The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
It's definitely not all or nothing. I eat about 75% "clean", 25%...dirty? And I'm losing, and I don't feel deprived. I know that if I said "I can only eat boiled chicken, salads, etc", I'd quit in about a week. You have to do what works for you, because in terms of calories and weight loss it is all the SAME. If that means eating 1500 cals worth of McDonald's cheeseburgers a day, so be it. It's better than eating 3000 cals in mcdonalds cheeseburgers.0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »RaeBeeBaby wrote: »You don't say whether their strength training level is exactly the same. While they are both eating the same calories at a deficit and working out, could the more nutritional ("clean") diet result in a more intense level of strength training and, therefore, result in a greater weight loss over time?
I know I have a much better workout following a healthy breakfast, rather than eating donuts (for example) which may have the same number of calories.
I spent some time within the bodybuilding community. The people I knew who were eating bodybuilding "clean"( lean protein, brown rice, green veggies, oatmeal, etc) and did the cheat day always experienced their best workouts the day after the "cheat" day.
Probably due to more calories.
Definitely, there is no magic to "clean foods" It is CICO. The only question is if there would be differences in CI or CO for the two versions of eating. There may be fewer CI than expected with the "clean" food in that it seems that we may not be able to fully access all of the energy that is in them. There could also be CO difference if one diet leads to more energy than the other. Certainly, there could also be a placebo effect, e.g., that the person who is eating "clean" thinks they should have more energy, and therefore is more active.
So there are some reasons you could find a difference. On the other hand, the "clean" eater is (imo) less likely to stick with the plan over time and of course that is what really counts.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »The latest assertions making the rounds from the clean eating crew are that you will lose MORE and FASTER eating clean than processed.
If I lost more than 27 pounds in two months by eating clean, the clean eaters might cheer but that other group would get all upset. You know...the people that say if you lose too much too fast it's bad for you.
I'm essentially using the twinkie diet. I try to eat healthy but my major concern is that I eat anything with a bar code or that shows up in the database. I've lost 40 pounds in 4 months. It works for me. I'm happy. I believe I am healthier now than before, even if I'm not getting enough of some Vitamin B52 fatty acid chromosome oil that I've never heard of.
0 -
I'm so exhausted with the pseudo-morality attached to food. Ffs. It's food.
I like to joke with myself that I'm eating dirty, on a hclf inorganic diet full of gmo's, processed food, and toxins.
Thing is, I eat a healthy, varied diet. I'm losing weight. I just refuse to buy into fads and scams and I also refuse to believe that there is "good" and "bad" food, or that one should feel guilt about eating certain foods, or superior and smug about eating others.
I want my kids to have a healthy attitude to food and the best way to do that is to model that myself.
And OF COURSE 1500 calories is 1500 calories. If you're hitting your macros and micros, the rest is irrelevant trendy foodwank.
/rant0 -
girlviernes wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »RaeBeeBaby wrote: »You don't say whether their strength training level is exactly the same. While they are both eating the same calories at a deficit and working out, could the more nutritional ("clean") diet result in a more intense level of strength training and, therefore, result in a greater weight loss over time?
I know I have a much better workout following a healthy breakfast, rather than eating donuts (for example) which may have the same number of calories.
I spent some time within the bodybuilding community. The people I knew who were eating bodybuilding "clean"( lean protein, brown rice, green veggies, oatmeal, etc) and did the cheat day always experienced their best workouts the day after the "cheat" day.
Probably due to more calories.
Definitely, there is no magic to "clean foods" It is CICO. The only question is if there would be differences in CI or CO for the two versions of eating. There may be fewer CI than expected with the "clean" food in that it seems that we may not be able to fully access all of the energy that is in them. There could also be CO difference if one diet leads to more energy than the other. Certainly, there could also be a placebo effect, e.g., that the person who is eating "clean" thinks they should have more energy, and therefore is more active.
So there are some reasons you could find a difference. On the other hand, the "clean" eater is (imo) less likely to stick with the plan over time and of course that is what really counts.
Yeah, no doubt. But my point was that even eating "bad" food, they still performed well or better.0 -
I think they'd lose weight at the same rate, but the "clean eater" may be more comfortable doing so because of the volume of food they're eating.0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »RaeBeeBaby wrote: »You don't say whether their strength training level is exactly the same. While they are both eating the same calories at a deficit and working out, could the more nutritional ("clean") diet result in a more intense level of strength training and, therefore, result in a greater weight loss over time?
I know I have a much better workout following a healthy breakfast, rather than eating donuts (for example) which may have the same number of calories.
I spent some time within the bodybuilding community. The people I knew who were eating bodybuilding "clean"( lean protein, brown rice, green veggies, oatmeal, etc) and did the cheat day always experienced their best workouts the day after the "cheat" day.
Interesting. That result definitely supports the concept of the "cheat day".0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »RaeBeeBaby wrote: »You don't say whether their strength training level is exactly the same. While they are both eating the same calories at a deficit and working out, could the more nutritional ("clean") diet result in a more intense level of strength training and, therefore, result in a greater weight loss over time?
I know I have a much better workout following a healthy breakfast, rather than eating donuts (for example) which may have the same number of calories.
I spent some time within the bodybuilding community. The people I knew who were eating bodybuilding "clean"( lean protein, brown rice, green veggies, oatmeal, etc) and did the cheat day always experienced their best workouts the day after the "cheat" day.
Probably due to more calories.
Definitely, there is no magic to "clean foods" It is CICO. The only question is if there would be differences in CI or CO for the two versions of eating. There may be fewer CI than expected with the "clean" food in that it seems that we may not be able to fully access all of the energy that is in them. There could also be CO difference if one diet leads to more energy than the other. Certainly, there could also be a placebo effect, e.g., that the person who is eating "clean" thinks they should have more energy, and therefore is more active.
So there are some reasons you could find a difference. On the other hand, the "clean" eater is (imo) less likely to stick with the plan over time and of course that is what really counts.
Yeah, no doubt. But my point was that even eating "bad" food, they still performed well or better.
Absolutely! I actually consider calories the number one health aspect of foods. That is the main reason we eat, and the main benefit of food comes from the energy content.
0 -
Queenmunchy wrote: »I think they'd lose weight at the same rate, but the "clean eater" may be more comfortable doing so because of the volume of food they're eating.
Why? You don't have to eat clean to eat a large volume of food. Or satiating food.0 -
I'm so exhausted with the pseudo-morality attached to food. Ffs. It's food.
I like to joke with myself that I'm eating dirty, on a hclf inorganic diet full of gmo's, processed food, and toxins.
Thing is, I eat a healthy, varied diet. I'm losing weight. I just refuse to buy into fads and scams and I also refuse to believe that there is "good" and "bad" food, or that one should feel guilt about eating certain foods, or superior and smug about eating others.
I want my kids to have a healthy attitude to food and the best way to do that is to model that myself.
And OF COURSE 1500 calories is 1500 calories. If you're hitting your macros and micros, the rest is irrelevant trendy foodwank.
/rant
Yeah the terminology "clean" is ridiculous. Is a twinkie or even a fresh lentil stew with non-organic produce "unclean?"
0 -
RaeBeeBaby wrote: »You don't say whether their strength training level is exactly the same. While they are both eating the same calories at a deficit and working out, could the more nutritional ("clean") diet result in a more intense level of strength training and, therefore, result in a greater weight loss over time?
I know I have a much better workout following a healthy breakfast, rather than eating donuts (for example) which may have the same number of calories.
Definitely would be an interesting clinical study.
my diary is open and I eat non clean foods every day and I have not had any issues with strength training…
Typically, when one bulks and is eating more calorie dense food the intensity of the work increases because one is eating more.
I have never seen a study on strength training gains/energy and type of food consumed. I think that macros would be more impotent than calorie type.0 -
Queenmunchy wrote: »I think they'd lose weight at the same rate, but the "clean eater" may be more comfortable doing so because of the volume of food they're eating.
This is true. I can certainly eat enough turkey burgers to feel stuffed and happy without going over my calorie budget. I can't do that with beef cheeseburgers.
(Are turkey burgers clean food?)0 -
curlygirlkrissie wrote: »
even if that diet of processed foods and snacks hits micros and macros?
ummmm.......idk. Is this some kind of trickery? lol. I don't know much about micros and macros.
Not really. I am just pointing out that you can get your nutrient requirements, eat processed foods, and that person would still be healthy ….
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »I'm going with C, they will lose approximately the same amount.
Surprised?
I'm with Nony on this one. I'm always amused at the amount of posters who just can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that a calorie is merely a unit of measurement. Macros are where the "health" argument should come in to it, but those are a different, albeit complimentary, part of the equation.
CI - doesn't matter one iota where they came from. 100 calories of chocolate = 100 calories of lettuce. However the macro makeup of those calories may change the CO part of the equation (i.e. choosing more nutrient dense foods may correspond to having more energy, therefore putting in more effort at the gym).
In any event, having a CICO deficit is what results in weight-loss, regardless of how either side of the equation is made up.
I'm an accountant, so I love how CICO boils down to a mathematical equation, losing weight has been so much easier since I came to MFP and saw the posts about it. Holy lightbulb moment, Batman.
Calories can be viewed in the same way as money being spent in a business. If you spend $10, your bank account will decrease, regardless of what it is that you spent that money on. However, $10 of production materials will benefit the profitability of the business more than the owner taking $10 out to buy himself lunch. Bank account - Calories. Profits - Macros.
ETA: Grammar. Oy.0 -
I think food volume is overrated. Yes, having some focus on volume is helpful, but I have even more bang for my buck by making sure I have enough fat and protein.
And if we are talking comfort, having variety and flexibility in your diet rather than arbitrary rules is great for that.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »I'm so exhausted with the pseudo-morality attached to food. Ffs. It's food.
I like to joke with myself that I'm eating dirty, on a hclf inorganic diet full of gmo's, processed food, and toxins.
Thing is, I eat a healthy, varied diet. I'm losing weight. I just refuse to buy into fads and scams and I also refuse to believe that there is "good" and "bad" food, or that one should feel guilt about eating certain foods, or superior and smug about eating others.
I want my kids to have a healthy attitude to food and the best way to do that is to model that myself.
And OF COURSE 1500 calories is 1500 calories. If you're hitting your macros and micros, the rest is irrelevant trendy foodwank.
/rant
Yeah the terminology "clean" is ridiculous. Is a twinkie or even a fresh lentil stew with non-organic produce "unclean?"
I believe that anything that has more than five ingredients is dirty or processed…at least that was a definition I was given once...0 -
Queenmunchy wrote: »I think they'd lose weight at the same rate, but the "clean eater" may be more comfortable doing so because of the volume of food they're eating.
This is true. I can certainly eat enough turkey burgers to feel stuffed and happy without going over my calorie budget. I can't do that with beef cheeseburgers.
(Are turkey burgers clean food?)
turkey burgers are probably considered clean, but then again, it would depend on who you ask0 -
girlviernes wrote: »I think food volume is overrated. Yes, having some focus on volume is helpful, but I have even more bang for my buck by making sure I have enough fat and protein.
And if we are talking comfort, having variety and flexibility in your diet rather than arbitrary rules is great for that.
i eat four times a day and I have no issues with satiety ….0 -
I think that in terms of fat loss, they would lose the same amount of weight, but I believe the non clean eating person would retain more water, sodium, etc, and therefore the scale may show different. At least for the first few weeks maybe.0
-
girlviernes wrote: »I'm so exhausted with the pseudo-morality attached to food. Ffs. It's food.
I like to joke with myself that I'm eating dirty, on a hclf inorganic diet full of gmo's, processed food, and toxins.
Thing is, I eat a healthy, varied diet. I'm losing weight. I just refuse to buy into fads and scams and I also refuse to believe that there is "good" and "bad" food, or that one should feel guilt about eating certain foods, or superior and smug about eating others.
I want my kids to have a healthy attitude to food and the best way to do that is to model that myself.
And OF COURSE 1500 calories is 1500 calories. If you're hitting your macros and micros, the rest is irrelevant trendy foodwank.
/rant
Yeah the terminology "clean" is ridiculous. Is a twinkie or even a fresh lentil stew with non-organic produce "unclean?"
I believe that anything that has more than five ingredients is dirty or processed…at least that was a definition I was given once...
Alright, so I should feel guilty about my lentil stew which contains 3 types of lentils, chickpeas, garam masala, jalapeno, mushroom, parsnip, carrot, and ginger (10 ingredients, heavens to betsy!). Got it!
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »I'm so exhausted with the pseudo-morality attached to food. Ffs. It's food.
I like to joke with myself that I'm eating dirty, on a hclf inorganic diet full of gmo's, processed food, and toxins.
Thing is, I eat a healthy, varied diet. I'm losing weight. I just refuse to buy into fads and scams and I also refuse to believe that there is "good" and "bad" food, or that one should feel guilt about eating certain foods, or superior and smug about eating others.
I want my kids to have a healthy attitude to food and the best way to do that is to model that myself.
And OF COURSE 1500 calories is 1500 calories. If you're hitting your macros and micros, the rest is irrelevant trendy foodwank.
/rant
Yeah the terminology "clean" is ridiculous. Is a twinkie or even a fresh lentil stew with non-organic produce "unclean?"
I believe that anything that has more than five ingredients is dirty or processed…at least that was a definition I was given once...
Alright, so I should feel guilty about my lentil stew which contains 3 types of lentils, chickpeas, garam masala, jalapeno, mushroom, parsnip, carrot, and ginger (10 ingredients, heavens to betsy!). Got it!
totally dirty ...0 -
0 -
Myth or no, as long as I'm losing, I'm eating dirty. So, so dirty.0
-
I rely on Taco Bell to periodically cleanse my toxins. Works like a charm. And I wash my hands before I eat (and after the cleanse) so I'm pretty sure it's all clean.0
-
I lose much more weight on a diet that includes processed foods because I will actually keep to that diet. I'm having a lot of success eating what I'm used to eating.
If I tried to eat "clean" 100% of the time I would give up completely, go back to my old way of eating, and then just keep slowly gaining weight. I think that many of the people pushing "clean" diets are perfectly happy eating that way.
If you are eating a diet that satisfies you, you are much more likely to have success with it. "Clean" eaters may actually lose more weight if they comply with their diet more consistently when they eat that way than they do otherwise.
Whatever is most comfortable for the individual is what is most likely to work long-term.0 -
If you spend $10, your bank account will decrease, regardless of what it is that you spent that money on. However, $10 of production materials will benefit the profitability of the business more than the owner taking $10 out to buy himself lunch. Bank account - Calories. Profits - Macros.
Brilliant!
0 -
Queenmunchy wrote: »I think they'd lose weight at the same rate, but the "clean eater" may be more comfortable doing so because of the volume of food they're eating.
This is true. I can certainly eat enough turkey burgers to feel stuffed and happy without going over my calorie budget. I can't do that with beef cheeseburgers.
(Are turkey burgers clean food?)
What's funny is that I find that turkey burgers are really not any less caloric than regular burgers (if I use like 85/15 beef). The beef ones taste better, too.0 -
I often run or lift shortly after eating a 1200 calorie meal. I can't imagine trying to do anything after eating six and a half pounds of carrots. (I can't imagine getting even half of that down my throat.)0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
oh come on now …easy on the drama. nothing is getting locked down …LOL
my threads always make it to page 20 before that happens…:)0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I often run or lift shortly after eating a 1200 calorie meal. I can't imagine trying to do anything after eating six and a half pounds of carrots. (I can't imagine getting even half of that down my throat.)
bla …or 1200 calories of broccoli …talk about clearing the gym out...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions