The Clean Eating Myth

forgtmenot

Agreed. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie in terms of weight loss.

RaeBeeBaby

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.

ferniejoy

The man vs. woman thing is where I hang up. Men burn more calories than woman at the same weight. Otherwise, I agree.

curlygirlkrissie

even if that diet of processed foods and snacks hits micros and macros? [/quote]


ummmm.......idk. Is this some kind of trickery? lol. I don't know much about micros and macros.

girlviernes

We could do an ABAB single subject design to test this.

moribunny

forgtmenot wrote: »

Agreed. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie in terms of weight loss.

This.

3dogsrunning

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.

jkal1979

I came across this on here awhile ago and I think that it gives a great example that clean eating doesn't guarantee weight loss.

http://www.healthylivingheavylifting.com/how-clean-eating-made-me-fat-but-ice-cream-and-subway-got-me-lean/

Personally my biggest pet peeve with the whole clean eating vs. IIFYM is the common misconception that it's all or nothing. If you don't eat clean then you must be meeting your calorie goals eating nothing but "junk".

Nony_Mouse

I'm going with C, they will lose approximately the same amount.

Surprised?

usernameenvy

I believe the only time it makes a difference is if you have health issues. If you have digestive issues or intolerance it can have a massive effect on your weight.

forgtmenot

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.

girlviernes

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.

PopeyeCT

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.

bendyourkneekatie

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

3dogsrunning

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.

Queenmunchy

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.

RaeBeeBaby

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".

girlviernes

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.

3dogsrunning

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.

girlviernes

katem999 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?"