Eating Clean - No Such Thing

Options
1…1213151718…27

Replies

  • wanderinggypsy
    wanderinggypsy Posts: 40
    Options
    I think it's easy to forget about what's happening on a cellular level when talking about food. Granted, it's been years since I took the biochem class in college, but cellular metabolism depends on nutrients, minerals, and amino acids. If you're not getting them in your diet, your systems will strip them from other parts of your body (bones, teeth, etc). I think this is one benefit of eating "clean" foods....you're providing your CELLS what they need to make your organs and tissues and systems work. Oftentimes, what is found in food cannot be made by the body but are essential to its existence.

    I'm not saying people can't indulge every once in a while or have cheat meals or anything like that, so don't jump on me please, but living strictly off your macros (which I've come to understand just means calories, fat, carbs, and ?) doesn't necessarily mean you are providing your body (a.k.a. cells) with what they need. It almost seems like there should be a better way to measure if you're getting everything you need. Nutrition is complicated!
  • kellyskitties
    kellyskitties Posts: 475 Member
    Options
    I can't believe I posted the oft requested research and the post just died... wow. So nobody really wants science? I like science. I think they just want to argue. OK, carry on... I'll go back to lurking. Resume saving people from themselves and fighting about it.

    Let us see, you posted at 10:15 PM and came back in at 8:00 am and were shocked you didn't have replies yet? Most people sleep, prepare for work, go to work etc... during that time.

    I wasn't up at 8AM in my time zone. We are all in different zones.
    Why would we discuss this?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Eating clean: Eating food thats natural, minimally processed.
    Eating dirty: Eating food lacking vitamins, with high sugar count, added preservatives, mcdonalds, get the picture?

    There really is such thing as eating clean and eating dirty. Get over it. :flowerforyou:

    Please explain to me, if you can, what's "dirty" about sugar or preservatives? I don't get the picture. I openly challenge you to explain it to me.

    I've actually never heard the term "dirty eating" outside MFP, but the term "clean eating" was coined many years ago to refer to a diet of natural, minimally processed foods. It's not a legal or scientific term, but like other coined terms it has (or had at its inception) a specific meaning.

    Sugars such as raw honey and some syrups are clean. Processed sugars such as table sugar are not. Man-made preservatives are not "clean", but some natural preservatives are.
  • CookNLift
    CookNLift Posts: 3,660 Member
    Options
    At the end of the day who really gives a damn? Do what works for you....if that means eatting veggies all day good for you or if you rather eat ice cream all day, even better. Everyone has their own opinion and everyone is different! What works for one, might not work for another. If labelling certain foods as "dirty" or "unhealthy" helps out or makes it easier for someone why the hell not. How about we worry about our own goals and stop focusing on something you have no impact on.

    amen.
  • surromom2010
    surromom2010 Posts: 457 Member
    Options
    Some people are concerned about more than fat loss, such as cholesterol and blood sugar levels, etc. Eating crap food at a deficit will indeed cause weight loss but it doesn't necessarily equal physical health.

    This!
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    Options
    I can't believe I posted the oft requested research and the post just died... wow. So nobody really wants science? I like science. I think they just want to argue. OK, carry on... I'll go back to lurking. Resume saving people from themselves and fighting about it.

    Let us see, you posted at 10:15 PM and came back in at 8:00 am and were shocked you didn't have replies yet? Most people sleep, prepare for work, go to work etc... during that time.

    I wasn't up at 8AM in my time zone. We are all in different zones.
    Why would we discuss this?

    Fair enough. I only have the time stamps supplied to me on the posts, based on my time zone. The vast majority of MFP users are North American based, which limits us to 3 (4, barely) timezones. So it is more than an appropriate assumption.
  • TattedInStilettos
    TattedInStilettos Posts: 331 Member
    Options
    I'd like to clear this up once and for all. Lately, the forums have been plagued with people claiming that they are "eating clean" and it's getting quite annoying.

    There is no such thing as “clean" food.

    There is no such thing as “dirty" food.

    You can eat processed foods. You can eat chocolate, poptarts, hotdogs, drink soda. Go ahead and even have a nice big juicey burger from McDonalds if you wish!

    The key is to fit it in to your macronutrients. Make food work for you instead of cowering in fear like the mass majority. You can still enjoy the foods you love. Yes it’s in moderation. You can still even lose fat, eat at a caloric deficit, gain muscle mass and eat poptarts. I promise.

    I wish everyone would stop the fear mongering with carbs, processed foods and paleo bullcrap.

    FOODS LIKE THESE DO NOT MAKE YOU FAT. OVER EATING THEM DOES.

    Thank you.


    I agree... nicely put...
  • NatureChik1985
    NatureChik1985 Posts: 79
    Options
    Some people are concerned about more than fat loss, such as cholesterol and blood sugar levels, etc. Eating crap food at a deficit will indeed cause weight loss but it doesn't necessarily equal physical health.

    This!

    Clean eating doesn't always lead to good physical health either. Just ask my mom. She has eaten clean since I was a kid and had always been active, she still ended up having a heart attack about 5 years ago, has high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol. Why? I guess genetics? Doctors have not been able to explain it though. I figure if it is genetics I am screwed anyway so I will at least enjoy life (and that includes enjoying yummy foods).
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    Options
    Albeit a rat study:
    El-Wahab, H., & Moram, G. S. E. (2013). Toxic effects of some synthetic food colorants and/or flavor additives on male rats. Toxicology and Industrial Health, 29(2), 224-32. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0748233711433935

    As you said, rat study. I would humor it, but I’m out of time for this one post.

    Food atdditive affects leptin levels via inflammation:
    Ciardi, C., Jenny, M., Tschoner, A., Ueberall, F., Patsch, J., Pedrini, M., . . . Fuchs, D. (2012). Food additives such as sodium sulphite, sodium benzoate and curcumin inhibit leptin release in lipopolysaccharide-treated murine adipocytes in vitro. The British Journal of Nutrition, 107(6), 826-33. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007114511003680

    Title of this study: Food additives such as sodium sulphite, sodium benzoate and curcumin
    inhibit leptin release in lipopolysaccharide-treated murine adipocytes in vitro

    Link to full study:
    http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/BJN107_06/S0007114511003680a.pdf&code=68ee51c54f958261bb451e4f5abcf862

    "Obesity leads to the activation of pro-inflammatory pathways, resulting in a state of low-grade inflammation. Recently, several studies have shown that the exposure to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) could initiate and maintain a chronic state of low-grade inflammation in obese people."

    So, they may cause some low-grade inflammation in obese people?
    “During the 1970s, Feingold [9, 10] estimated that between 30 and 50% of hyperactive children exhibited a dramatic therapeutic improvement if they avoided food additives and natural salicilates. Similarly, Supramaniam and Warner [11] reported that 56% of children with angio-oedema and/or urticaria reacted to challenge with food additives including food colours. Egger et al. [lb] reported, moreover, that in their scrupulously careful elimination diet and double-blind placebo challenge study some 80% of their sample responded to both the elimination of and challenge with food colours and other dietary constituents. Michaelsson and Juhlin [12] also found that 39 of 52 (i.e. 75% of) chronic urticariacs responded to provocation tests with food colours.”
    Millstone, E. (1997). Adverse reactions to food additives: The extent and severity of the problem. Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, 7(4), 323-332. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215624482?accountid=28023
    “Artificial colours or a sodium benzoate preservative (or both) in the diet result in increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the general population.”
    McCann, D., Barrett, A., Cooper, A., Crumpler, D., Dalen, L., Grimshaw, K., . . . Stevenson, J. (2007). Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: A randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet, 370(9598), 1560-7. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/199008280?accountid=28023
    Hyperactivity sensitivities to food dyes are an active area of research, but after decades of work, the situation is still unclear.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21729092
    “High total habitual dietary P intake affected S-PTH unfavourably. Furthermore, phosphate additives may have more harmful effects on bone than other P sources, as indicated by higher mean S-PTH concentration among participants who consumed AP-containing foods. Because of the high dietary P intake and current upward trend in consumption of processed foods in Western countries, these findings may have important public health implications.”
    Kemi, V. E., Rita, H. J., Kärkkäinen, M.,U.M., Viljakainen, H. T., Laaksonen, M. M., Outila, T. A., & Lamberg-Allardt, C. (2009). Habitual high phosphorus intakes and foods with phosphate additives negatively affect serum parathyroid hormone concentration: A cross-sectional study on healthy premenopausal women. Public Health Nutrition, 12(10), 1885-92. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980009004819

    Humans require dietary phosphate for proper functioning of the body; in healthy individuals, excess phosphorus is excreted. Further, for those wanting to determine ingredients in food, food products are required to identify ingredients (including phosphates) used in their manufacturing on the label.

    In addition, studies cited by the authors suggesting a relationship between phosphate consumption and elevated disease risk in healthy individuals are based on observational reviews; there are no controlled scientific studies that agree with this suggestion. The authors themselves acknowledge that the studies they cite do not show a cause and effect
    relationship. There is no credible scientific evidence supporting a direct relationship between consumption of phosphates and increased risk of disease in humans.
    References Cited:
    1. Ritz, E., et al.,Phosphate Additives in Food. Dtsch Arztebl Int, 2012. 109(4): p. 49-55.
    2. Weiner, MLl, Toxicological review of inorganic phosphates. Food Chemical Toxicology,
    2001. Aug;39(8):759-86
    3. Institute of Medicine, Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium,
    Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997.
    I wonder what else they think is OK:
    “Certain other important concerns have been raised by academic scientists about the FDA's oversight of food additives. Among them are reservations about the agency's primary reliance on industry-sponsored toxicity studies. The FDA generally appears to rely primarily on these studies rather than on investigations performed by academic scientists published in peer-reviewed journals.61 This may stem from the agency's apparent preference for studies completed using FDA-approved or standardized protocols and laboratory practices.
    This issue has recently come to a head with the case of bisphenol A. Industry studies using standard testing protocols showed no significant problems with the use of bisphenol A, but published academic studies raised health concerns, though there is some controversy over whether those studies are sufficient to warrant regulatory action.11-15,39-42,61 “
    Olson, E. D. (2011). Protecting food safety: More needs to be done to keep pace with scientific advances and the changing food supply. Health Affairs, 30(5), 915-23. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/868915474?accountid=28023

    You’re just criticizing the FDA, not really a particular additive, but here:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21920375
    Fisher J.W., Twaddle N.C., Vanlandingham M., Doerge D.R. Pharmacokinetic Modeling: Prediction and Evaluation of Route Dependent Dosimetry of Bisphenol A in Monkeys with Extrapolation to Humans, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2011; 257; 122-136.

    A mouse study – which I don’t completely believe relates directly to humans however here is the study source:
    Bhattacharyya, S., O-sullivan, I., Katyal, S., Unterman, T., & Tobacman, J. K. (2012). Exposure to the common food additive carrageenan leads to glucose intolerance, insulin resistance and inhibition of insulin signalling in HepG2 cells and C57BL/6J mice. Diabetologia, 55(1), 194-203. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00125-011-2333-z
    Consistent with the scientific evidence, carrageenan has consistently been recognized as a safe food additive, including for use in organic foods:

    United States FDA approval as a safe direct food additive (1961) and Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) listing assigned in 1973

    Listing as a permitted additive in the Codex Alimentarius Commission of the Joint FAO/WHO (1999)

    International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements lists as a permissible food additive (1999)

    The Pacific Organic Standards list carrageenan as an additive allowed in organic food processing (2006)
    The East African Organic Product Standards lists carrageenan as an additive allowed in organic food processing (2007)

    The European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation permits the use of carrageenan as a food additive in preparation of plant-origin organic food products o animal-origin, dairy-based organic food products (Commission of the European Communities, 2008)
    Carrageenan is permitted for use in Canadian Organic handling and processing (2011); and

    The U.S. National Organic Standards Board relists carrageenan as a permissible additive for organic foods (2012).
    “susceptible individuals,
    the frequency and intensity of allergic responses to envi-
    ronmental and/or dietary allergens may increase in an
    environment rich in antioxidants. Extending our previ-
    ously published hypothesis [69] , it appears that especially
    antioxidants added in high doses as preservatives and
    colorants may play a major role”

    Zaknun, D., Schroecksnadel, S., Kurz, K., & Fuchs, D. (2012). Potential role of antioxidant food supplements, preservatives and colorants in the pathogenesis of allergy and asthma. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology, 157(2), 113-24. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000329137

    From the abstract:
    “A significant increase in the incidence of allergy and asthma has been observed during the past decades. The background of this phenomenon has not been well explained, but changes in lifestyle and habits are heavily discussed as contributing factors. Among these is a too clean environment, which may predispose individuals to increased sensitivity to allergic responses. Also the increase in dietary supplements including preservatives and colorants may contribute to this. In vitro, we and others have shown in freshly isolated human peripheral blood mononuclear cells that antioxidant compounds like vitamins C and E as well as food preservatives and colorants exert significant suppressive effects on the Th1 immune activation cascade.”


    This is aimed, as in your quote, against “susceptible individuals”. Not people in good health. It is also only one of several factors in the study.

    I’d love to continue to discuss these studies, but honestly I’ve spent too much time on them already. The conclusion is, there is no clear scientific evidence to support the demonization of processed food.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Some people are concerned about more than fat loss, such as cholesterol and blood sugar levels, etc. Eating crap food at a deficit will indeed cause weight loss but it doesn't necessarily equal physical health.

    This!

    Clean eating doesn't always lead to good physical health either. Just ask my mom. She has eaten clean since I was a kid and had always been active, she still ended up having a heart attack about 5 years ago, has high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol. Why? I guess genetics? Doctors have not been able to explain it though. I figure if it is genetics I am screwed anyway so I will at least enjoy life (and that includes enjoying yummy foods).

    Nothing always leads to good physical health. Many factors are beyond our control. Controling those that we can is just a means to up the odds in our favor. And there is no reason that clean food can't be yummy if you are a good cook.
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    Options
    I can't believe I posted the oft requested research and the post just died... wow. So nobody really wants science? I like science. I think they just want to argue. OK, carry on... I'll go back to lurking. Resume saving people from themselves and fighting about it.

    Well I responded quite a long time ago.
  • QuilterInVA
    QuilterInVA Posts: 672 Member
    Options
    Your need to be fully informed before expressing an opinion that isn't based on fact. Processed foods are not healthy. Two good books from reliable authors with credentials are "Salt, Sugar, and Fat - How the Food Manufacturers Addicted America" and "Pandora's Lunchbox - How Fast Food Has Taken Over the American Dinner Table." Processing is disgusting and the food manufacturers spend $$$ on research to find the "sweet spot" - where you continue to eat the food even though you are full. Look around you - Obesity is rampant. Health problems are rampant. The human body wasn't made to put all kinds of chemicals and preservatives in without consequences.
  • AverageUkDude
    AverageUkDude Posts: 371 Member
    Options
    Your need to be fully informed before expressing an opinion that isn't based on fact. Processed foods are not healthy. Two good books from reliable authors with credentials are "Salt, Sugar, and Fat - How the Food Manufacturers Addicted America" and "Pandora's Lunchbox - How Fast Food Has Taken Over the American Dinner Table." Processing is disgusting and the food manufacturers spend $$$ on research to find the "sweet spot" - where you continue to eat the food even though you are full. Look around you - Obesity is rampant. Health problems are rampant. The human body wasn't made to put all kinds of chemicals and preservatives in without consequences.

    Books sold that are essentially fearmongering backed by correlation studies to make £€$¥ vs scientific studies available free online, i know which ones ill believe.
  • kellyskitties
    kellyskitties Posts: 475 Member
    Options
    I can't believe I posted the oft requested research and the post just died... wow. So nobody really wants science? I like science. I think they just want to argue. OK, carry on... I'll go back to lurking. Resume saving people from themselves and fighting about it.

    Well I responded quite a long time ago.

    Again, all I say is they raise some questions. Studies are always inconclusive and "need further research" as far as I can tell. I'm was just offering some for those who keep asking. I do appreciate you taking the time to review all that - - but again, even I'm still keeping my twinkie if I want it.
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    Options
    Your need to be fully informed before expressing an opinion that isn't based on fact. Processed foods are not healthy. Two good books from reliable authors with credentials are "Salt, Sugar, and Fat - How the Food Manufacturers Addicted America" and "Pandora's Lunchbox - How Fast Food Has Taken Over the American Dinner Table." Processing is disgusting and the food manufacturers spend $$$ on research to find the "sweet spot" - where you continue to eat the food even though you are full. Look around you - Obesity is rampant. Health problems are rampant. The human body wasn't made to put all kinds of chemicals and preservatives in without consequences.

    That is ridiculous. You're plugging propaganda and spreading a demonizing views of food absent of scientific backing.
  • Cutting4life
    Cutting4life Posts: 505 Member
    Options
    nice debate we have going on here
































    not srs
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    Options
    I can't believe I posted the oft requested research and the post just died... wow. So nobody really wants science? I like science. I think they just want to argue. OK, carry on... I'll go back to lurking. Resume saving people from themselves and fighting about it.

    Well I responded quite a long time ago.

    Again, all I say is they raise some questions. Studies are always inconclusive and "need further research" as far as I can tell. I'm was just offering some for those who keep asking. I do appreciate you taking the time to review all that - - but again, even I'm still keeping my twinkie if I want it.

    Fair enough, on all counts. :flowerforyou:
  • dxing
    dxing Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    That's funny, looking at the macros on a bag of Cheetos. I see carbs, protein, and fat.... no mention of clean or dirty
  • highervibes
    highervibes Posts: 2,219 Member
    Options
    It's totally out of hand lol. I don't think I fall squarely into either camp, but I certainly don't give a rat's behind about what other people eat. It is frustrating to see people think that to have health benefits and weight loss they MUST eat a certain way and if not they "fell off the wagon" I think what I would like for any newbie to realize is there is no wagon and health can be achieved in a variety of ways.
  • JenCatwalk
    JenCatwalk Posts: 285 Member
    Options
    Eating clean: Eating food thats natural, minimally processed.
    Eating dirty: Eating food lacking vitamins, with high sugar count, added preservatives, mcdonalds, get the picture?

    There really is such thing as eating clean and eating dirty. Get over it. :flowerforyou:

    Please explain to me, if you can, what's "dirty" about sugar or preservatives? I don't get the picture. I openly challenge you to explain it to me.

    Here's the thing, all the preservatives in foods nowadays, the unnatural additives, the added sugar, you can't even tell me everything these man made ingredients do to our bodies, can you? I'm not to going to go out of my way to fish out studies, I'm just going to share my experiences with food. Eating junk food like chips, mcds, candy bars, cokes(aka dirty food) all the time left me feeling tired and even irritable all the time. Fast forward, eating things closer to nature(aka clean food), and often, leaves me feeling full of energy, and so much happier. To me this speaks for itself. To me and so many others, this is the difference between eating clean and eating dirty. Some people want to eat clean, some people want to eat dirty, some in between. Ok. Who cares? To some people the clean/dirty philosophy is a way of life, why bash it? Theres absolutely nothing wrong with it. Now again, this has been my experience with clean/dirty foods. Guess what? It works for me, and many others to. We arnt just talking about weightloss, we're also talking about overall health. Some people prefer to look at the long term. Some people don't wanna chance the FACT that some these unnatural preservatives actually have potential of being DANGEROUS to our health. Some people just like to categorize our food this way... again, guess they're gonna have to get over it. :heart:

    So you have only personal anecdotal stories?

    Thats all I need is personal experience. I experienced it, I know what works for me. Why do I need to explain myself to you, or the OP, about the differences between clean and dirty food? About what happens to MY body when I put junk in it compaired to fruit and veggies. Its a way of life for me and many others. And it works for me and many others. You don't have to agree with it, but don't sit there(this is directed to the OP)and tell me there's something wrong with me for not wanting to put junk food, aka dirty, crap, processed, unnatural food in my body, and for catagorizing food as such. :laugh:

Categories