their meals. And their meals can be just as healthy and include a small indulgence.
try eating 1500 calories of broccoli and kale in one sitting and tell me how you feel...
You're falling into the same trap as the junk-food-all-the-time posters. Broccoli and kale are not the only clean foods. Are you really telling me you couldn't build a 1500-calorie clean meal?
I was being facetious....
I don't think I can build a 1500 clean meal because no one knows what that is.
Take the other thread going on right now where someone is making the idiotic claim that if you de skin and chop up tomatoes that they are no longer clean....
I'm in both threads. I'm the one posting that awesome list of clean definitions. I just don't understand why you're arguing with my point that meal timing =/= clean eating.
0 -
Terpnista84 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »curlygirlkrissie wrote: »I would tend to say that, generally speaking, 1500 calories is 1500 calories. (note "generally") The benefits of a clean diet far outweigh that of a diet consisting of processed foods and snacks. Creating a 3500 deficit will, in fact, result in a 1lb loss no matter how you arrive at the deficit.
Exactly. Eating clean foods is not about weight loss, it's about nutrition and health. I could eat one big meal of 1,500 calories but I would feel like crap. I'd rather spread out healthy meals and have a small indulgence.
Satiety also comes into play because you can eat the wrong foods that won't fill you up and you end up overeating.
For long term success it's best to have a nutritious diet that way you become accustomed to eating healthy.
But again, eating 1500 calories in one meal or over 3 meals doesn't really have anything to do with clean eating, right? I mean, I could eat 1500 calories of clean food in one meal, too, and still feel just as bad. The non-clean-eaters (team moderation) often space out their meals. And their meals can be just as healthy and include a small indulgence.
It would be extremely hard to eat 1,500 calories of food in a "clean" meal. And you definitely would feel bad afterwards because it would be a lot more food than an unhealthy meal.
I don't eat clean all the time, I eat in moderation. Trying to lose weight by saving all of your calories for pizza just seems like a potentially destructive path. It doesn't teach you how to adjust your eating habits for the long term to keep the weight off.
Eating within my calorie range seems to be working for me. But in order for me to feel full, energized, and healthy (and stay within my calorie goal) I have to incorporate a lot of healthy foods in my diet.
Once again, I feel like we are on the same page, yet people just keep saying one little thing that I disagree with. I'm not sure where someone was advocating that you save all your calories and eat one meal just of pizza and nothing else? Can you point that out to me? I agree, that would not be teaching someone healthy habits. But if you eat in moderation, as you state, then wouldn't you agree that there is nothing wrong with eating a couple of slices of pizza (even a calorie dense, pepperoni and sausage pizza from Dominos is about 300 cals/slice) with a salad for dinner. I could do that once a week, or even daily, and it wouldn't blow my calorie budget. I make homemade pizza on the grill with chicken, artichokes, roasted red peppers, spinach, and pesto instead of tomato sauce and it is about 700 cals for half the pizza.
0 -
Oh, I could whip up a 1,500 calorie natural/paleo/vegan/non-GMO/gluten-free/whole food/clean snack in no time. It would be delicious and the person may feel a little full afterwards but not terrible. They would also gain weight on it.
http://talesofakitchen.com/desserts/chocolate-banana-cake-with-caramel-layer-and-cacao-nibs/0 -
Funny you mention pizza. Thursday nights are pizza night at Quizno's. Thin crust. I eat half. It fits in my calorie allowance for the day.0
-
Funny you mention pizza. Thursday nights are pizza night at Quizno's. Thin crust. I eat half. It fits in my calorie allowance for the day.
I'm still of the belief that if we had to choose just one food to live on forever (as these threads always seem to go) pizza would be one of the healthier options. Balanced macros, lots of variety, plenty of protein and veg options, homemade or take-out choices. Way better than trying to live off of just chicken breast or doritos forever.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »curlygirlkrissie wrote: »I would tend to say that, generally speaking, 1500 calories is 1500 calories. (note "generally") The benefits of a clean diet far outweigh that of a diet consisting of processed foods and snacks. Creating a 3500 deficit will, in fact, result in a 1lb loss no matter how you arrive at the deficit.
Exactly. Eating clean foods is not about weight loss, it's about nutrition and health. I could eat one big meal of 1,500 calories but I would feel like crap. I'd rather spread out healthy meals and have a small indulgence.
Satiety also comes into play because you can eat the wrong foods that won't fill you up and you end up overeating.
For long term success it's best to have a nutritious diet that way you become accustomed to eating healthy.
But again, eating 1500 calories in one meal or over 3 meals doesn't really have anything to do with clean eating, right? I mean, I could eat 1500 calories of clean food in one meal, too, and still feel just as bad. The non-clean-eaters (team moderation) often space out their meals. And their meals can be just as healthy and include a small indulgence.
try eating 1500 calories of broccoli and kale in one sitting and tell me how you feel...
You're falling into the same trap as the junk-food-all-the-time posters. Broccoli and kale are not the only clean foods. Are you really telling me you couldn't build a 1500-calorie clean meal?
I was being facetious....
I don't think I can build a 1500 clean meal because no one knows what that is.
Take the other thread going on right now where someone is making the idiotic claim that if you de skin and chop up tomatoes that they are no longer clean....
I'm in both threads. I'm the one posting that awesome list of clean definitions. I just don't understand why you're arguing with my point that meal timing =/= clean eating.
I am not arguing with you ...
If anything, I am agreeing...
0 -
Holy Exploding Thread, Batman!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
billieljaime wrote: »I think for the purpose of optimum all around health one should strive to make the most nutritiously sound food choices 85 percent of your life.
For the purpose of sound mental health taking a day off and eating your calories in pop tarts is also important as well, so is the occasional cake and other "devilish" food items. This should comprise 15 percent of your life.
Mathematically out of every one hundred days if 85 of them are sound nutritious days and 15 of those days you have a piece of cake in moderation I would not call this un clean. I would call it keeping my sanity, using moderation, being a human and caving to occasional weaknesses and living life.
Is it clean or dirty. I don't know at the end of the month or year my macros line up pretty much where I want them, so do my calories, along with my vitamins minerals, sodium.
Science.
so my daily serving of ice cream makes me unhealthy???????0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »curlygirlkrissie wrote: »I would tend to say that, generally speaking, 1500 calories is 1500 calories. (note "generally") The benefits of a clean diet far outweigh that of a diet consisting of processed foods and snacks. Creating a 3500 deficit will, in fact, result in a 1lb loss no matter how you arrive at the deficit.
Exactly. Eating clean foods is not about weight loss, it's about nutrition and health. I could eat one big meal of 1,500 calories but I would feel like crap. I'd rather spread out healthy meals and have a small indulgence.
Satiety also comes into play because you can eat the wrong foods that won't fill you up and you end up overeating.
For long term success it's best to have a nutritious diet that way you become accustomed to eating healthy.
But again, eating 1500 calories in one meal or over 3 meals doesn't really have anything to do with clean eating, right? I mean, I could eat 1500 calories of clean food in one meal, too, and still feel just as bad. The non-clean-eaters (team moderation) often space out their meals. And their meals can be just as healthy and include a small indulgence.
It would be extremely hard to eat 1,500 calories of food in a "clean" meal. And you definitely would feel bad afterwards because it would be a lot more food than an unhealthy meal.
I don't eat clean all the time, I eat in moderation. Trying to lose weight by saving all of your calories for pizza just seems like a potentially destructive path. It doesn't teach you how to adjust your eating habits for the long term to keep the weight off.
Eating within my calorie range seems to be working for me. But in order for me to feel full, energized, and healthy (and stay within my calorie goal) I have to incorporate a lot of healthy foods in my diet.
Nah
Based on the definitions of "clean" before, I have to agree with this.
Pretty sure I've done it on occasion.
My own versions of Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner tend to meet the guidelines for "clean" (at least if one leaves out dessert, since I think sugar may disqualify even homemade treats, but who knows).
Yup, and see Grass Fed Beef, Grass Fed Butter...
Chopped Salad with sliced Avacados, nuts, etc.0 -
billieljaime wrote: »I think for the purpose of optimum all around health one should strive to make the most nutritiously sound food choices 85 percent of your life.
For the purpose of sound mental health taking a day off and eating your calories in pop tarts is also important as well, so is the occasional cake and other "devilish" food items. This should comprise 15 percent of your life.
Mathematically out of every one hundred days if 85 of them are sound nutritious days and 15 of those days you have a piece of cake in moderation I would not call this un clean. I would call it keeping my sanity, using moderation, being a human and caving to occasional weaknesses and living life.
Is it clean or dirty. I don't know at the end of the month or year my macros line up pretty much where I want them, so do my calories, along with my vitamins minerals, sodium.
Science.
Wait. I was with you (sort of) on the 85/15 split, but your math doesn't add up. So I have to eat clean for 85 days out of 100, but then the 15 other days, I only get one piece of cake? That's not 15% of my total calories in "unclean" food. Why can't I eat a piece of cake on all 100 days, if it is no more than 15% of my daily calories and I've hit my other nutritional goals? Does the cake invalidate the other foods?
Also, if you could go ahead and tell me what makes cake, which is made up of eggs, flour, milk, oil, cocoa, and sugar "unclean", that would be awesome.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Terpnista84 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »curlygirlkrissie wrote: »I would tend to say that, generally speaking, 1500 calories is 1500 calories. (note "generally") The benefits of a clean diet far outweigh that of a diet consisting of processed foods and snacks. Creating a 3500 deficit will, in fact, result in a 1lb loss no matter how you arrive at the deficit.
Exactly. Eating clean foods is not about weight loss, it's about nutrition and health. I could eat one big meal of 1,500 calories but I would feel like crap. I'd rather spread out healthy meals and have a small indulgence.
Satiety also comes into play because you can eat the wrong foods that won't fill you up and you end up overeating.
For long term success it's best to have a nutritious diet that way you become accustomed to eating healthy.
But again, eating 1500 calories in one meal or over 3 meals doesn't really have anything to do with clean eating, right? I mean, I could eat 1500 calories of clean food in one meal, too, and still feel just as bad. The non-clean-eaters (team moderation) often space out their meals. And their meals can be just as healthy and include a small indulgence.
It would be extremely hard to eat 1,500 calories of food in a "clean" meal. And you definitely would feel bad afterwards because it would be a lot more food than an unhealthy meal.
I don't eat clean all the time, I eat in moderation. Trying to lose weight by saving all of your calories for pizza just seems like a potentially destructive path. It doesn't teach you how to adjust your eating habits for the long term to keep the weight off.
Eating within my calorie range seems to be working for me. But in order for me to feel full, energized, and healthy (and stay within my calorie goal) I have to incorporate a lot of healthy foods in my diet.
huh? I can eat 1500 calories in a "clean" meal very easily.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You people love to argue about anything - this is in the first page of this thread along with a doctor's study. Enjoy whatever it is you think you guys are talking about. Should probably start a new thread with an agenda and focus.It's easier to eat 1500 clean than 1500 junk. They doc who ate 1500 in junk food has strong will power and a fixed period to focus on (he's a doctor!). You can eat 1500 calories of doritos and be REALLY hungry throughout the day -- who in the normal population can sustain that? No one. I'm eating less than 1500 calories per day, but my macros are like ~50g carb, 160 g protein, 60-80g fat and i feel fine. This is 'good' food like chicken, greek yogurt, cheese, avocados, some chocolate, vegetables, etc.
Please point to any post in this thread, or any other thread in the history of MFP, where someone suggested that someone should eat nothing but 1500 calories of doritos all day long.
I will never fail to be astounded that the argument from clean eaters is that they get to eat a variety of foods, while the alternative is one single food, all day, every day. Whether it be cake (brought up in this thread) or doritos (see quoted post above) or donuts (often referenced in other threads).0 -
They may lose the same amount of weight but person A will be healthier for obvious reasons.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »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.
This isn't the first time you've mentioned libel or letting a judge sort something out. I'm just curious...have you ever actually succeeded in suing someone from the internet? I mean, you don't even know our names or addresses...how would you even serve papers?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »When people say CICO and that it doesn't matter what your calories are its pretty easy to take it as "eat junk food, just less". And its been my experience that this doesn't work.
No, it's really not, especially given the perfectly clear hypothetical.
Why would you assume that not eating "clean" means we are eating "junk food."
For that matter, why would you assume that we were eating mostly "junk food" before losing weight?
Well I got big because I ate the foods I liked which included a robust amount of junk food. So having revered members of this community tell me I can eat that stuff, just to measure and track it was a way for me to deal with my journey back with a little more comfort. But in my world, eating small portions of "bad" foods simply didn't work. I eat as well as I can but I am decidedly in the moderation camp. But it took me some experience to get back to that.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions