We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
The Clean Eating Delusion...
Replies
-
BioLayne Video Log 12 - Clean Eating vs IIFYM (If it fits your macros)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6H2edyPLU8 0 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »I keep laughing every time I read the "Food babe" part. I'm so stealing that saying
0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I don't have much faith in that video, given it's source. But I will research the alleged transfer of genes between species because in my two science degrees, I didn't learn that.
ETA: From their website:
"Every person and every organization has a value system and a set of beliefs. PragerU is no different. We believe in the principles that have made America great. We believe in economic and religious freedom, in a strong military that protects our allies and in the religious values that inform Western civilization, also known as Judeo-Christian values"
In other words:
"I discard the facts presented to me because the people who made the video are Christians who love America."
Ok.
But still nobody's told me if I can eat processed bread and still lose weight...0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
In other words:
"I discard the facts presented to me because the people who made the video are Christians who love America."
Ok.
But still nobody's told me if I can eat processed bread and still lose weight...
No. It sounds more like "these are not facts because the people presenting them as facts are not qualified to do so." Believe it or not, someone loving American and being Christian is not automatically a trustworthy source of scientific facts.0 -
You said you work, implying I actually know the case because I do not. That's condescension.
Percy sprayed round up on weeds, noticed some of his crops near thus spraying resisted the spraying. He intentionally reused those seeds knowing they had RR trait, so that he grew done fields with 70% showing that trait. That's not cross contamination. If these were animals instead of crops, it would be like a neighbor's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, Percy captured it, used it to breed with his dog, repeatedly, and when the neighbor hard about it, he claimed it was an accident - even though he now has pups of those pups that are three quarters purebred bull dog. Yet Purely is getting the media to say his neighbor sued Percy over the neighbor's dog trespassing. Well, that dog don't hunt as they say.
I don't think it's quite like that - it more like a neighbour's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, screwed his pooch and then had puppies or gave birth on his lawn. Or replaced his own dog and had puppies.
Percy has some claim, imho, as that crop drift isn't of his doing. Or at least it isn't clear cut.0 -
So back to the GMO question - from a neutral position - being neither for or against - if we take, let's say BT Soy - I understand that this GMO soy has been modified to produce Vip1Ac proteins and the relevant toxins Cry & Cyt that are insecticidal to various pests.
Anyone have references on bioavailability, LD50 and short term animal or human consumption studies? Because, really without these basic results how can we even decide one way or the other on the safety of this?
At least one study has shown Bti has a negative effect on certain bird species as secondary pests (mosquitos) are effected.
And perhaps issues exist with selective resistance.
(I found this thesis on the subject of some interest: http://www.theses.fr/2012GRENV020.pdf)0 -
@senecarr this GMO discussion might be a good one to move or restart in your hot topics group...0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I don't think it's quite like that - it more like a neighbour's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, screwed his pooch and then had puppies or gave birth on his lawn. Or replaced his own dog and had puppies.
Percy has some claim, imho, as that crop drift isn't of his doing. Or at least it isn't clear cut.
Percy sprayed round up on parts of his crop, and saw they resisted. He took the resistant ones, grew their seeds, sprayed again to keep resistant ones. The court found he knew what he was doing, hence the reason he was find liable.
He had a field growing that was 70% RR trait. If it was Bull Dogs, it would literally be the grand pups of Monsanto's that Percy was holding but telling the court "I don't know where all these dogs came from."
If it was pure accident, Monsanto has a standing policy that they'll pay for any accidental contamination at their expense to remove it. Like leaving missing posters with a reward offer up permanently because the dog is valuable.
See people get outraged about Percy's version of the story because it would indeed be injustice. Percy's version didn't happen though.0 -
No. It sounds more like "these are not facts because the people presenting them as facts are not qualified to do so." Believe it or not, someone loving American and being Christian is not automatically a trustworthy source of scientific facts.
Nor does it make them an untrustworthy source, which appeared to be the claim considering the quote used to explain why their credibility was being called into question.
You can't just say "I don't trust this source" and then quote them on their politics/religion as your reason but then claim that the reason you don't trust them isn't because of their politics/religion.
Or are you saying that being a Christian organization makes them unqualified to speak on scientific subjects? Because if so, that's not a very scientific perspective.0 -
muscleandbeard wrote: »After reading through several pages I came to a conclusion that
1. You guys will never agree on this and this post will go on forever
2. It's starting to have nothing to do with helpful fitness and weigh loss advice and it's becoming a piss contest on who knows more about science. I'm sure there are other apps that allow you to compare your Ph.D. degrees in science, biology and chemistry.
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Nor does it make them an untrustworthy source, which appeared to be the claim considering the quote used to explain why their credibility was being called into question.
You can't just say "I don't trust this source" and then quote them on their politics/religion as your reason but then claim that the reason you don't trust them isn't because of their politics/religion.
Or are you saying that being a Christian organization makes them unqualified to speak on scientific subjects? Because if so, that's not a very scientific perspective.
The website of a peer reviewed scientific journal, where the editor happens to be also Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or worshipping the Flying Spaghetti monster) and who is proud to be American (or Italian or Syrian) is still a good source of information for scientific studies. A website that states as its mission "Our Mission: To present the ideas that led to the creation and development of the freest and most prosperous nation in history – The United States of America. We do this through five-minute entertaining educational video courses on the Internet." is no more credible in scientific issues than the banana girl or any other random person or group of people on the internet.0 -
The website of a peer reviewed scientific journal, where the editor happens to be also Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or worshipping the Flying Spaghetti monster) and who is proud to be American (or Italian or Syrian) is still a good source of information for scientific studies. A website that states as its mission "Our Mission: To present the ideas that led to the creation and development of the freest and most prosperous nation in history – The United States of America. We do this through five-minute entertaining educational video courses on the Internet." is no more credible in scientific issues than the banana girl or any other random person or group of people on the internet.
so believing in America negates their science…..ok...0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.0 -
Percy sprayed round up on parts of his crop, and saw they resisted. He took the resistant ones, grew their seeds, sprayed again to keep resistant ones. The court found he knew what he was doing, hence the reason he was find liable.
He had a field growing that was 70% RR trait. If it was Bull Dogs, it would literally be the grand pups of Monsanto's that Percy was holding but telling the court "I don't know where all these dogs came from."
If it was pure accident, Monsanto has a standing policy that they'll pay for any accidental contamination at their expense to remove it. Like leaving missing posters with a reward offer up permanently because the dog is valuable.
See people get outraged about Percy's version of the story because it would indeed be injustice. Percy's version didn't happen though.
Ok, I can see that.
And it's more like they can't keep their damn dog in the yard. So if it chews your loafers they'll pay.0 -
so believing in America negates their science…..ok...
No. Believing in America on its own does not give them any scientific qualification.
[edited by mfp moderator]0 -
so believing in America negates their science…..ok...
No - having a free market agenda possibly colours their science.0 -
Paleo_Porky wrote: »
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
Wat?
If I eat 1800 calories every day of whole, nutritious foods, I will fail if I also consume a single serving of ice cream (that would still put me under my calorie goal)? Really?0 -
Paleo_Porky wrote: »
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
There is no need to eat high fat. So long as intake is sufficient, there's no major benefit. It does not necessarily change satiety. Satiety between fat and carbohydrate tends to come down to personal preference.
Diet isn't going to appreciably change your metabolism. Of the small affects the thermic effect of food has, an overweight individual actually possibly has a better thermic effect of food from carbs than from fats.
Clean eating can be defined 50 different ways as the prior post pointed out. Coming in here and saying your own idea of it means the definition used by the article OP posted isn't delusional doesn't jive. If you want to argue that eating optimally isn't delusion, you'd be tautologically correct as I'd considered delusional eating unoptimal from a mental health stand point. Now what optimal means becomes contentious and can even necessitate context.
There are most definitely downsides to avoiding GMOs and grains and this is where necessary context comes in. There's evidence that GMO crops with the Bt trait have lower amounts of insect contamination. On the societal scale, you aren't going to feed the world without grain (so again, necessitate context). In a personal context, it is expensive to avoid grains, and it is inconvenient. Personally, satisfying those criteria (cost and convenience) trumps satisfying some made up beliefs about what an ancestral diet consisted of.0 -
The website of a peer reviewed scientific journal, where the editor happens to be also Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or worshipping the Flying Spaghetti monster) and who is proud to be American (or Italian or Syrian) is still a good source of information for scientific studies. A website that states as its mission "Our Mission: To present the ideas that led to the creation and development of the freest and most prosperous nation in history – The United States of America. We do this through five-minute entertaining educational video courses on the Internet." is no more credible in scientific issues than the banana girl or any other random person or group of people on the internet.
The banana girl is untrustworthy because everything she says can be debunked with 5 minutes of actually looking for it, not because she's a random person on the internet.
Can the same be said about that university? I dunno. I never heard of them before. But nothing in that video went crassly against what I've read before on GMOs.0 -
Paleo_Porky wrote: »
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
Where did anyone advocate for eating nothing but cake? What people have said, time and again, is that if I eat primarily nutrient dense foods, eat a balanced diet, that there's nothing wrong with eating a piece of cake to round out my calories for the day.
Also, the GMO debate is already happening here, but what's your reason why grains should be avoided?
Lastly, @diannethegeek I think we have a new one to add to the myriad definitions of what clean eating is. "Clean Eating Means Eating Optimally". Because that totally should clear it up for the many posters who come in asking how they can eat clean...0 -
Looks like somebody drank Kool Aid with Flint Michigan Tap Water.0
-
Paleo_Porky wrote: »
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
You can't live on broccoli alone.
Therefore clean eating is bunk.
Next.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Failed; should have been a haiku.0 -
Dammit.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »
If you live on nothing but broccoli, it's probably best to live alone, if you know what I mean...
0 -
Failed; should have been a haiku.
Broccoli alone? Nay!
Therefore clean eating is bunk.
Where art my pizza?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
If you live on nothing but broccoli, it's probably best to live alone, if you know what I mean...
Only broccoli,
if only there was protein,
never souls nearby.0 -
This thread needs more cat gifs. And since we're now on broccoli...
0 -
0 -
Paleo_Porky wrote: »
No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.
Nice straw man about eating cake all day0
Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions