CI/CO vs Clean Eating
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Until the page 10 derailment into woo, this has been the most reasonable and civil clean eating thread I've seen. I'd love to see it locked, but not deleted and just allowed to live in the archive. Not as a sticky. Just something that will turn up in search results. As someone mentioned many pages ago, one reason there are so many posts about clean eating may be that they often get deleted, so people don't have many relevant search results to consider.
Is there a way to suggest this one be saved? It's like a sand castle that I want to save from the tide.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition; the poor body is screaming for nutrients which it never gets and therefore the person is never satisfied and always eating. If we all ate properly there would be no reason to count calories. And eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
i
Oh boy, it's this guy.
He lost me at lard. But I'm willing to learn more about this idea... The body is always hungry searching for nutrients, so the human remains hungry. I could roll with that, possibly.
Lard? That is where he lost you? Not at the beginning?
0 -
BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition; the poor body is screaming for nutrients which it never gets and therefore the person is never satisfied and always eating. If we all ate properly there would be no reason to count calories. And eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition; the poor body is screaming for nutrients which it never gets and therefore the person is never satisfied and always eating. If we all ate properly there would be no reason to count calories. And eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
I have to say that your posts have really inspired me. They've inspired me to ask this question (and I am asking seriously - if anyone knows, I'd be grateful):
Is it possible to block individual users on these boards? I realize that I can skip posts when I see that a 'favorite' is at it again, but when some of them go on and on for multiple paragraphs it's sort of a pain to work around them. Just blocking the user would be great. Is that function available?
You can block them from PMing you and viewing your profile, etc., but unfortunately you can no longer ignore people's posts.
I miss the old forums, where flagging was nonexistent and you could just block out all the nonsense. 0 -
If we're going to spout weird claims about malnutrition causing obesity, can we at least stick with scientific hypotheses that have the honesty to call themselves hypotheses like the protein deficiency hypothesis.0
-
tomatoey, I should say that I actually think we are mostly on the same page and have the same general ideas about what might be good steps to improve your diet if you want to, things to try to improve satiety, the kind of advice to give, etc. We just have different reactions to the use of the term "clean," it seems.0
-
0
-
-
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
lmao +10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tomatoey, I should say that I actually think we are mostly on the same page and have the same general ideas about what might be good steps to improve your diet if you want to, things to try to improve satiety, the kind of advice to give, etc. We just have different reactions to the use of the term "clean," it seems.
Yup, I think that's right
0 -
And I even admit that it's not entirely rational that it grates on me as it does. ;-) I tend to assume motivations that may not be there, which is something I usually try to avoid.
I'm way more of a curmudgeon about proper elevator etiquette, though.0 -
Get a clue...BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition; the poor body is screaming for nutrients which it never gets and therefore the person is never satisfied and always eating. If we all ate properly there would be no reason to count calories. And eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »And I even admit that it's not entirely rational that it grates on me as it does. ;-) I tend to assume motivations that may not be there, which is something I usually try to avoid.
I'm way more of a curmudgeon about proper elevator etiquette, though.
Lol Ah well
I'm pretty fussy about how people use personal space on the sidewalk 0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
Yes.
Because the problem isn't so much as their body metabolizes alcohol differently than every other human being, but rather they personally lack the mental ability to moderate their alcohol consumption (Or drugs, or gambling).
You clearly have no clue.
Would you be so kind to link to any study showing alcoholics metabolize alcohol differently?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »And I even admit that it's not entirely rational that it grates on me as it does. ;-) I tend to assume motivations that may not be there, which is something I usually try to avoid.
I'm way more of a curmudgeon about proper elevator etiquette, though.
The issue with "clean" is that sometimes it is an extreme mental position that is reductive on "good" and "bad" foods and snooty as eff. However most people mean "an eating method were I sorta choose nutrient rich food by eliminating these high cal things over here but get to eat cheese. Because cheese."
Feel free to continue railing against the first. It should grate on you.0 -
coreyreichle wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
Yes.
Because the problem isn't so much as their body metabolizes alcohol differently than every other human being, but rather they personally lack the mental ability to moderate their alcohol consumption (Or drugs, or gambling).
You clearly have no clue.
Would you be so kind to link to any study showing alcoholics metabolize alcohol differently?
Google will take you straight to any number of credible sources. There *are* differences in how alcohol is metabolized.In addition, research shows that different people carry different variations of the ADH and ALDH enzymes. These different versions can be traced to variations in the same gene. Some of these enzyme variants work more or less efficiently than others; this means that some people can break down alcohol to acetaldehyde, or acetaldehyde to acetate, more quickly than others. A fast ADH enzyme or a slow ALDH enzyme can cause toxic acetaldehyde to build up in the body, creating dangerous and unpleasant effects that also may affect an individual’s risk for various alcohol-related problems—such as developing alcoholism.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »And you're right that the reality is very likely that "clean" eaters are really eating moderately, and moderate eaters are most likely eating nutritious foods. It's just a preference in terms of *ways of thinking about it*
I think it relates to how you see your own diet vs. others. Why claim to eat clean unless you are asserting that others who don't are eating "unclean"? Especially if you don't, in fact, eat the way you claim to.
I find it quite illuminating that so-called "clean" eaters so often tend to assume that everyone not "eating clean" is eating McD's and Twinkies constantly or occasionally donuts, that we don't care about health or nutrition.
Because that's how people think. In global, imprecise, sometimes inconsistent terms that may or may not reflect what they actually do.
But I'm asking here why make those assumptions about people who don't eat clean. Why do they always go immediately from someone saying "it's okay to include some less nutrient dense foods in an overall balanced, healthy diet that meets micros and macros and is calorie appropriate" to "they are saying it's the same to eat all donuts as all broccoli!" (For the record both would be stupid choices.) This seems to want to make rather uncharitable and offensive assumptions about other people, simply because they don't self-define as "clean eaters."
I'm not at all convinced that people who want to pursue what they call "clean eating" judge others; people can hold different standards for themselves than they do for other people, despite whatever readings can be abstracted from what they say about themselves.
[snipped for brevity]
Right, I have expressed on other threads that while I endeavor to clean up my own diet, I don't judge others.
While I WISH my fiance would eat at McDonald's less, I don't think he's a bad person (aka judge him) for doing so. I'd also prefer if he didn't smoke - I don't think he's a dirty, nasty smoker.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think what we are really talking about is some people eat absurd diets (and assume everyone else does) and rather than merely cutting down on sugar or fast food or the like cut it out and of course feel better. And they assume that most people ate like they used to when of course most people do not and most people know what a healthy diet is. There's no real need to go from 100% fast food (or sugar) to none, and if you do chances are you will miss it. I don't eat fast food and don't miss it because I never really ate much and don't like it, but that's why making some big point about cutting it out is not interesting to me. My guess is for those whom that's a big thing it's not a good approach. Similarly, I didn't find cutting out added sugar a big thing, so added it back in. If someone really eats so much that's a big deal, they are going to want it again. (And personally I did, and see no reason not to have it.)
I think the diet you call absurd is more common than you think. A lot of people eat too much food that is low-value/low-satiety/low-nutrient. I think that is why there is an obesity epidemic. It's true that some might gain on what people call "clean" foods, but it's way harder to do that. Check out forums here and elsewhere, where bodybuilders strive to consume as much as possible on a "clean" diet for their gainz. It's simply not as easy to pound down 3000 calories of chicken and broccoli as it is to overindulge on chicken wings and fries, or pasta carbonara (with garlic bread, and a dessert...). Satiety tends to level off when people eat a certain way. I don't even want to give it a name at this point
(Also - I am not saying everyone should eat chicken and broccoli.)
I think we actually agreed that the holy rollers who eat 0% treats are probably few, and that most people wind up doing 80/20, and use these different heuristics to think through their meals and days. I'm not bothered if they're not entirely self-consistent, as long as they're seeing results that promote normal weight (and health). I really haven't noticed rudeness, so I can't speak to that.
Curious: what offends you about people looking for recipes? Or about the idea that some people don't know how to cook? It's a fact, there are people who don't know how to cook. Or people who cooked in ways that didn't serve their goals and now want to learn something else.
[Deleted a bunch of comments because the nested quotes weren't quoting well.]
I agree that bad diets are common, after all, that's why we have the term Standard American Diet.
The Standard American Diet in 3 Simple Charts
US obesity and diabetes rates are among the globe's very highest. Why? On her blog, the NYU nutritionist and food-politics expert Marion Nestle recently pointed (hat-tip, RealFood.org) to this telling chart on how we spend our grocery money, from the USDA's Amber Waves publication:
So, we do a pretty good job eating enough potatoes. But the healthier, more brightly colored vegetables like kale and carrots, no so much. We spend four times the amount on refined grains the USDA thinks is proper, and about a fifth of the target expenditure in whole grains. We spend nearly 14 percent of our at-home food budgets on sugar and candies, and another 8 percent on premade frozen and fridge entrees. Whole fruit barley accounts for less than 5 percent of our grocery bill. And so on—a pretty dismal picture.
That chart deals with at-home expenditures. What about our food choices out in the world? The USDA article has more. This chart shows that we're getting more and more of our sustenance outside of our own kitchens:
And while the article doesn't offer comparable data to the above at-home chart about expenditures outside the home, it does deliver evidence that our eating out habits are pretty dire as well:
0 -
What I think is judging others (among other things) are the comments that interpret "eat what you like in moderation as part of an overall balanced diet" or "you don't have to cut out sweets if you don't want to" as "so you say a diet of ONLY McD's and donuts is a good thing!" It's assuming--really weirdly--that if someone doesn't endeavor to eat 100% clean that that person doesn't care about nutrition at all and is eating in bizarre ways that (IME) almost no one really eats.
That I don't see any benefit to claiming (falsely) that I don't eat "processed" foods or making an effort to never ever eat "bad" foods or even to calling foods "bad" and "good" doesn't mean that I don't care about nutrition or eat a pretty decent diet (at least according to my own standards). I think it's ridiculous to suggest that any of us are eating mostly donuts or the various similar claims that get made.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think what we are really talking about is some people eat absurd diets (and assume everyone else does) and rather than merely cutting down on sugar or fast food or the like cut it out and of course feel better. And they assume that most people ate like they used to when of course most people do not and most people know what a healthy diet is. There's no real need to go from 100% fast food (or sugar) to none, and if you do chances are you will miss it. I don't eat fast food and don't miss it because I never really ate much and don't like it, but that's why making some big point about cutting it out is not interesting to me. My guess is for those whom that's a big thing it's not a good approach. Similarly, I didn't find cutting out added sugar a big thing, so added it back in. If someone really eats so much that's a big deal, they are going to want it again. (And personally I did, and see no reason not to have it.)
I think the diet you call absurd is more common than you think. A lot of people eat too much food that is low-value/low-satiety/low-nutrient. I think that is why there is an obesity epidemic. It's true that some might gain on what people call "clean" foods, but it's way harder to do that. Check out forums here and elsewhere, where bodybuilders strive to consume as much as possible on a "clean" diet for their gainz. It's simply not as easy to pound down 3000 calories of chicken and broccoli as it is to overindulge on chicken wings and fries, or pasta carbonara (with garlic bread, and a dessert...). Satiety tends to level off when people eat a certain way. I don't even want to give it a name at this point (Also - I am not saying everyone should eat chicken and broccoli.)
I think we actually agreed that the holy rollers who eat 0% treats are probably few, and that most people wind up doing 80/20, and use these different heuristics to think through their meals and days. I'm not bothered if they're not entirely self-consistent, as long as they're seeing results that promote normal weight (and health). I really haven't noticed rudeness, so I can't speak to that.
Curious: what offends you about people looking for recipes? Or about the idea that some people don't know how to cook? It's a fact, there are people who don't know how to cook. Or people who cooked in ways that didn't serve their goals and now want to learn something else.
[Deleted a bunch of comments because the nested quotes weren't quoting well.]
I agree that bad diets are common, after all, that's why we have the term Standard American Diet.
The Standard American Diet in 3 Simple Charts
US obesity and diabetes rates are among the globe's very highest. Why? On her blog, the NYU nutritionist and food-politics expert Marion Nestle recently pointed (hat-tip, RealFood.org) to this telling chart on how we spend our grocery money, from the USDA's Amber Waves publication:
So, we do a pretty good job eating enough potatoes. But the healthier, more brightly colored vegetables like kale and carrots, no so much. We spend four times the amount on refined grains the USDA thinks is proper, and about a fifth of the target expenditure in whole grains. We spend nearly 14 percent of our at-home food budgets on sugar and candies, and another 8 percent on premade frozen and fridge entrees. Whole fruit barley accounts for less than 5 percent of our grocery bill. And so on—a pretty dismal picture.
That chart deals with at-home expenditures. What about our food choices out in the world? The USDA article has more. This chart shows that we're getting more and more of our sustenance outside of our own kitchens:
And while the article doesn't offer comparable data to the above at-home chart about expenditures outside the home, it does deliver evidence that our eating out habits are pretty dire as well:
here is the simple answer for you ..people, for whatever reason, choose to overeat on ALL foods, which causes them to be obese and less active, which lead to instances of diabetes..
as much as you want to pin it on sugar, or whatever particular food or macro is the devil, that is not the case.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »What I think is judging others (among other things) are the comments that interpret "eat what you like in moderation as part of an overall balanced diet" or "you don't have to cut out sweets if you don't want to" as "so you say a diet of ONLY McD's and donuts is a good thing!" It's assuming--really weirdly--that if someone doesn't endeavor to eat 100% clean that that person doesn't care about nutrition at all and is eating in bizarre ways that (IME) almost no one really eats.
That I don't see any benefit to claiming (falsely) that I don't eat "processed" foods or making an effort to never ever eat "bad" foods or even to calling foods "bad" and "good" doesn't mean that I don't care about nutrition or eat a pretty decent diet (at least according to my own standards). I think it's ridiculous to suggest that any of us are eating mostly donuts or the various similar claims that get made.
would a diet of McDonalds be bad if it was grilled chicken, salads, and yogurts????
Just saying that menu choice is going to dictate how good or bad McDonalds is 0 -
That bar chart above shows why "cut carbs" is, for people living in SAD, really solid advice. If all anyone eating SAD did was cut consumption of refined grains and added sugars to recommended levels, the caloric surplus would be gone, and they'd be in deficit.
And, of course, limiting refined grains and added sugars is one feature common to virtually all definitions of "clean" eating.
It ain't the only way...but it is a way that works, it is super easy to explain, and most importantly, it is super easy to implement when wandering the aisles of the supermarket.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I agree that bad diets are common, after all, that's why we have the term Standard American Diet.
Pretty much no one defends the SAD as it currently seems to exist in practice (when I was growing up I recall the SAD being meat, a starch, and a veg, treats in moderation, fast food as a rare treat, probably cereal or bacon and eggs for breakfast and a sandwich for lunch, and don't know when that changed).
The point, though, is that eating healthy is really just common sense. If people choose to eat what I referred to as an absurd diet, it's not because they don't know better, it's because they want to for some reason (and there are reasons that I can come up with, in many cases dealing with convenience and not really knowing how to cook properly as well--in some cases--taste, I suppose). When people say "eat what you like in moderation after getting your nutrition needs met" they obviously don't expect people to take that to mean "it's super healthy to eat only donuts." If someone claims to take that from it, that's their own issue.
Well, the other point was that of course you often feel better if you've been eating really poorly and change that. It's not because there's some magic to "eating clean" as it's usually defined, especially since no one who claims to "eat clean" really does cut out processed or packaged foods, etc. They just end up weirdly claiming that cheese isn't processed or store-bought yogurt isn't or even (based on this discussion) Amy's Light and Lean meals aren't. It also doesn't mean that those of us who eat reasonably healthy diets will find some benefit from cutting out added sugar or the like. (I did that and felt the same.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »What I think is judging others (among other things) are the comments that interpret "eat what you like in moderation as part of an overall balanced diet" or "you don't have to cut out sweets if you don't want to" as "so you say a diet of ONLY McD's and donuts is a good thing!" It's assuming--really weirdly--that if someone doesn't endeavor to eat 100% clean that that person doesn't care about nutrition at all and is eating in bizarre ways that (IME) almost no one really eats.
That I don't see any benefit to claiming (falsely) that I don't eat "processed" foods or making an effort to never ever eat "bad" foods or even to calling foods "bad" and "good" doesn't mean that I don't care about nutrition or eat a pretty decent diet (at least according to my own standards). I think it's ridiculous to suggest that any of us are eating mostly donuts or the various similar claims that get made.
would a diet of McDonalds be bad if it was grilled chicken, salads, and yogurts????
Just saying that menu choice is going to dictate how good or bad McDonalds is
Oh, sure. I think those claims are meant to include burger, fries, and Coke, though. ;-)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions