The Clean Eating Myth

Options
1…4243454748…50

Replies

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,898 Member
    Options
    Sorry kgeyser - didn't see your post before I posted.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    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.
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,203 Member
    Options
    draznyth wrote: »
    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." ;)
  • Quinnstinct
    Quinnstinct Posts: 274 Member
    Options
    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.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    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.

  • 3bambi3
    3bambi3 Posts: 1,650 Member
    Options
    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?
  • FitForL1fe
    FitForL1fe Posts: 1,872 Member
    Options
    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?
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Options
    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.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,898 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    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.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    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.

  • KrissyRawrz
    KrissyRawrz Posts: 342 Member
    Options
    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?
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,203 Member
    Options
    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.
  • FitForL1fe
    FitForL1fe Posts: 1,872 Member
    Options
    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.

    tumblr_ll1xhhM8aU1qby0xn.gif
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    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.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    stealthq wrote: »
    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.

  • Sarasmaintaining
    Sarasmaintaining Posts: 1,027 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    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 grammar
  • Quinnstinct
    Quinnstinct Posts: 274 Member
    Options
    Read more carefully, I'm talking about people who use extreme examples of CICO like eating 1200 calories of twinkies.
  • Quinnstinct
    Quinnstinct Posts: 274 Member
    Options
    If anyone would like to pose a well constructed question I'm happy to put together a thorough search of the medical literature.

Categories