The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »Person A will lose more, as person B will retain toxinz that make them fat.
Toxins huh....maybe a cleanse would help with that.
(sarcasm)0 -
girlviernes wrote: »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 ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?0 -
No medical issues where mentoined in the second example. So no results wouldn't be the same, and keep in mind, he's saying "weight" which is also not correct. Women obviously have more water weight issues than men. But I'll ignore that fact and assume he's talking about pure fat.usernameenvy wrote: »Hormonal issues would fall in the medical issues category i believe so if both your test subjects have no 'medical issues' then they should lose the same, no?
The issue I was trying to point out, is there are many people that aren't aware of their hormonal situation which can have a negative effect on weight loss, even if the proper calorie deficit is in place.
bam. truth.
also: you can be within the "normal" range for values re test x (e.g. on the low end of the average normal range), yet still not be in an optimal hormonal situation for you. this often comes up for people with thyroid issues.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »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 ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »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 ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
But we're assuming for the purposes of this discussion that there are no medical issues. An undiagnosed medical issue is still a medical issue.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »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 ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
But in the OP's example, the OP clearly stated no medical conditions.
Rather than conflate things, let's all just assume that every aspect of Persons A and B is the same...height, weight, hormones, body composition, caloric intake, macro breakdown, etc.
The ONLY difference is whether or not the food is "clean."
0 -
Also, I have PCOS. Pretty sure eating 'clean' would make squat all difference to my weight loss. Moderating my carb intake, however, was necessary when my weight was higher. You can do that without 'clean' eating.0
-
This is an "All Things Being Equal" scenario. When it exists, then FINE! If all you are measuring is the one-dimensional result of losing weight, and are satisfied and get those results, Bravo!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….
For a many people, All Things Are Not Equal! There are other factors (whether they are measuring/tracking them or not) which are weighing into the scenario, causing this simplistic model to NOT WORK.
It's because the body is not simple math. If CICO is all you are interested in, then you are not interested in physiology, or else you don't really care enough when other signs of problems (showing up as symptoms a person is having) are causing people to fail with the CICO mindset.
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »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 ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
But in the OP's example, the OP clearly stated no medical conditions.
Rather than conflate things, let's all just assume that every aspect of Persons A and B is the same...height, weight, hormones, body composition, caloric intake, macro breakdown, etc.
The ONLY difference is whether or not the food is "clean."
They can't be different genders, then.0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »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 ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
But in the OP's example, the OP clearly stated no medical conditions.
Rather than conflate things, let's all just assume that every aspect of Persons A and B is the same...height, weight, hormones, body composition, caloric intake, macro breakdown, etc.
The ONLY difference is whether or not the food is "clean."
They can't be different genders, then.
I must have missed the part where it was suggested that they were different genders. The question is regarding clean vs. unclean food. Gender should have nothing to do with it.0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »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 ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
But in the OP's example, the OP clearly stated no medical conditions.
Rather than conflate things, let's all just assume that every aspect of Persons A and B is the same...height, weight, hormones, body composition, caloric intake, macro breakdown, etc.
The ONLY difference is whether or not the food is "clean."
They can't be different genders, then.
I must have missed the part where it was suggested that they were different genders. The question is regarding clean vs. unclean food. Gender should have nothing to do with it.
ndj threw a new scenario at us, everything else the same (including lack of medical conditions, even if it was implied, not stated), but with a 200 lb male and 160 lb female. Same deficit of 500 cals.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »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 ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
It's a hypothetical. You're changing the hypothetical based on an assumption you might make about a hypothetical situation?
We've been shifting in and out of generalities and two different hypothetical situations.
In reality, people are commonly mis- or underdiagnosed for a schwack of reasons. But ok sure, let's say these doctors and their labs did the exclusions perfectly, I'm fine with that.0 -
But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.0
-
But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.
Actually that's not the case, there was a study done on people with insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance. Their BMR was calculated through respiratory methods(had a few drinks can't recall the name of it at the moment). They where put on a 400 calorie deficit. The results varied based on diet, some did high carb some did low carb.
There might be small differences in weightloss when factoring in different macros, because different macros have different thermogenic effects while being digested (some require more calories to digest than others, some contain more indigestible fiber than others.) That still doesn't address clean vs. unclean.0 -
But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.
Actually that's not the case, there was a study done on people with insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance. Their BMR was calculated through respiratory methods(had a few drinks can't recall the name of it at the moment). They where put on a 400 calorie deficit. The results varied based on diet, some did high carb some did low carb.
What does insulin have to do with it? If their BMR was calculated, then that has taken any medical conditions in to account. So, the 400 calorie deficit has already included any potential adjustments relating to insulin sensitivity/resistance.
I still argue that there is no difference. Maybe high carb/low carb can produce differences in the CO part of the equation, but if those have already been taken in to account, and the high carbers are eating at a 500 calorie deficit (taking in to account medical conditions, macros etc), and the low carbers are also eating at a 500 calorie deficit (again, taking the same things in to account), then the would lose the same weight.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that various medical conditions, macro content of foods, etc have an effect on rates of weight loss. However, they are all part of the many, many factors that make up the calories out portion of the CICO equation.0 -
Its CICO. Period.
Different diets with different macros can affect satiety, ease of adherence, NEAT, etc, but its all CICO. I am too lazy to find it know, but I believe all controlled ward studies (ie not self-reported but food/exercise strictly controlled) showed no significant difference.
Clean eating is for all intents and purposes myth with regards to weight loss. Body recomp is different.0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.
Actually that's not the case, there was a study done on people with insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance. Their BMR was calculated through respiratory methods(had a few drinks can't recall the name of it at the moment). They where put on a 400 calorie deficit. The results varied based on diet, some did high carb some did low carb.
There might be small differences in weightloss when factoring in different macros, because different macros have different thermogenic effects while being digested (some require more calories to digest than others, some contain more indigestible fiber than others.) That still doesn't address clean vs. unclean.
I believe they got half of the insulin sensitive people and put them on a high carb diet, and put the other half on a low carb diet, same wsa true for the insulin resistance people. The insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diet, the insulin resistance people lost more on low carb diet. The insulin sensitive people lost more weight on the high carb diet. As already mentioned the calorie deficit was 400 calories per person.
Yet again, it had nothing to do with clean vs. unclean, which is the subject of the thread ....0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.
Actually that's not the case, there was a study done on people with insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance. Their BMR was calculated through respiratory methods(had a few drinks can't recall the name of it at the moment). They where put on a 400 calorie deficit. The results varied based on diet, some did high carb some did low carb.
There might be small differences in weightloss when factoring in different macros, because different macros have different thermogenic effects while being digested (some require more calories to digest than others, some contain more indigestible fiber than others.) That still doesn't address clean vs. unclean.
I believe they got half of the insulin sensitive people and put them on a high carb diet, and put the other half on a low carb diet, same wsa true for the insulin resistance people. The insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diet, the insulin resistance people lost more on low carb diet. The insulin sensitive people lost more weight on the high carb diet. As already mentioned the calorie deficit was 400 calories per person.
Yet again, it had nothing to do with clean vs. unclean, which is the subject of the thread ....
What is unclean eating? processed foods, usually high in sugar/carbs. hence the high carb group.
Yeah it's not been defined I don't think. My knee-jerk definition of clean eating is "whole grains, lean meats, veg, healthy fats, nuts", would include dairy and fruits and higher-carb veg, some might not.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions