The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »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….
The article is on point because it is essentially saying person A will lose more weight.
No, I read it and it's not.
It's comparing "Atkins," low fat, and low GI (none defined particularly well) -- all of which could be done ultra "clean" or in moderate fashion.
It then recommends including some foods that person B is already eating, according to the hypothetical.
It doesn't say that including some processed foods (which again ALL of the self-proclaimed eaters in this discussion eat so far) or "treats" will be a problem, which seems to be YOUR assertion.0 -
We are going to the Dominican Republic in August. I really don't want to go there but Dora does so I guess it's happening. like 3 minutes ago she sent me the info on the resort it appears we finally narrowed it down to.kshama2001 wrote: »Ok - run an experiment on yourself. Eat in a caloric surplus of 500 calories of the "right" calories. Do this for three months and report back with the results. I 100% guarantee you will gain weight.
When I lived in the wilds of Costa Rica for two months and had no access to processed or otherwise junk foods, I lost 20 pounds effortlessly. I didn't log calories, but had three meals and one or two snacks per day and was never hungry. Food cravings were not really an issue, as pizza, ice cream, etc. simply were not available. I did eat a lot of mango, bananas, and pineapple. Supermarket bananas are like a completely different food from these bananas, which were like ambrosia from the gods.
(When I say "wilds," I mean that literally. We were in the last town before the jungle separating Costa Rica from Panana. Farmers delivered rice and beans to us on horseback. A veggie truck was scheduled to come twice a week, but sometimes the road was washed out and it couldn't make it, in which case we had more green papaya salad and otherwise foraged.)
So, yeah, I'm in the clean food camp. My challenge is doing it amidst a plethora of unhealthy choices, and while cooking for people who don't want to be super-clean.
So your evidence is that when you lived in a 3rd world country, in a remote area, you lost weight? I mean I guess you have to be correct because even though you didn't have processed foods you must have had an incredibly abundant range of foods to eat all day. Because we know in those areas people have so much excess food around to eat. There were buffets of clean food everywhere right?
I went to the Dominican Republic and gained weight eating all the clean foods, fresh seafood, fruits and veggies. It might have been the unlimited drinks at the All Inclusive resort though...
why don't you run off into the jungle and live off bananas and see if you drop 20 pounds or not.??
I was just going to say that. Ambrosia from the gods and all that.
0 -
As you just admitted, the people whose claims you are going by to create the 100% "clean" dieter example exist on the Internet with closed diaries. You don't actually know anyone in real life who eats 100% "clean", do you? I don't. When you do find someone who claims to, I guarantee you a little pushing and prodding will reveal occasional departures from the strictest protocols 9 time out of 10.
Yes. McDonald's. The only difference between 100% McDonald's "dieters" and "clean" dieters is that the clean dieters do so consciously while most people eating McDonald's for all or most of their meals aren't conscious about their choice (or their caloric intake).
With the assumptions exactly as they are stated in your question, of course they would both lose at roughly the same rate.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….
The question, though, is whether those assumptions are reasonable. It is far easier to maintain a balanced diet than any kind of a fad diet; be that fad diet all junk food or all "clean" food. Over time, if one doesn't balance one's own likings and cravings with health and nutrition, one is less likely to be able to maintain either the caloric intake or the "cleanliness" of the diet. If you love ice cream but your "clean" diet requires you to shun it, your body will most likely find a way to beat you and make you binge eat that ice cream. If on the other hand you have something to prove and just eat McDonald's all the time, over the long run it is also likely that you will increase your intake of that food, adding calories. It will also make you feel stressed, less energetic, and and thus make you less likely to keep up with your workout regimen. A "clean" dieter who is actively denying themselves things they like may experience stress and depression to give up as well.
So the right answer, I think, is that while a caloric deficit is the only relevant question in terms of weight loss, certain diets, given the individual, may make it more likely they would stick to such deficit while others may make it more likely they won't.
can you please name the fad diet that calls for eating 100% mcdonalds?
While your point is valid that I intentionally picked an extreme example that isn't true in the real world, so did you. Most people who eat "clean" only do so for only a majority of their diet. They allow treats now and then, and they will satisfy their cravings with moderate amounts of junk food now and then too. I'm actually agreeing with you that it's a balanced diet that incorporates our individual choices of pleasure foods is important in order to stick to a habit long term.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
So between us, we can't find real data on the prevalence on 100% adherence to either a strict clean-only diet or a strict junkfood only diet. Hence, both examples are extreme.
so the moderate eater is an extreme example too?
i dont agree with your premise, so we can just agree to disagree….
No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
So clean eating is a straw man argument, really??
That's what I said, yes.
interesting, given the amount of people that advocate for it….
yet, I can't find anyone that advocates for your mcdonalds diet….
Deciding whether an example is extreme/straw man is not related to the existence of the practice's advocates, it's related to the practice's actual adherents. And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that there are actually more people who eat a primarily fast food diet in the US than there are people who eat a primarily clean diet.
Just because a practice has advocates doesn't mean it's a prevalent practice, and just because a practice lacks advocates doesn't mean it isn't prevalent. In fact, the more ubiquitous a practice is, the fewer advocates it needs, since it's a generally accepted practice. I don't know a lot of smoking advocates, but I do know a lot of smokers.
Your definition of strawman is not what a strawman is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Notice how it says "the opponent's argument" and "proposition".0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The question I'd most like to know, of the people who have claimed this: why is person B unhealthy?
Dem feels.
Serious answer? A totally wrong-headed misunderstanding of the words "risk factor".
0 -
Do you "buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans."?0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »Do you "buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans."?
Yes it is for weight loss.
No it not for micro nutrients.
What is the issue or your point?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Another hilarious thing is that the opinion piece that is being cited seems not to push hyper clean eating and the idea that one MUST ELIMINATE whatever non-clean foods are (we still don't really know, since so far the self-proclaimed "clean" eaters seem to eat lots of processed foods), but to be speaking about sensible changes that someone on the SAD might make. Person B is not described as eating the SAD, as it's usually defined (and even the SAD isn't the strawman 100% cake diet):So what’s Ludwig’s overall advice? “It’s time to reacquaint ourselves with minimally processed carbs. If you take three servings of refined carbohydrates and substitute one of fruit, one of beans and one of nuts, you could eliminate 50 percent of diet-related disease in the United States. These relatively modest changes can provide great benefit.”
Based on how Person B is described, I think he's eating fruit, beans, and nuts, so again I ask what the article has to do with anything.
Personally, I eat lots and lots of veggies. I'm not really sure why the fact that I've not eliminated ice cream is supposed to mean that I eat an unhealthy diet and never eat veggies (or fruit, beans, or nuts) or whatever bizarre scenario the self-proclaimed "clean" eaters have constructed.
It's ridiculous all or nothing stuff and like deaniac said, I seriously doubt the "clean" eaters actually live by it either in reality. (In other words, you too are a person B, so be happy that person B is going to be okay.)
Fruit, beans, nuts. Hmmm... sounds like my plan for next week. I'm making lentil stew. Of course it's going to have those filthy potatoes in it, but hey, gotta live a little.
Satiating little buggers those are.
OMG... I'm going to use canned tomatoes and boxed broth. This is like the most processed stuff ever, isn't it?
Am I dead yet from my lack of health?
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Do you "buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans."?
Well, lots of clean eaters seem to think the beans are unclean. If they are canned, at least, they are processed, and of course the paleo types think all beans are bad.
But, no, the NUTRITION in those foods is different, obviously.
Do YOU claim that if I eat lots of broccoli and beans but also maybe have some fries once a week that that will seriously affect my rate of loss?
Because like I said above, that has not been my experience, and it doesn't make much sense.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Do you "buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans."?
In terms of energy, which is what calories are, a unit of energy measurement, yes.
In terms of nutritional profile, no, there are obvious differences. No one on this thread has ever disputed that.
Again, back to the original post and the original question that was posed.
Two different people. Both eating same number of calories (1500). One does so with exclusively "clean" foods. The other does so with hitting their macro and micro nutrient requirements so that means that they could be eating whole foods as well as minimally processed foods or even extremely processed foods but they got the same number of nutrients. The difference is that the second person threw in some ice cream at the end of the day. Or for the sake of your argument, a Coke.
Is the second person less healthy because they had a Coke at the end of the day? Will they lose weight more slowly, because of the one Coke? They still had 1500 calories and are presumably at the same calorie deficit from their TDEE as the person who didn't have the coke. The person who ate extra broccoli and beans.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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….
The article is on point because it is essentially saying person A will lose more weight.
Nope. Not even close. That's not how it works.
Excess fat is not stored in an energy deficit. The article said that the sugar person B was consuming would be stored as fat. That's not true for this scenario.
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.
Hah! I'm a financial counselor/collector, myself. I've used that same analogy before!0 -
Once I started eating clean (By spraying all my food with all purpose cleaner), I've lost weight dramatically. Of course, much of that weight was stomach and lung tissue loss.0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »Do you "buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans."?
This isn't a contention. It's scientific fact.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Another hilarious thing is that the opinion piece that is being cited seems not to push hyper clean eating and the idea that one MUST ELIMINATE whatever non-clean foods are (we still don't really know, since so far the self-proclaimed "clean" eaters seem to eat lots of processed foods), but to be speaking about sensible changes that someone on the SAD might make. Person B is not described as eating the SAD, as it's usually defined (and even the SAD isn't the strawman 100% cake diet):So what’s Ludwig’s overall advice? “It’s time to reacquaint ourselves with minimally processed carbs. If you take three servings of refined carbohydrates and substitute one of fruit, one of beans and one of nuts, you could eliminate 50 percent of diet-related disease in the United States. These relatively modest changes can provide great benefit.”
Based on how Person B is described, I think he's eating fruit, beans, and nuts, so again I ask what the article has to do with anything.
Personally, I eat lots and lots of veggies. I'm not really sure why the fact that I've not eliminated ice cream is supposed to mean that I eat an unhealthy diet and never eat veggies (or fruit, beans, or nuts) or whatever bizarre scenario the self-proclaimed "clean" eaters have constructed.
It's ridiculous all or nothing stuff and like deaniac said, I seriously doubt the "clean" eaters actually live by it either in reality. (In other words, you too are a person B, so be happy that person B is going to be okay.)
Fruit, beans, nuts. Hmmm... sounds like my plan for next week. I'm making lentil stew. Of course it's going to have those filthy potatoes in it, but hey, gotta live a little.
Satiating little buggers those are.
OMG... I'm going to use canned tomatoes and boxed broth. This is like the most processed stuff ever, isn't it?
Am I dead yet from my lack of health?
I ate my West African inspired stew last night and it contained canned tomatoes and some boxed broth (I make my own from time to time, but was out).
I'm probably on death's door myself!0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »This myth was proven false by a professor of nutrition. His procedure is called "The Twinkie Diet". He ate nothing but twinies and doritos and junk food and lost 27 pounds in two months.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
There are certainly health benefits to eating a balanced diet and all the right vitamins and minerals. But if you are only talking about weight loss, then the only thing that matters is calories in vs. calories out. It doesn't matter what you eat. It matters how much of it you eat.
Well, that doesn't really address the point ndj is making. The latest assertions making the rounds from the clean eating crew are that you will lose MORE and FASTER eating clean than processed. They aren't asserting that you won't lose at all.
To have a parallel disproof here, Haub would have needed to also done a trial diet of "clean" eating for the same time frame at the same calorie level.
That " clean eating crew " must be a really small one, because in the more than two years I have been a member of MFP I have only read posts from a tiny group of people who made such a foolish statement. Most people who eat more naturally ( assuming they consume the same amount of calories and have no specific health problems ) know that natural food aids in better health, but does nothing for weight loss.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I would like to know why people automatically assume the person eats nothing but processed foods or what some people might not "clean" foods when the person says they eat them? Why is it all or nothing?
They can't feel superior otherwise? They used to do that themselves?
It's a mystery for the ages.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Do you "buy into the contention that consuming 100 calories’ worth of sugar water (like Coke or Gatorade), white bread or French fries is the same as eating 100 calories of broccoli or beans."?
In terms of energy, which is what calories are, a unit of energy measurement, yes.
In terms of nutritional profile, no, there are obvious differences. No one on this thread has ever disputed that.
Again, back to the original post and the original question that was posed.
Two different people. Both eating same number of calories (1500). One does so with exclusively "clean" foods. The other does so with hitting their macro and micro nutrient requirements so that means that they could be eating whole foods as well as minimally processed foods or even extremely processed foods but they got the same number of nutrients. The difference is that the second person threw in some ice cream at the end of the day. Or for the sake of your argument, a Coke.
Is the second person less healthy because they had a Coke at the end of the day? Will they lose weight more slowly, because of the one Coke? They still had 1500 calories and are presumably at the same calorie deficit from their TDEE as the person who didn't have the coke. The person who ate extra broccoli and beans.
In this scenario, I think that the first person will have more gas.
0 -
That Paleo Foundation certification document is so telling... it's just a big advertising campaign.0
-
This is only my second thread and the first one I started. I don't know how anyone but me defines "clean food." Would someone be so kind as to link me to some threads that epitomize the positions of the "clean food crew?"0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »This is only my second thread and the first one I started. I don't know how anyone but me defines "clean food." Would someone be so kind as to link me to some threads that epitomize the positions of the "clean food crew?"
I posted this list a while back, but I'll bring it forward again. These are all definitions that have been given on these boards when people are asked what clean eating really is:
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.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »That Paleo Foundation certification document is so telling... it's just a big advertising campaign.
Yup. And frankly, the Paleo Foundation's goals, for sounding so lofty? All part of the pitch to get businesses to use the service. Marketing, from top to bottom, the whole site. That's what they do, that's who they are, that's all they're about. Someone with a good head for business saw a great opportunity and ran with it.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »This is only my second thread and the first one I started. I don't know how anyone but me defines "clean food." Would someone be so kind as to link me to some threads that epitomize the positions of the "clean food crew?"
Did you read this one in its entirety? Their position is pretty clear. Either they're not actually clean by any stretch of the imagination but like the special label and vehemently defend it or they think that even one "infraction" per day will destroy your health. "Twinkies probably lead to early death."0 -
Let me start by saying I'm not a clean eater....
If the caloric deficit is the same they will lose approximately the same amount.
The difference might be in how well they feel or how well they are able to maintain the program. For example I know that if I eat too many carbs and not enough protein I will be hungry, even if the total calories are the same. If I am full on protein I am more likely to be able to keep to my calorie goal than if I'm hungry after too many carbs.
I have lost over 100 lbs eating a lot of frozen meals and other convenience foods that the clean eaters say are evil. I choose what I eat based more on my personal calorie and macro goals. There are no forbidden or evil foods. I eat what I want as long as it fits in my calorie goals. Some days I may be off on my macros, but I am amazed at how I consistently reach my macro goals on a weekly basis.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »
As you just admitted, the people whose claims you are going by to create the 100% "clean" dieter example exist on the Internet with closed diaries. You don't actually know anyone in real life who eats 100% "clean", do you? I don't. When you do find someone who claims to, I guarantee you a little pushing and prodding will reveal occasional departures from the strictest protocols 9 time out of 10.
Yes. McDonald's. The only difference between 100% McDonald's "dieters" and "clean" dieters is that the clean dieters do so consciously while most people eating McDonald's for all or most of their meals aren't conscious about their choice (or their caloric intake).
With the assumptions exactly as they are stated in your question, of course they would both lose at roughly the same rate.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….
The question, though, is whether those assumptions are reasonable. It is far easier to maintain a balanced diet than any kind of a fad diet; be that fad diet all junk food or all "clean" food. Over time, if one doesn't balance one's own likings and cravings with health and nutrition, one is less likely to be able to maintain either the caloric intake or the "cleanliness" of the diet. If you love ice cream but your "clean" diet requires you to shun it, your body will most likely find a way to beat you and make you binge eat that ice cream. If on the other hand you have something to prove and just eat McDonald's all the time, over the long run it is also likely that you will increase your intake of that food, adding calories. It will also make you feel stressed, less energetic, and and thus make you less likely to keep up with your workout regimen. A "clean" dieter who is actively denying themselves things they like may experience stress and depression to give up as well.
So the right answer, I think, is that while a caloric deficit is the only relevant question in terms of weight loss, certain diets, given the individual, may make it more likely they would stick to such deficit while others may make it more likely they won't.
can you please name the fad diet that calls for eating 100% mcdonalds?
While your point is valid that I intentionally picked an extreme example that isn't true in the real world, so did you. Most people who eat "clean" only do so for only a majority of their diet. They allow treats now and then, and they will satisfy their cravings with moderate amounts of junk food now and then too. I'm actually agreeing with you that it's a balanced diet that incorporates our individual choices of pleasure foods is important in order to stick to a habit long term.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
So between us, we can't find real data on the prevalence on 100% adherence to either a strict clean-only diet or a strict junkfood only diet. Hence, both examples are extreme.
so the moderate eater is an extreme example too?
i dont agree with your premise, so we can just agree to disagree….
No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
So clean eating is a straw man argument, really??
That's what I said, yes.
interesting, given the amount of people that advocate for it….
yet, I can't find anyone that advocates for your mcdonalds diet….
Deciding whether an example is extreme/straw man is not related to the existence of the practice's advocates, it's related to the practice's actual adherents. And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that there are actually more people who eat a primarily fast food diet in the US than there are people who eat a primarily clean diet.
Just because a practice has advocates doesn't mean it's a prevalent practice, and just because a practice lacks advocates doesn't mean it isn't prevalent. In fact, the more ubiquitous a practice is, the fewer advocates it needs, since it's a generally accepted practice. I don't know a lot of smoking advocates, but I do know a lot of smokers.
Methinks you don't understand what a straw man is.
A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man
It has everything to do with the claims made, and nothing to do with actual practices.
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »
Protein powder - Natural Force or Legion or AllMax - if you read the ingredients, it's pure stuff. Yeah is there a "process" absolutely. Natural Force is endorsed by the Paleo Foundation - the only endorsed supplement product on the market by that very foundation. They don't throw their name around.
Done with thread. Have fun. Hope you didn't stay up all night and lose sleep over this.
OMG there is a Paleo Foundation?!
paleolithic people had protein powder?????????????????
According to Ted, having the ingredients necessary back then already makes it paleo. Even if the ingredient was poisonous at the time.0 -
Thanks diannethegeek!0
-
@ maidentl - nope, just the first page and the last few pages, which may have erroneously given me the idea that the "clean food crew" posts were on other threads, not earlier in this one.0
-
I'm kind of baffled too by the contention that eating 'clean' (whatever that is) makes you healthier.
People have been eating 'clean' for millennia, and died of a host of diseases by 40.
Were your grandparents really so much healthier than you?
The Iceman Otzi was found to have hardening of the arteries, though he was fit, exercised a lot and never ate french fries.....
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-genetic-analysis-reveals-otzi-iceman.html0
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