The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So, I'm starting to think, from the turn of this thread, that person A is either intimidated by the use of logic and resorts to ad hominems to discredit person B when he uses logic when they are discussing their food plans OR he just can't support his assertions about the health claims he's been making.
It hasn't passed my notice that none of the questions about health have been answered.
I thought the answer was C...
Well, the weight loss thing sort of got answered by default, but then the clean eating defenders started asserting that A would be "healthier". Some support for that position was asked for and was never provided.
It has to be remembered that it was stipulated that both A and B were hitting their macros and micros.
Although judging from the turn the conversation took, you would have thought it was stipulated that the non-clean eater was mainlining Oreo filling and the nougat from Snickers bars and nothing else.
Well, they had to move the goalposts to make room for the straw man so they could answer the question the way they wanted to.
Tried to resist. Couldn't help myself.
You and your talking points!0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So, I'm starting to think, from the turn of this thread, that person A is either intimidated by the use of logic and resorts to ad hominems to discredit person B when he uses logic when they are discussing their food plans OR he just can't support his assertions about the health claims he's been making.
It hasn't passed my notice that none of the questions about health have been answered.
I thought the answer was C...
Well, the weight loss thing sort of got answered by default, but then the clean eating defenders started asserting that A would be "healthier". Some support for that position was asked for and was never provided.
It has to be remembered that it was stipulated that both A and B were hitting their macros and micros.
Although judging from the turn the conversation took, you would have thought it was stipulated that the non-clean eater was mainlining Oreo filling and the nougat from Snickers bars and nothing else.
Well, they had to move the goalposts to make room for the straw man so they could answer the question the way they wanted to.
Tried to resist. Couldn't help myself.
You and your talking points!
Where can I sign up for your newsletter? Can I haz thru the emails?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
A few years ago, during the course of a few weeks, 20-30 national different news anchors and talk show hosts used the word "gravitas". Someone put together a montage of news clips, just one person after another saying "gravitas", it was hilarious. Sure, some of them possibly legitimately knew the word, but the fact that a bunch of people use the same obscure word within the same span of time to describe similar events is not a coincidence, it is a pattern. "Look everyone, I discovered a cool word"! "Hey, I want to use a cool word too!"
This IIFYM site is the same thing, it isn't garden-variety debate knowledge everyone is utilizing, somebody provided talking points on how to debate a certain way, and a lot of people practically copied and pasted it into social media forums. Please review that website, it is pretty obvious.
What emails are you talking about? What talking points? What in the world are you talking about?
He's talking about this:
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
He apparently thinks the IIFYM site emails this out to all of us "anti-clean eaters" and that we all get together online to formulate diabolical plans to take on the rest of MFP.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
you seem really focused on reiterating the fact that the IIFYM website is not the only place to learn about logic
and discussing your logic skillz
Eh, try again. I'm baffled, frankly. Have any of you people ever been anywhere else on the internet?mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.mamapeach910 wrote: »Is it time for a tin foil hat picture? I just can't get over the idea that people applying logic in discussions is now presumed by their opponents to be, as a matter of course, from a web site, and that none of those people have any skills, education, or knowledge from any other source.
It's gotta be a conspiracy of IIFYM of brainless sheeple, spouting doctrine. No other possibility could exist.
What the actual...
Let's throw in a heaping dash of irony, considering the fact that clean and Paleo eaters are all spouting dogma gleaned from books, blogs, and websites.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
All that proves is that when I'm baffled, I repeat myself.
Which is in fact, quite true. It's a really annoying habit that I know I have.
I honestly am truly taken by the stance this guy is taking.
0 -
Back to something resembling the original topic please, or this thread is going to become another unfortunate victim of Friday.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
Yes, I am surprised and disappointed to see the tone here is that of a political forum, where people aren't interested in sharing information, but scoring points.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
Yes, I am surprised and disappointed to see the tone here is that of a political forum, where people aren't interested in sharing information, but scoring points.
I have learned so much great information here.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
Yes, I am surprised and disappointed to see the tone here is that of a political forum, where people aren't interested in sharing information, but scoring points.
You're saying this as if grandstanding against how the forums function here isn't trying to score points.
0 -
Personally, I've never been on the IIFYM website except to use the TDEE calculator. I was not aware they had a forum. But I do know these terms, like logical fallacy and strawman and false equivalence and appeal to emotion.
I learned them in college. In philosophy classes. They are terms regarding logical (and sometimes illogical) argument.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
Yes, I am surprised and disappointed to see the tone here is that of a political forum, where people aren't interested in sharing information, but scoring points.
I have learned so much great information here.
much information. Dawn is the optimal soap for a clean diet0 -
Sorry kgeyser - didn't see your post before I posted.0
-
So, with what the lovely kgeyser said in mind, would any clean eater care to tackle the "healthy" argument they kept forwarding?
Remember, it was stipulated that both A and B were meeting their macro and micro goals.
Adding: I'd also like to know, since it was mentioned earlier in the thread, what barometer we're supposed to use for "healthy" since apparently fitness, good bloodwork, and a good body weight/composition aren't enough.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
Yes, I am surprised and disappointed to see the tone here is that of a political forum, where people aren't interested in sharing information, but scoring points.
I have learned so much great information here.
much information. Dawn is the optimal soap for a clean diet
I prefer Method dish soap. It's naturally-derived, biodegradable and non-toxic, which automatically makes it better. Also their slogan is "people against dirty."
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I find it interesting the CICO people who think eating Twinkies within their calorie goals are completely ignoring long term health effects. What we eat directly relates to gut health and overall wellness. Just because you weigh less doesn't mean you are healthier.0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
Yes, I am surprised and disappointed to see the tone here is that of a political forum, where people aren't interested in sharing information, but scoring points.
What did you expect when you posted what you posted?
Thanks and a pat on the head?
People responded and asked questions pertinent to the topic at hand and when they got into the meat of the discussion, you bailed instead of supporting what you were bringing to the table.
Here's the thing. Sharing information is all well and fine if it's actually fact-based. Facts are helpful to people trying to achieve goals.
"Clean" eaters make a lot of claims. So do many other people following various specialized ways of eating. They should be able to back them up with proof so that people coming to this site can make informed decisions.
Correlative associations drawn from personal experience isn't proof. Blog posts aren't proof. Feelings aren't proof. None of this is going to help someone looking for answers. Fleshing all of this out is ultimately helpful.
That is REALLY what all 30 pages of this discussion has been about.
0 -
Quinnstinct wrote: »I find it interesting the CICO people who think eating Twinkies within their calorie goals are completely ignoring long term health effects. What we eat directly relates to gut health and overall wellness. Just because you weigh less doesn't mean you are healthier.
But, as mentioned many times already, what if I am meeting my macro and micro nutrient goals and have calories left over? Are you saying I would be more healthy with a small salad instead of a twinkie? What makes the twinkie unhealthy? Do you have research that says eating twinkies results in poor health in the long-term?0 -
Quinnstinct wrote: »I find it interesting the CICO people who think eating Twinkies within their calorie goals are completely ignoring long term health effects. What we eat directly relates to gut health and overall wellness. Just because you weigh less doesn't mean you are healthier.
lol which CICO people are these?0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »So, with what the lovely kgeyser said in mind, would any clean eater care to tackle the "healthy" argument they kept forwarding?
Remember, it was stipulated that both A and B were meeting their macro and micro goals.
Adding: I'd also like to know, since it was mentioned earlier in the thread, what barometer we're supposed to use for "healthy" since apparently fitness, good bloodwork, and a good body weight/composition aren't enough.
As a "non-clean eater", you're supposed to be able to prove that your life will be at least as long and healthy as it would have been if you'd been a "clean eater".
Good luck with that.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Correlative associations drawn from personal experience isn't proof. Blog posts aren't proof. Feelings aren't proof. None of this is going to help someone looking for answers. Fleshing all of this out is ultimately helpful.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize the standard for participating in discussions here was providing proof.
0 -
Quinnstinct wrote: »I find it interesting the CICO people who think eating Twinkies within their calorie goals are completely ignoring long term health effects. What we eat directly relates to gut health and overall wellness. Just because you weigh less doesn't mean you are healthier.
Please, show some information on the effect of 1 Twinkie in an otherwise healthy diet on overall wellness.
0 -
I like to be a happy medium and eat a "normal" person diet with a deficit. However, I have had a friend who ate pure junk, seriously, only take outs for every meal, including breakfast. And they still managed to lose 35kg on their deficit. However, they stopped dead in their tracks then and I think if they switched to clean eating they would have been able to lose a lot more. So I guess it depends how your body reacts to it?0
-
Quinnstinct wrote: »I find it interesting the CICO people who think eating Twinkies within their calorie goals are completely ignoring long term health effects. What we eat directly relates to gut health and overall wellness. Just because you weigh less doesn't mean you are healthier.
So the question has been asked a million times, maybe you will be the one to finally answer it! Please explain how one item in an overall "good" day, like a Twinkie, ruins your health. Yesterday I ate eggs, whole grain bread, chicken breast, rice and vegetables. Last night my husband took me out for frozen yogurt. Please tell me how the frozen yogurt ruined the effects of all those other foods I ate.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Correlative associations drawn from personal experience isn't proof. Blog posts aren't proof. Feelings aren't proof. None of this is going to help someone looking for answers. Fleshing all of this out is ultimately helpful.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize the standard for participating in discussions here was providing proof.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Correlative associations drawn from personal experience isn't proof. Blog posts aren't proof. Feelings aren't proof. None of this is going to help someone looking for answers. Fleshing all of this out is ultimately helpful.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize the standard for participating in discussions here was providing proof.
If you make a claim that your way of eating is superior? Sure is. If you just want to mind your business and do your thing because it suits you? Have at it.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »So, with what the lovely kgeyser said in mind, would any clean eater care to tackle the "healthy" argument they kept forwarding?
Remember, it was stipulated that both A and B were meeting their macro and micro goals.
Adding: I'd also like to know, since it was mentioned earlier in the thread, what barometer we're supposed to use for "healthy" since apparently fitness, good bloodwork, and a good body weight/composition aren't enough.
As a "non-clean eater", you're supposed to be able to prove that your life will be at least as long and healthy as it would have been if you'd been a "clean eater".
Good luck with that.
The logical fails keep on rolling, heh.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Quinnstinct wrote: »I find it interesting the CICO people who think eating Twinkies within their calorie goals are completely ignoring long term health effects. What we eat directly relates to gut health and overall wellness. Just because you weigh less doesn't mean you are healthier.
Oh do tell us about these long term health effects? I posted my info a few pages back but maybe they need repeating-I've lost almost 60lbs focusing on CICO/eating at a deficit, while I continued to eat all the foods I enjoy. I did not arbitrarily cut out any foods based on a fad diet that doesn't even have a clear definition.
My diet continued to include fast food, 'processed' foods, packaged foods, frozen foods, food out of a can, box, bag; food that has commercials, that has ingredients that are hard to pronounce and foods that are (gasp) inside of the store's parameter.
Not only did I lose the weight but I also IMPROVED my health in the process. Every single marker that my doctor uses to evaluate health I now pass with flying colors, including having a normal glucose number again. I have a healthy bmi, I have a healthy bf%, I am considered very low risk for heart disease, my blood pressure is great, my cholesterol is great etc etc etc. I lost the weight with CICO and focusing on eating at a calorie deficit, and I am in fact healthier. I've also been able to maintain the loss, and the good health, for over two years now and I'm eating in a way that's sustainable to me, long term
edited for grammar0 -
Read more carefully, I'm talking about people who use extreme examples of CICO like eating 1200 calories of twinkies.0
-
If anyone would like to pose a well constructed question I'm happy to put together a thorough search of the medical literature.0
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
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions