The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »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.
This. Find what you buy into and what enables you to eat a variety, get the macros/micros you need and the right calorie deficit, and that you most easily can follow long-term.
If that isn't true, it doesn't matter one iota if there is some small advantage to one eating plan or another. And, any advantage is frankly speculative at this point with the bulk of studies pointing to the dodo effect with diet plans. People lose the same amount, regain the same amount, and when eating ad libitum end up pretty much consuming the same macros.
Okay - eat 1500 calories of cake - and I will eat 1500 calories of pure nutritious food (as I do now but MORE) and I will flat out not only lose fat pounds but I will retain my muscle mass over the course of one year.
I did the above - it doesn't work. DOESN'T WORK.
You can't outrun a bad diet.
But, it's worked for other people who have actually documented it working. I wonder why you are different?
I was per-diabetic - on the diet I had for the course of 6 years owning the business PLUS three years post-sale of the business, I ate like crap.
I have to exercise, have to eat right. That's it. I cannot eat any other way. There's no way around it. If you want to continue to dispute it and libel me, we can let a judge decide.
So...you believe that... asking what makes you different from the people on here and in documented studies who have lost weight and improved health markers eating crap, rather than assuming that you aren't different and are lying, is...libel? Are you sure you understand the meaning of that word?0 -
I eat chocolate every day, and not the expensive dark stuff, Reese's cups and *kitten* like that. Still lose. Just because you think you have to eat 100% clean and deprive yourself of everything "dirty", doesn't mean a person can't lose weight eating the things they want. They can. I and countless others are proof that you can eat what you want and still lose weight as long as it fits into your calorie goals.0
-
I'm sure that in the overall spectrum of humanity, there are special snowflake outliers for whom nutrition works differently/oddly, for whatever reason. But I do wonder at someone who is both claiming to be a special snowflake, and also states his experience is a universal fact that should apply to everyone.0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »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.
This. Find what you buy into and what enables you to eat a variety, get the macros/micros you need and the right calorie deficit, and that you most easily can follow long-term.
If that isn't true, it doesn't matter one iota if there is some small advantage to one eating plan or another. And, any advantage is frankly speculative at this point with the bulk of studies pointing to the dodo effect with diet plans. People lose the same amount, regain the same amount, and when eating ad libitum end up pretty much consuming the same macros.
Okay - eat 1500 calories of cake - and I will eat 1500 calories of pure nutritious food (as I do now but MORE) and I will flat out not only lose fat pounds but I will retain my muscle mass over the course of one year.
I did the above - it doesn't work. DOESN'T WORK.
You can't outrun a bad diet.
Love how the challenge is that one person should eat a 1500 calorie diet consisting entirely of cake while you eat 1500 calories of a "pure nutritious food" (i.e. varied).
Why isn't the challenge that one person eat 1500 calories of cake while you eat 1500 calories of, I dunno, celery? Bet you would feel worse.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Thats another thing the "clean" discussion
I gained weight eating clean
Just because i ate to much very simple
And with clean i mean totally organic own grown vegetables i made my own cheese and bread own eggs Milk from my neighbor farmer and flour from another neighbor. Meat ( pork and beef) from a breeder a little further on the road I had fruit trees and what i didn't had i swapped with other garden owners around me.
made mayonnaise and jams cakes etc
All very very clean like people call in now. I call it grown on in my own garden
But the moment i became sedentary ( and i mean i couldn't walk at all for months and months) and i kept eating the same healthy clean food i did....i gained.
Really i know it is hard to believe but losing weight is eating less than you burn ( eating whatever)
gaining weight is eating more than you burn
I dont want to blow anybodies bubble but it is really that simple.
(oh and you have to weigh your food on a scale and not going by cups and spoons and servings sizes. Because you still wont know how much you eat when you dont weigh your food)0 -
You also have to take hormonal issues in to account. Assuming all things being equal between 2 people yes, they will lose the same amount of weight. If they vary in terms of hormonal responses, then no they won't lose the same weight on a isocaloric diet.
That is not specific to "clean" or unclean though.
0 -
Wouldn't being pre diabetic disqualify you from this example?0
-
You also have to take hormonal issues in to account. Assuming all things being equal between 2 people yes, they will lose the same amount of weight. If they vary in terms of hormonal responses, then no they won't lose the same weight on a isocaloric diet.
What does this have to do with eating clean?0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »I'm sure that in the overall spectrum of humanity, there are special snowflake outliers for whom nutrition works differently/oddly, for whatever reason. But I do wonder at someone who is both claiming to be a special snowflake, and also states his experience is a universal fact that should apply to everyone.
hugs for pwning
(Is that still a thing? pwning? That's what the kids say, right?)
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »I'm sure that in the overall spectrum of humanity, there are special snowflake outliers for whom nutrition works differently/oddly, for whatever reason. But I do wonder at someone who is both claiming to be a special snowflake, and also states his experience is a universal fact that should apply to everyone.
Right!?0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Okay - eat 1500 calories of cake ....
I did the above - it doesn't work. DOESN'T WORK.
Maybe it's just me, but somehow I really find it hard to believe that you ate nothing but cake all the time, yet somehow you were careful enough to weigh and track your cake intake to never go above 1500 calories. I also find it hard to believe that even if you had a nearly sedentary lifestyle that you would gain significant weight at 1500 cal/day.
That's not even one serving of cheesecake at The Cheesecake Factory. (Lord, I miss that place).
If you want to take me to court, so be it. Might be educational. But please keep it in small claims court so we can go on Judge Judy. She cracks me up.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Person A - because I was Person B at one time and it didn't work.
there is always one….
care to expound on that? Dare I even ask ….
Sure...
I ate like crap two years ago. Worked out like crazy. Ate whatever I wanted but stayed within 2000 calories. I was burning upwards to 1000 calories per workout - 4 days a week.
Didn't lose a pound. NOT ONE POUND. PT facility has all my results.
Then I changed. Last March, I cleaned out my diet and rebuilt it from the ground level. Ate just veggies, no starches, no sweets, no added sugars, no processed foods, just pure unadulterated food. I worked out EVEN LESS. I was eating 3 large Haas avocados a day. 10 oz of salmon. Eggs in the morning. The one thing I wouldn't eat was fruit - minus the avocado - I didn't want any sugar.
Lost 2# per week and my calorie intake was MORE. Ramped up my workouts and by the time I got to MFP, I already had lost the majority of the weight.
Anyone want to nay-say it, see you in a court of law because I have all the data - blood work, weight, PT, doctor, nutritionist - you name it. All documented evidence. 100%.
Former chocolatier here. At one point in 2012, I was 240#. I actually gained more weight after I sold the business. Lack of activity, crap dietary regimen.
Now I am 165# and I couldn't be happier with my diet. Need to see what it is, as I always say, diary is public.
Chipotle is "clean" and unprocessed?0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »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.
This. Find what you buy into and what enables you to eat a variety, get the macros/micros you need and the right calorie deficit, and that you most easily can follow long-term.
If that isn't true, it doesn't matter one iota if there is some small advantage to one eating plan or another. And, any advantage is frankly speculative at this point with the bulk of studies pointing to the dodo effect with diet plans. People lose the same amount, regain the same amount, and when eating ad libitum end up pretty much consuming the same macros.
Okay - eat 1500 calories of cake - and I will eat 1500 calories of pure nutritious food (as I do now but MORE) and I will flat out not only lose fat pounds but I will retain my muscle mass over the course of one year.
I did the above - it doesn't work. DOESN'T WORK.
You can't outrun a bad diet.
But, it's worked for other people who have actually documented it working. I wonder why you are different?
I was per-diabetic - on the diet I had for the course of 6 years owning the business PLUS three years post-sale of the business, I ate like crap.
I have to exercise, have to eat right. That's it. I cannot eat any other way. There's no way around it. If you want to continue to dispute it and libel me, we can let a judge decide.
I dispute it. Good luck with your frivolous lawsuit.0 -
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »You also have to take hormonal issues in to account. Assuming all things being equal between 2 people yes, they will lose the same amount of weight. If they vary in terms of hormonal responses, then no they won't lose the same weight on a isocaloric diet.
That is not specific to "clean" or unclean though.
This should answer @lifting4lis as well. I am replying to this part of the original post
" 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 "
THe above quote is on a isocoloric diet. Llater it states that the 2 people will both lose the same amount of weight. Some research shows this isn't the case based on hormonal factors as I mentioned. Thus, what i was replying to.
Wouldn't those hormonal factors fall under the umbrella of medical conditions though?0 -
Seriously, this thread is going to be locked down if this turns into another train wreck so people can argue about things not related to the OP. The discussion has pretty clear parameters between the two hypothetical individuals, so let's stick to that, please.0 -
The question was
Two identical people ( notice the keyword identical)
Who do you believe loses more, person (A) who eat clean 1500 calories or the other person (B) who eats 1500 calories and eat not clean.
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »You also have to take hormonal issues in to account. Assuming all things being equal between 2 people yes, they will lose the same amount of weight. If they vary in terms of hormonal responses, then no they won't lose the same weight on a isocaloric diet.
That is not specific to "clean" or unclean though.
This should answer @lifting4lis as well. I am replying to this part of the original post
" 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 "
THe above quote is on a isocoloric diet. Llater it states that the 2 people will both lose the same amount of weight. Some research shows this isn't the case based on hormonal factors as I mentioned. Thus, what i was replying to.
Wouldn't those hormonal factors fall under the umbrella of medical conditions though?
To "Stay on topic" I can't answer your question directly. But I can say this, Eating clean vs dirty(high carb/processed foods as per the example in the OP) doesn't result in the same results for EVERYONE, assuming it's isocaloric diet.Which are the claims of the OP.
The OP stated neither of the hypothetical people had any medical conditions.
0 -
identical is the keyword!
There is no difference between them only their kind of food intake.
to make it easy lets say no medical conditions
for neither of them0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I agree 100% with the OP.
My biggest peeve with this debate is some people hear "moderation" or "flexible diet" or whatever you want to call it, and automatically assume that means eating nothing but cake, candy, fast food, etc. Drives me crazy. Sure, I eat some "dirty" foods. I have a chunky kit kat probably twice a week. Sometimes I have canned soup, frozen chicken fingers, bottled salad dressing. But I also eat lots of lean proteins like chicken and fish, lots of veggies, some fruit. I've lost 48lbs since January 5th.
Last year I decided I was just going to eat "clean". I ate zero "dirty" foods. None. (Well, I guess depending on who you ask, since everyone's definition of clean varies). I did not weigh anything, measure anything, and made no attempt at portion control. The first two months I lost about 15lbs. After that, nothing. Not a pound. After 3 months of that, I came to the realization that if I wanted to lose weight, I had to count calories and watch portions. Period.0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »The question was
Two identical people ( notice the keyword identical)
Who do you believe loses more, person (A) who eat clean 1500 calories or the other person (B) who eats 1500 calories and eat not clean.
Just to clarify, I don't think the OP actually stated a calorie intake, rather that both people are eating at a 500 cal deficit (which would factor in any discrepancies in TDEE). Two people eating the same number of calories will only lose the same amount of weight if they also have the same deficit. (Owl, I know you know this
) 0 -
Obviously, if they are eating the same calories and macros, but one is clean and one is not, and they have the same metabolism and body composition and their endocrine systems work the same, and their activity level is the same, and the ONLY difference is the clean/not clean food...then they will lose the same amount of weight. Obviously. We've asked repeatedly for one iota of actual evidence otherwise, and no one has ever been able to provide it.
I mean...they can't even provide a definitive answer as to what "clean" even means.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »You also have to take hormonal issues in to account. Assuming all things being equal between 2 people yes, they will lose the same amount of weight. If they vary in terms of hormonal responses, then no they won't lose the same weight on a isocaloric diet.
That is not specific to "clean" or unclean though.
This should answer @lifting4lis as well. I am replying to this part of the original post
" 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 "
THe above quote is on a isocoloric diet. Llater it states that the 2 people will both lose the same amount of weight. Some research shows this isn't the case based on hormonal factors as I mentioned. Thus, what i was replying to.
Wouldn't those hormonal factors fall under the umbrella of medical conditions though?
To "Stay on topic" I can't answer your question directly. But I can say this, Eating clean vs dirty(high carb/processed foods as per the example in the OP) doesn't result in the same results for EVERYONE, assuming it's isocaloric diet.Which are the claims of the OP.Nony_Mouse wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »You also have to take hormonal issues in to account. Assuming all things being equal between 2 people yes, they will lose the same amount of weight. If they vary in terms of hormonal responses, then no they won't lose the same weight on a isocaloric diet.
That is not specific to "clean" or unclean though.
This should answer @lifting4lis as well. I am replying to this part of the original post
" 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 "
THe above quote is on a isocoloric diet. Llater it states that the 2 people will both lose the same amount of weight. Some research shows this isn't the case based on hormonal factors as I mentioned. Thus, what i was replying to.
Wouldn't those hormonal factors fall under the umbrella of medical conditions though?
To "Stay on topic" I can't answer your question directly. But I can say this, Eating clean vs dirty(high carb/processed foods as per the example in the OP) doesn't result in the same results for EVERYONE, assuming it's isocaloric diet.Which are the claims of the OP.
Yes, they would
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »The question was
Two identical people ( notice the keyword identical)
Who do you believe loses more, person (A) who eat clean 1500 calories or the other person (B) who eats 1500 calories and eat not clean.
Just to clarify, I don't think the OP actually stated a calorie intake, rather that both people are eating at a 500 cal deficit (which would factor in any discrepancies in TDEE). Two people eating the same number of calories will only lose the same amount of weight if they also have the same deficit. (Owl, I know you know this )
yes he did
look here from his first post
" 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."
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Person A - because I was Person B at one time and it didn't work.
there is always one….
care to expound on that? Dare I even ask ….
Sure...
I ate like crap two years ago. Worked out like crazy. Ate whatever I wanted but stayed within 2000 calories. I was burning upwards to 1000 calories per workout - 4 days a week.
Didn't lose a pound. NOT ONE POUND. PT facility has all my results.
Then I changed. Last March, I cleaned out my diet and rebuilt it from the ground level. Ate just veggies, no starches, no sweets, no added sugars, no processed foods, just pure unadulterated food. I worked out EVEN LESS. I was eating 3 large Haas avocados a day. 10 oz of salmon. Eggs in the morning. The one thing I wouldn't eat was fruit - minus the avocado - I didn't want any sugar.
Lost 2# per week and my calorie intake was MORE. Ramped up my workouts and by the time I got to MFP, I already had lost the majority of the weight.
Anyone want to nay-say it, see you in a court of law because I have all the data - blood work, weight, PT, doctor, nutritionist - you name it. All documented evidence. 100%.
Former chocolatier here. At one point in 2012, I was 240#. I actually gained more weight after I sold the business. Lack of activity, crap dietary regimen.
Now I am 165# and I couldn't be happier with my diet. Need to see what it is, as I always say, diary is public.
so you replaced calorie dense food with less calorie dense food and lost weight. Why is this so ground breaking?0 -
Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I think, sadly, I'm proof that Person A and B will lose the same amount. I'm doing well, 30 lbs since 3/4. I eat clean some days and others I'm FILTHY (though I have to say, I really hate this clean v dirty bs), a dirty birdie. My coworker eats clean. That whole eat like a cave woman thing. I eat like a cave woman with access to some great food stores. I eat some canned soup, I'm no stranger to some good chocolate, far be it from me to turn down a fat free Pringle (a sin). We have the same calorie limit. I'm actually a bit ahead in loss only because I really adhere to my calorie limit.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
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions