The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
lOL typical..
reference study and then when asked for said study say "I don't have the time to find them" yet, you have all day to post on here but you don't have ten minutes to find a study?FunkyTobias wrote: »
Burden of proof falls on the claimant. If you want to claim they exist, then it's up to you to provide them.
Furthermore, you can't be "arsed [sic] to spend all day looking for them", but you expect us to?
Oh looky here, I found it. Article + link to study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/05/12/why-you-cant-lose-weight-but-your-best-friend-can-on-the-same-diet/
Forbes is not a peer reviewed source...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
lOL typical..
reference study and then when asked for said study say "I don't have the time to find them" yet, you have all day to post on here but you don't have ten minutes to find a study?FunkyTobias wrote: »
Burden of proof falls on the claimant. If you want to claim they exist, then it's up to you to provide them.
Furthermore, you can't be "arsed [sic] to spend all day looking for them", but you expect us to?
Oh looky here, I found it. Article + link to study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/05/12/why-you-cant-lose-weight-but-your-best-friend-can-on-the-same-diet/
Forbes is not a peer reviewed source...
The link to the study itself is included in the article. Guess you didn't read that far (second paragraph):
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2015/05/06/db14-1881
Interesting quote from the article:
"Contrary to the popular idea that cutting 3,500 calories equates to losing a pound, the researchers found the loss of one pound equated to anywhere from 1,560 to 3,000 calories depending on the person."
0 -
If I go to Poland, I can't pronounce the names of most foods. Does that mean all their food is dirty?
I knew they were shifty
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
lOL typical..
reference study and then when asked for said study say "I don't have the time to find them" yet, you have all day to post on here but you don't have ten minutes to find a study?FunkyTobias wrote: »
Burden of proof falls on the claimant. If you want to claim they exist, then it's up to you to provide them.
Furthermore, you can't be "arsed [sic] to spend all day looking for them", but you expect us to?
Oh looky here, I found it. Article + link to study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/05/12/why-you-cant-lose-weight-but-your-best-friend-can-on-the-same-diet/
Methinks that you don't understand what "deficit" means.
The "thrifty" phenotype downregulated energy expenditure in response to underfeeding, so they did not have the same deficit.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
lOL typical..
reference study and then when asked for said study say "I don't have the time to find them" yet, you have all day to post on here but you don't have ten minutes to find a study?FunkyTobias wrote: »
Burden of proof falls on the claimant. If you want to claim they exist, then it's up to you to provide them.
Furthermore, you can't be "arsed [sic] to spend all day looking for them", but you expect us to?
Oh looky here, I found it. Article + link to study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/05/12/why-you-cant-lose-weight-but-your-best-friend-can-on-the-same-diet/
Methinks that you don't understand what "deficit" means.
The "thrifty" phenotype downregulated energy expenditure in response to underfeeding, so they did not have the same deficit.
So basically it means there is no way to calculate deficit, barring the acquisition of a metabolic chamber. But it does show that people at the same starting weight who cut the same amount of calories and exercise the same amount could lose wildly different amount of weight...
Then they spent the next six weeks consuming only a liquid diet of Ensure that contained 50 percent of of the calories required to maintain their weight (individualized to each person) and not exercising. Contrary to the popular idea that cutting 3,500 calories equates to losing a pound, the researchers found the loss of one pound equated to anywhere from 1,560 to 3,000 calories depending on the person.
“We all have our own internal fuel efficiencies when it comes to our bodies’ abilities to handle calories,” Freedhoff said. “This isn’t in and of itself news, of course. Ten different people with the same degree of caloric excess or restriction will vary in the amount of weight they’ll gain or lose as a consequence.
So getting back to ndj's original premise, we would need a metabolic chamber to ensure the deficit was exactly the same. Only then could we answer the question. Perhaps someone could propose this to the scientists.
0 -
I personally do not care what the doctors or anyone else says. It definitely made a difference for me! I had tried everything to drop the last 7 pounds. For months I was working out like a madwoman, staying within my correct calorie limit, etc. Until I switched to eating clean, it would NOT go away. Within 3 weeks of eating clean the last 7 were gone. Like a miracle for me.
0 -
I personally do not care what the doctors or anyone else says. It definitely made a difference for me! I had tried everything to drop the last 7 pounds. For months I was working out like a madwoman, staying within my correct calorie limit, etc. Until I switched to eating clean, it would NOT go away. Within 3 weeks of eating clean the last 7 were gone. Like a miracle for me.
Do you use a food scale? And how consistent is your food diary?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
lOL typical..
reference study and then when asked for said study say "I don't have the time to find them" yet, you have all day to post on here but you don't have ten minutes to find a study?FunkyTobias wrote: »
Burden of proof falls on the claimant. If you want to claim they exist, then it's up to you to provide them.
Furthermore, you can't be "arsed [sic] to spend all day looking for them", but you expect us to?
Oh looky here, I found it. Article + link to study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/05/12/why-you-cant-lose-weight-but-your-best-friend-can-on-the-same-diet/
Forbes is not a peer reviewed source...
The link to the study itself is included in the article. Guess you didn't read that far (second paragraph):
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2015/05/06/db14-1881
Interesting quote from the article:
"Contrary to the popular idea that cutting 3,500 calories equates to losing a pound, the researchers found the loss of one pound equated to anywhere from 1,560 to 3,000 calories depending on the person."
I get people lose differently.... but, how does this study answer the original question about clean eating vs non-clean eating.
I would make the assumption that this would just mean the original question would assume that both people had the "thrifty" phenotype?
0 -
What people should understand is that processed foods don't really fill you up that much. You end up craving more and more and thus go over the calorie limits. Sure you can watch your portions with them and not eat as much, but you still end up hungry whereas if you are eating healthier foods higher in nutrition especially protein and fiber you don't get hungry as quickly.
Speak for yourself. Many of us who are not just a lump on the couch have calorie goals which would be difficult or impossible to meet without some calorie dense foods.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
lOL typical..
reference study and then when asked for said study say "I don't have the time to find them" yet, you have all day to post on here but you don't have ten minutes to find a study?FunkyTobias wrote: »
Burden of proof falls on the claimant. If you want to claim they exist, then it's up to you to provide them.
Furthermore, you can't be "arsed [sic] to spend all day looking for them", but you expect us to?
Oh looky here, I found it. Article + link to study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/05/12/why-you-cant-lose-weight-but-your-best-friend-can-on-the-same-diet/
Methinks that you don't understand what "deficit" means.
The "thrifty" phenotype downregulated energy expenditure in response to underfeeding, so they did not have the same deficit.
So basically it means there is no way to calculate deficit, barring the acquisition of a metabolic chamber. But it does show that people at the same starting weight who cut the same amount of calories and exercise the same amount could lose wildly different amount of weight...
Then they spent the next six weeks consuming only a liquid diet of Ensure that contained 50 percent of of the calories required to maintain their weight (individualized to each person) and not exercising. Contrary to the popular idea that cutting 3,500 calories equates to losing a pound, the researchers found the loss of one pound equated to anywhere from 1,560 to 3,000 calories depending on the person.
“We all have our own internal fuel efficiencies when it comes to our bodies’ abilities to handle calories,” Freedhoff said. “This isn’t in and of itself news, of course. Ten different people with the same degree of caloric excess or restriction will vary in the amount of weight they’ll gain or lose as a consequence.
So getting back to ndj's original premise, we would need a metabolic chamber to ensure the deficit was exactly the same. Only then could we answer the question. Perhaps someone could propose this to the scientists.
And once again you're getting off topic. The response to the deficit has nothing to do with "clean" vs "unclean".
0 -
clean eating seems to be the only way for me0
-
Glad to return to this and see a healthy debate. Sleeping on it overnight also gave me one perspective (concern) with regard to how I answered the question and my interpretation of the original OP. Well a couple.
1) I was too negative in my response - the tone of my response was litigious. I apologize for that. I guess I have a very passionate view on this subject - and deeply personal - with many things about food validated over the years that make me respond in such a way that (after sleeping on it) is negative rather than positive. There is a bottom-line for me - and responding in a more objective and less emotional way would better serve the argument and discussion - even with all the proof in my medical file et al available.
2) If I took better time to read @ndj1979 OP more closely, he was discussing two people who would have negligible (or no) medical issues - not read in my estimation that medical issues were on the table.
For number 2 - I would say that either would lose the weight - but I must asterisk (*) this by stating the odds of one losing more weight than the other would definitely fall on the "clean" eater - that is, one who minimizes the intake of added sugar and processed food. Obviously, we have cases where that would not be true in the world - but since I am a data analyst, I focus on an "odds-based" approach. What's the most conservative method to lose weight and to lose fat over the long run? In my estimation, it would have to be a long-term "clean" eating approach - with an emphasis on making the diet as part of a lifestyle over the long haul.
@mamapeach910 made a great point earlier - there's really two things - one you can lose the weight fast (short-term fix) or you can think long-term about diet and lose the weight (fat) over the long haul. The body will adapt to the food you eat - hence my passion for sticking more with the "clean" approach rather than what I perceive to be an alternative that would increase the odds of gaining the fat pounds back over time. I would rather eat "clean" to preserve the outcome I reached than revert to a method that would increase the chances of regaining the fat.
@Chrysalid2014 and others - great contributions. I think this has been and always will be a great discussion. I consider it a timeless discussion - because this is a battle that will always be waged. The outcomes-based approach suggests eating a diet that is very nutritious to gain the best odds of success but that doesn't mean it's an end-all-be-all. Variances exist and must be accounted for in the process. Just glad to be part of it.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Glad to return to this and see a healthy debate. Sleeping on it overnight also gave me one perspective (concern) with regard to how I answered the question and my interpretation of the original OP. Well a couple.
1) I was too negative in my response - the tone of my response was litigious. I apologize for that. I guess I have a very passionate view on this subject - and deeply personal - with many things about food validated over the years that make me respond in such a way that (after sleeping on it) is negative rather than positive. There is a bottom-line for me - and responding in a more objective and less emotional way would better serve the argument and discussion - even with all the proof in my medical file et al available.
2) If I took better time to read @ndj1979 OP more closely, he was discussing two people who would have negligible (or no) medical issues - not read in my estimation that medical issues were on the table.
For number 2 - I would say that either would lose the weight - but I must asterisk (*) this by stating the odds of one losing more weight than the other would definitely fall on the "clean" eater - that is, one who minimizes the intake of added sugar and processed food. Obviously, we have cases where that would not be true in the world - but since I am a data analyst, I focus on an "odds-based" approach. What's the most conservative method to lose weight and to lose fat over the long run? In my estimation, it would have to be a long-term "clean" eating approach - with an emphasis on making the diet as part of a lifestyle over the long haul.
@mamapeach910 made a great point earlier - there's really two things - one you can lose the weight fast (short-term fix) or you can think long-term about diet and lose the weight (fat) over the long haul. The body will adapt to the food you eat - hence my passion for sticking more with the "clean" approach rather than what I perceive to be an alternative that would increase the odds of gaining the fat pounds back over time. I would rather eat "clean" to preserve the outcome I reached than revert to a method that would increase the chances of regaining the fat.
@Chrysalid2014 and others - great contributions. I think this has been and always will be a great discussion. I consider it a timeless discussion - because this is a battle that will always be waged. The outcomes-based approach suggests eating a diet that is very nutritious to gain the best odds of success but that doesn't mean it's an end-all-be-all. Variances exist and must be accounted for in the process. Just glad to be part of it.
If both people, without medical conditions, both have the same 500 calorie deficit, how is it mathematically possible that the one who eats "cleaner" will lose more?
I am a financial analyst, so I love numbers. So I am trying to figure out how one can lose more if it's not mathematically possible?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
jessupbrady wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
lOL typical..
reference study and then when asked for said study say "I don't have the time to find them" yet, you have all day to post on here but you don't have ten minutes to find a study?FunkyTobias wrote: »
Burden of proof falls on the claimant. If you want to claim they exist, then it's up to you to provide them.
Furthermore, you can't be "arsed [sic] to spend all day looking for them", but you expect us to?
Oh looky here, I found it. Article + link to study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/05/12/why-you-cant-lose-weight-but-your-best-friend-can-on-the-same-diet/
Forbes is not a peer reviewed source...
The link to the study itself is included in the article. Guess you didn't read that far (second paragraph):
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2015/05/06/db14-1881
Interesting quote from the article:
"Contrary to the popular idea that cutting 3,500 calories equates to losing a pound, the researchers found the loss of one pound equated to anywhere from 1,560 to 3,000 calories depending on the person."
I get people lose differently.... but, how does this study answer the original question about clean eating vs non-clean eating.
I would make the assumption that this would just mean the original question would assume that both people had the "thrifty" phenotype?
It doesn't answer the question. The question is impossible to answer due to all the uncontrollable variables. Unless theoretically you put the same person in a metabolic chamber, maintained the same calorie defict, did clean and non clean eating and repeated several times and then compared the weight loss.
But even then it wouldn't be accurate because his metabolism and other variables may change in accordance with the amount of weight he loses over time.0 -
How exactly does the "body adapt to the food you eat"?0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So how can you say Ted's situation applies but Sara's does not?
I saw greater weight loss/fat loss when I incorporated the foods I love.
I say Ted's situation is a better example as he tried both methods, clean and dirty, and lost weight with the former but not with the latter even though he was (on paper anyway) in a calorie deficit both times. As you say it's impossible to calculate his exact calorie deficit without taking into account the impact of the type of CI on the CO (you said: "having a high carb/junk food diet, could have led to elevated insulin levels, lowering his over calories out") but doesn't that just give even more credence to the clean eating philosophy?
Other people who say they have gained weight eating clean haven't said they were in a calorie deficit. I think a lot of newcomers get confused when some clean eating people say they don't have to count calories. That just means they aren't writing them down; it doesn't mean they aren't in a deficit.
you need to wake up to your bias. i posted in this thread about both losing weight eating clean and later losing more weight eating in a more flexible manner. the examples abound. That you only take Ted's example seriously is very telling.
things are rarely "proven" in science, but this certainly can me tested in meaningful ways. hopefully the studies will be conducted. In the meantime there really isn't any good evidence to suggest clean eating in and of itself leads to better weight loss.
0 -
What people should understand is that processed foods don't really fill you up that much. You end up craving more and more and thus go over the calorie limits. Sure you can watch your portions with them and not eat as much, but you still end up hungry whereas if you are eating healthier foods higher in nutrition especially protein and fiber you don't get hungry as quickly.
Actually, I do worse on diets that restrict what I can eat because I start craving those foods more. It doesn't matter how full I am. Also, as a stress-eater I have an exceptionally hard time with being told not to eat a specific food type and tend to binge on them and undo everything I gained to begin with.
What people should understand is that there are different diets that cater to the uniqueness of different people, how they respond to certain foods, or the lack thereof.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Glad to return to this and see a healthy debate. Sleeping on it overnight also gave me one perspective (concern) with regard to how I answered the question and my interpretation of the original OP. Well a couple.
1) I was too negative in my response - the tone of my response was litigious. I apologize for that. I guess I have a very passionate view on this subject - and deeply personal - with many things about food validated over the years that make me respond in such a way that (after sleeping on it) is negative rather than positive. There is a bottom-line for me - and responding in a more objective and less emotional way would better serve the argument and discussion - even with all the proof in my medical file et al available.
2) If I took better time to read @ndj1979 OP more closely, he was discussing two people who would have negligible (or no) medical issues - not read in my estimation that medical issues were on the table.
For number 2 - I would say that either would lose the weight - but I must asterisk (*) this by stating the odds of one losing more weight than the other would definitely fall on the "clean" eater - that is, one who minimizes the intake of added sugar and processed food. Obviously, we have cases where that would not be true in the world - but since I am a data analyst, I focus on an "odds-based" approach. What's the most conservative method to lose weight and to lose fat over the long run? In my estimation, it would have to be a long-term "clean" eating approach - with an emphasis on making the diet as part of a lifestyle over the long haul.
@mamapeach910 made a great point earlier - there's really two things - one you can lose the weight fast (short-term fix) or you can think long-term about diet and lose the weight (fat) over the long haul. The body will adapt to the food you eat - hence my passion for sticking more with the "clean" approach rather than what I perceive to be an alternative that would increase the odds of gaining the fat pounds back over time. I would rather eat "clean" to preserve the outcome I reached than revert to a method that would increase the chances of regaining the fat.
@Chrysalid2014 and others - great contributions. I think this has been and always will be a great discussion. I consider it a timeless discussion - because this is a battle that will always be waged. The outcomes-based approach suggests eating a diet that is very nutritious to gain the best odds of success but that doesn't mean it's an end-all-be-all. Variances exist and must be accounted for in the process. Just glad to be part of it.
If both people, without medical conditions, both have the same 500 calorie deficit, how is it mathematically possible that the one who eats "cleaner" will lose more?
I am a financial analyst, so I love numbers. So I am trying to figure out how one can lose more if it's not mathematically possible?
Great question - if we look at it from a CICO perspective - without regard to metabolics - I would say the clean eater wouldn't - they would both lose the weight (pace and amount). I guess that's the crux of the issue, does all of this work in a vacuum?0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Person A - because I was Person B at one time and it didn't work.
You have medical issues.
0 -
So how about this, make believe, you take one person and put him on a diet for 2 months eating only "clean" then you change the hypothetical situation and make it that everything is the same except this time there is processed food included. Will he lose the same amount in both situations?
Please don't say that can't be answered because you can't turn back time or whatever it is. It's the same person 2 different examples. Critical thinking. There are no loop holes to try and find. It's a straight question.
It's simply not possible to keep everything the same. His metabolism, for a start, may have been affected by the first two months of dieting.
0 -
No person A will lose more weight ***Period*** What everyone fails to take into consideration is that person A who eats a balanced diet and probably has slow releasing complex carbs in their diet will be able to expend more energy than person B eating donuts. While person B will have a burst of energy up front that will be short lived and the workout will end quicker than person A's who is on a steady energy release path.0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
lOL typical..
reference study and then when asked for said study say "I don't have the time to find them" yet, you have all day to post on here but you don't have ten minutes to find a study?FunkyTobias wrote: »
Burden of proof falls on the claimant. If you want to claim they exist, then it's up to you to provide them.
Furthermore, you can't be "arsed [sic] to spend all day looking for them", but you expect us to?
Oh looky here, I found it. Article + link to study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/05/12/why-you-cant-lose-weight-but-your-best-friend-can-on-the-same-diet/
Forbes is not a peer reviewed source...
The link to the study itself is included in the article. Guess you didn't read that far (second paragraph):
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2015/05/06/db14-1881
Interesting quote from the article:
"Contrary to the popular idea that cutting 3,500 calories equates to losing a pound, the researchers found the loss of one pound equated to anywhere from 1,560 to 3,000 calories depending on the person."
First, that is sample size of 12 people which is ridiculously small.
Secondly, they do not list what the macro break down for the ensure group is. So we don't know what percent of protein they were consuming, and if they controlled for it.
Third, you neglected to include this gem:
“In general, as things currently stand, weight loss strategies should be the same for all: make smart food choices, practice portion control and increase movement and exercise,” Votruba said. She pointed out that every volunteer in the study lost a significant amount of weight, suggesting that “regardless of biological differences, weight loss is plausible with sustained effort.”
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So how about this, make believe, you take one person and put him on a diet for 2 months eating only "clean" then you change the hypothetical situation and make it that everything is the same except this time there is processed food included. Will he lose the same amount in both situations?
Please don't say that can't be answered because you can't turn back time or whatever it is. It's the same person 2 different examples. Critical thinking. There are no loop holes to try and find. It's a straight question.
It's simply not possible to keep everything the same. His metabolism, for a start, may have been affected by the first two months of dieting.
Uh, what?
Metabolism wouldn't have been effected because you're assuming the same circumstances and starting point. The only variable you are changing is introducing processed foods.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
If both people, without medical conditions, both have the same 500 calorie deficit, how is it mathematically possible that the one who eats "cleaner" will lose more?
I am a financial analyst, so I love numbers. So I am trying to figure out how one can lose more if it's not mathematically possible?
Great question - if we look at it from a CICO perspective - without regard to metabolics - I would say the clean eater wouldn't - they would both lose the weight (pace and amount). I guess that's the crux of the issue, does all of this work in a vacuum?
And even if the clean eater won't lose more, will his calorie intake be higher? (Not the original question, I know, but perhaps more pertinent to real life.)0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So how about this, make believe, you take one person and put him on a diet for 2 months eating only "clean" then you change the hypothetical situation and make it that everything is the same except this time there is processed food included. Will he lose the same amount in both situations?
Please don't say that can't be answered because you can't turn back time or whatever it is. It's the same person 2 different examples. Critical thinking. There are no loop holes to try and find. It's a straight question.
It's simply not possible to keep everything the same. His metabolism, for a start, may have been affected by the first two months of dieting.
as an example, you take two people. put person A on clean for a month, B on unclean. Then switch for next month. Repeat for several blocks. Then you can compare rates of fat loss between and within subjects. this design of course could be expanded to include more subjects.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So how about this, make believe, you take one person and put him on a diet for 2 months eating only "clean" then you change the hypothetical situation and make it that everything is the same except this time there is processed food included. Will he lose the same amount in both situations?
Please don't say that can't be answered because you can't turn back time or whatever it is. It's the same person 2 different examples. Critical thinking. There are no loop holes to try and find. It's a straight question.
It's simply not possible to keep everything the same. His metabolism, for a start, may have been affected by the first two months of dieting.
So, If I understand what you are saying; A hypothetical question was asked and your answers to these hypothetical questions are you cannot think hypothetically.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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions