The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
Quinnstinct wrote: »Read more carefully, I'm talking about people who use extreme examples of CICO like eating 1200 calories of twinkies.
Who does that? Who even eats that way? What does that have to do with this discussion?
0 -
Quinnstinct wrote: »Read more carefully, I'm talking about people who use extreme examples of CICO like eating 1200 calories of twinkies.
Quote one, just one, who makes the claim that the majority of your calories can be obtained from the likes of Twinkies, from a health, and not a weight loss aspect. Ain't gonna happen, but nice try.0 -
mamapeach910 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.
That's the subtext I keep getting from the "clean eating" posts, anyway.
I'm waiting for the "clean eater" to prove that their lives are longer and healthier than they would have been if they were a "non-clean eater", since they're the ones making the claim. But, I'm not holding my breath.0 -
Quinnstinct wrote: »If anyone would like to pose a well constructed question I'm happy to put together a thorough search of the medical literature.
the question is "wtf are you talking about"
or
"who are these imaginary CICO-ers"
holla back lmk what you find on pubmed0 -
Quinnstinct wrote: »If anyone would like to pose a well constructed question I'm happy to put together a thorough search of the medical literature.
Why did you introduce an all-Twinkie diet into the discussion?
Even Haub, the Twinkie diet guy, didn't eat all Twinkies.
Why don't you answer the questions put forth to you about your assertion so that you remain somewhat on topic.
The question was posed regarding two hypothetical dieters. A eats clean. B eats a balanced diet including unprocessed foods, processed foods, and treats. For the intents of this discussion, they are biologically the same on all levels. They each have no health problems. They are both maintaining the same 500 calorie caloric deficit. It is also stipulated that both are hitting their macro/micro targets.
It has been conceded by the clean eaters that they will both lose the same amount of weight, however, not happy to leave it stand there, they have left their remarks with the caveat that A will be healthier.
How so? What ill health will befall B from his modest treat/processed food consumption under the stipulation that he's meeting his nutritional needs?
0 -
KrissyRawrz wrote: »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?
They might have just needed to take a break to eat at maintenance for a bit. Could have been a bit of metabolic adaptation going on or they might have just been eating too much.
0 -
Wow this is a crazy long thread. It is absolutely true that different foods have different effects on hormones and inflammation (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/gut-microbiome-bacteria-weight-loss). Researchers found that drinking sugar water increased markers of inflammation, while drinking OJ with the same amount of sugar in it did not. They go on to explain how they are beginning to think that inflammation, gut bacteria, and weight are all tied together, and argue that eating a wide variety of minimally processed foods can favorably change the gut microbiota as well as inflammation, and that in turn this MIGHT lead to better success with weight loss efforts (but more research is needed).
So, a calorie is a calorie, but the effect that calorie has on the body might matter. If you eat something that triggers inflammation and a rush of insulin, you are likely going to feel much hungrier a lot sooner than if you eat something that the body digests more slowly, and there might be more far-reaching consequences than we currently understand. I like the business analogy I saw earlier about how $10 spent is $10 spent, but if you spend it on something beneficial, it might help you out more down the road than if you spend it on something trivial. Likewise, 1200 calories is 1200 calories, whether it's made up of whole grains, fruits and veggies, and lean meats or junk food. But there is good reason to believe that the 1200 calories of healthy food is going to benefit you more (for a number of reasons) in the long run. Of course, if you are morbidly obese and eating junk food day in and day out now, and you cut down on the portions of junk food enough that you reach a healthy BMI, you are going to be healthier than you were; but that still doesn't mean that you are going to be as healthy as you could be.
All that said, I've followed some really strict diets in the past for both weight-loss and health reasons, and the bottom line is that you have to find something that works for you and that you can maintain life-long. For me, and probably for most people, that means making a serious effort to eat mostly healthy and minimally-processed foods day in and day out, but making room for hot dogs and cake at my niece's birthday party, or take-out when my husband and I both get home too late from work.0 -
I just ate a doughnut. The doughnut was made from scratch earlier today at a place within a block of my office. It has only fresh ingredients, although not organic. Still, I would most definitely consider that doughnut clean.
And delicious. And within my calorie goal.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »KrissyRawrz wrote: »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?
They might have just needed to take a break to eat at maintenance for a bit. Could have been a bit of metabolic adaptation going on or they might have just been eating too much.
Or they didn't recalculate their deficit after losing close to 80 lbs. A person 80 lbs lighter would need to eat quite a bit less than when they started in order to continue to lose weight. Cleanliness of diet matters not in relation to this.
0 -
I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.0
-
I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
It was stipulated that the nutrient content was the same, so the sodium content would have been equal.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
It was stipulated that the nutrient content was the same, so the sodium content would have been equal.
For the sake of valid discussion, and not trying to extrapolate a possible underlying belief, it actually was not stipulated in the OP that the nutrient content was the same, only that micros and macros were met.0 -
^^Yes! Finally, someone mentioning gut bacteria! When I eat anti-inflammatory foods, I feel worlds better AND lose weight faster. Anyway, really great post, Mimi. Many good points there.Wow this is a crazy long thread. It is absolutely true that different foods have different effects on hormones and inflammation (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/gut-microbiome-bacteria-weight-loss). Researchers found that drinking sugar water increased markers of inflammation, while drinking OJ with the same amount of sugar in it did not. They go on to explain how they are beginning to think that inflammation, gut bacteria, and weight are all tied together, and argue that eating a wide variety of minimally processed foods can favorably change the gut microbiota as well as inflammation, and that in turn this MIGHT lead to better success with weight loss efforts (but more research is needed).
So, a calorie is a calorie, but the effect that calorie has on the body might matter. If you eat something that triggers inflammation and a rush of insulin, you are likely going to feel much hungrier a lot sooner than if you eat something that the body digests more slowly, and there might be more far-reaching consequences than we currently understand. I like the business analogy I saw earlier about how $10 spent is $10 spent, but if you spend it on something beneficial, it might help you out more down the road than if you spend it on something trivial. Likewise, 1200 calories is 1200 calories, whether it's made up of whole grains, fruits and veggies, and lean meats or junk food. But there is good reason to believe that the 1200 calories of healthy food is going to benefit you more (for a number of reasons) in the long run. Of course, if you are morbidly obese and eating junk food day in and day out now, and you cut down on the portions of junk food enough that you reach a healthy BMI, you are going to be healthier than you were; but that still doesn't mean that you are going to be as healthy as you could be.
All that said, I've followed some really strict diets in the past for both weight-loss and health reasons, and the bottom line is that you have to find something that works for you and that you can maintain life-long. For me, and probably for most people, that means making a serious effort to eat mostly healthy and minimally-processed foods day in and day out, but making room for hot dogs and cake at my niece's birthday party, or take-out when my husband and I both get home too late from work.
0 -
Both will lose weight. A deficit is still a deficit. The quality of the food will impact each on a cellular level. Obviously the non clean eater will be filling their body with much more artificial ingredients.0
-
mantium999 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
It was stipulated that the nutrient content was the same, so the sodium content would have been equal.
For the sake of valid discussion, and not trying to extrapolate a possible underlying belief, it actually was not stipulated in the OP that the nutrient content was the same, only that micros and macros were met.
Well, that's sort of what I meant. Sodium is a micronutrient, yes?
0 -
The gut microbiome stuff is super interesting. Probably a good idea to actually do the crossover design and see over time if you get a difference, perhaps measuring inflammation levels along the way.0
-
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »i dont see anything to discuss about for me...i believe they eat 1500 calories so lose the same ( if they are identical)
Fitness wise or health wise is a whole other discussion.
^^^^^^
What they said
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
It was stipulated that the nutrient content was the same, so the sodium content would have been equal.
For the sake of valid discussion, and not trying to extrapolate a possible underlying belief, it actually was not stipulated in the OP that the nutrient content was the same, only that micros and macros were met.
Well, that's sort of what I meant. Sodium is a micronutrient, yes?
Absolutely it is. I just see the statement of micros being met as different from micros being equal, in the sense that I think the OP intended that as a statement of person A and B consuming the minimum amount of micronutrients for the body's functional needs. A variance in the actual amount of micros, and how it pertains to water retention, seems a valid hypothesis for a slight variance in total weight, while also implying that person A and B are of equal fat, lbm, and overall health.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions