the "mindset" behind clean eating/paleo

13

Replies

  • QueenBishOTUniverse
    QueenBishOTUniverse Posts: 14,121 Member
    I live with a pure blooded, all american a-hole. All our friends know NOT to ask him, unless they want the absolute truth. I appreciate that in people. BUT, forcing yourself on everybody with that attitude, when they DIDN'T ask, is preachy and obnoxious. And lately, that's the majority of what I'm seeing, and it's most likely not winning the IIFYM side many converts. I don't have the time, nor do I care enough to go through the texts looking for citations. I'm just trying to point out, I AGREE with a lot of what's being said, but DISAGREE 100% with bashing people over the head with it.
  • sluggz
    sluggz Posts: 134
    sure its public, you have every right to say what you want. That doesn't mean you should.

    CoderGal, every single nutrient you mentioned can be found just as easily in a clean diet as in the foods you mentioned. That proves nothing.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    what crazies or scare tactics, and who are you to decide who those people are? I'll say it again, start your own board rather than jump on theirs to start a fight. What you are doing is purposefully starting a fight. Thats just being jerk, not some sort of self-serving saviour complex. In other words, if you don't like what they have to say, quit reading it!

    Public forum is public?
    I'm me, I can decide what I want in what ever sort of serving complex I like lol. Look at me with my free spirited different opinion :p

    I wouldn't say trying to start a fight. An argument maybe, but only in hope to come to a middle ground.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    sure its public, you have every right to say what you want. That doesn't mean you should. Thats just being an A-hole.

    CoderGal, every single nutrient you mentioned can be found just as easily in a clean diet as in the foods you mentioned. That proves nothing.
    What was I trying to prove?
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    sure its public, you have every right to say what you want. That doesn't mean you should. Thats just being an A-hole.


    I think telling people if they don't like something they should just ignore it is being an A-hole, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    sure its public, you have every right to say what you want. That doesn't mean you should. Thats just being an A-hole.


    I think telling people if they don't like something they should just ignore it is being an A-hole, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
    Wow now I'm here looking at the forums trying to come up with things to say that isn't what I want to say so I'm not an a-hole.
  • SteveJWatson
    SteveJWatson Posts: 1,225 Member
    It does make me chuckle momentarily when I consider that the 'paleo' diet could really have only been bourne out of this day and age as it totally negates any understanding of anthropology, geography, seasonality and so on.

    Eat it if you like, but don't pretend its anything other than a marketing gimmick.


    Also: the 'no legume' thing still puzzles me...presumably leguminous plants existed in the Paleolithic era.....
  • FitnessBeverlyHills
    FitnessBeverlyHills Posts: 189
    Oh, Doritos are total crap, no question. But if you are consuming otherwise healthy food besides them in a day/ period of time and had a decent macronutrient breakdown when you consumed them, they are very unlikely to be a detriment to your overall diet.

    THAT is the take home message that should be inferred from IIFYM. (Not "I can eat ice cream and poptarts and don't have to eat clean to lose weight"). But you should never "fear" food (except those with anaphalactic allergies).

    Ut oh don't label a certain type of food as "crap", don't demonize food ever!! /obvious sarcasm

    I think the problem is that if anyone even mentions they would rather find an alternative to eating a food like I don't know white rice or bacon, it is followed by an onslaught of various attacks.

    If someone is looking for an alternative, or does not want to eat a certain type of food for whatever reason, there really does not need to be a million posts(by the same people) attacking them over it. To each their own.
  • sluggz
    sluggz Posts: 134
    or you could start a whole new post about the negative aspect of clean eating - like any diet that has a name, there are pro's and con's.

    Chelled- I agree to no such thing. There's absolutely no reason to believe that people need to be saved every time the word "clean" gets mentioned in relation to diet. And there's no reason you HAVE to read those posts, and there's no reason you HAVE to voice your opinion in those posts. You can start your own and allow people to see your opinions there.
  • tjthegreatone
    tjthegreatone Posts: 324
    For what it's worth I think that the paleo/clean eaters and IIFYMs are opposite sides of the same orthorexia nervosa coin.

    I don't understand the obsession with eating 'clean' food (especially when there is nothing even remotely approaching a consensus on what this is) or 'eating like a caveman' with zero evidence of any improvement in any of the parameters you care to measure - well-being, longevity, weight-loss, fitness, chronic disease etc. All we have is subjective anecdotes about people feeling better/less symptomatic (not measurable) and lets not forget the placebo effect.

    Your body is designed to extract the nutrients from whatever crap you put in your mouth and flush out the toxins. That's why you have a complex 6 metre long GI tract and endless enzymes, a liver and kidneys with an impressive mechanism of extracting toxins (I remember being enthralled in my first year biochemistry classes). So 'clean eating' or paleo - no.

    Now onto the IIFYM crowd (popular here). Unless you are actively restricting calories to an unhealthy degree or failing to eat food from a variety of sources I see no reason for obsessively tracking macronutrients or micronutrients come to think of it. Especially when we know that most people just make up a split without any scientific thought or rationale (my macro split is based on what I think I can eat within the foods I like). Who made up the rules that you should have, for example, is it 0.85 or 1g of protein per pound/kg of body fat or whatever the latest figures that were clearly plucked out of thin air?

    In some communities in the world, people eat a diet consisting of 70% carbohydrates (I'm thinking much of Asia), in other communities, it is closer to 70% fat (Inuits etc). I don't see that one is necessarily superior to the other.

    Again the Krebs cycle tells me that your body can derive energy from carbohydrates, protein and fat - I suppose the only caveat is that in TRUE starvation, where there is no carbohydrate available AT ALL, protein will need to be metabolised for gluconeogenesis (man, haven't thought about this stuff in years - amazing what getting obsessed with your diet and fitness does for your brain!).

    So, obsessively tracking macros - no, not for me.

    I'm trying to strike a sensible balance between eating well and ensuring that I don't drift into disordered eating behaviours labelled as being 'healthy' - and as a scientist I always remember that my body is cleverer than I can ever hope to be. It's doing things I have no idea about and that I can never control, and it does them well, or the human race would have been extinct years ago.

    Sorry about the long post.
  • sluggz
    sluggz Posts: 134
    tjthegreatone = smartest person alive!
  • wideeyedla
    wideeyedla Posts: 138 Member
    Since I'm kind of the forum goof and will not be all that respected/argued with vehemently as much, I'll just explain what is annoying to those of us who argue with you guys advocating "clean eating" and paleo.

    For us, it's the anal retentive mindset that is most annoying and not what you actually aspouse for others to eat. Eating a diet full of heatlhy foods is absolutely good and beneficial, but grouping foods as "good" or "bad" we see as unhealthy. Also eliminating whole food groups is just a drastic step that will be far less beneficial as advice to the general audience as a whole (while acknowledging those with food allergies/sensitivities).

    As a "for everyone" advice striving to eat the most whole foods you can, making sure you're getting adequate nutrition, and getting the message that a balanced diet is the most healthy for the average person is our goal. Our methods may seem offensive at times, but we all have hearts in the right place and are doing what we do to feel like we influence as many people as we can. Often for us that means some may be lost to our sarcasm/(and what could be called bullying sometimes), but we do genually strive to help as many people as we can.

    Also, if you look at the diets of most of us, it's full of "clean" foods and mostly "clean" eating anyway. We've just reached that point where we realise that foods we enjoy don't have to wreck our diets or even that staying way off course in the short term doesn't have to affect the longterm.

    I would just like to say that because it is the MINDSET that we disagree with most, that often our disagreements get personal and are viewed as "nasty" in a hurry and are often heated. And for that I apologize for "us", but I'd just like to say that it doesn't mean that we don't care or don't want to be supportive. We're just chosing a different means of trying to be supportive.

    Thank you. My choice to go Paleo /low carb was based on a recommendation that it MIGHT help with my fibro/AI issues. No one on the other board I post to follows it 100%. We soot for 80/20 or in my case 90/10. No one critiques food logs and says, "Bad you! You ate an ice cream!" So I was a little shell shocked at the level of debate over here.

    I try to keep my comments in these threads light hearted, humorous if possible, and open. Because isn't the main point of this to support each other, regardless of what food plan we are following? No one wants someone else's ideas shoved down his/her throat.

    So thanks for the beacon of reason.
  • FitnessBeverlyHills
    FitnessBeverlyHills Posts: 189
    when did "do your best to avoid processed, man-made, commercialized food-like products" become a bad message that people need to be "saved" from.

    false premise is false.

    scientifically speaking, what is wrong with "processed, man-made, commercialized food-like products"?

    food is nothing but fuel and a nutrient delivery system. there's nothing wrong with so-called processed food. so long as it's not mistakenly contaminated with benzene (e.g. Perrier) or some other harmful chemical as a result of the processing, the fact it is processed is irrelevant.

    you should choose your food based on taste and nutritional content (food allergies and real medical conditions excepted, of course). whether or not it comes in a box, a bag, a can, or the center aisles of a grocery store is 100% irrelevant.

    people who do not understand this simple fact are misunderstanding the basic facts of science and biology.

    There is nothing wrong with a person making a choice to eat less processed, man made food. There is plenty of scientific information on the subject of processed foods. To make a statement that this member clearly doesn't understand "simple" facts of science and biology is an insulting statement. Its just your opinion that eating processed foods has no harmful side effects. There are many that believe otherwise. There are currently many studies being conducted on GMO's on both sides of the fence and everyone is entitled to have their own opinions about it.

    Notice I am not stating which side I am personally on. However there is no need to state that someone does not understand science or biology or imply they are uneducated. They just choose to look more deeply into the subject and came to their own conclusion about it. There is nothing wrong with someone making an effort to eat more whole natural foods as opposed to processed foods, its very commendable.
    or you could start a whole new post about the negative aspect of clean eating - like any diet that has a name, there are pro's and con's.

    Chelled- I agree to no such thing. There's absolutely no reason to believe that people need to be saved every time the word "clean" gets mentioned in relation to diet. And there's no reason you HAVE to read those posts, and there's no reason you HAVE to voice your opinion in those posts. You can start your own and allow people to see your opinions there. Trolling for the the word clean just so you "save" people or pick a fight is being an A-hole.

    where's the like button
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    or you could start a whole new post about the negative aspect of clean eating - like any diet that has a name, there are pro's and con's.
    ???

    I'm not here to say clean eating is bad? So why would I do that? But I can say I don't think it's bad if bad ignorant comments that can put other peoples health in danger is pointed out.
  • _noob_
    _noob_ Posts: 3,306 Member
    I freely admit my macros are pulled straight out of the crack of my *kitten* (meaning I inferred as much as I could from available sources and made a rational decision based on my needs/wants out of my diet). But it's a guideline for what I'd like to eat every day.

    I have trouble eating enough fat in my diet and I eat a lot of nutrient dense carbs (so I get my nutrition with relatively few carbs from them). Same goes for fiber, I get that pretty easily everyday from a variety of "clean" foods.

    I also eat dark chocolate almost daily to keep my saturated fat #'s up and this or chance improved my cholesterol numbers (was too low) in my latest bloodwork (as all I do was sub 300-400 cals of dark chocolate for the same in peanut butter every day).

    I chose dark chocolate because of several other health benefits (and it tastes good, particularly when used as a spoon for my PB) and I eat meat that has very little fat (so I sidestep the grass fed vs grain fed issue of fat makeup in the meat altogether).

    Sounds like a lot of thinking, but this is what I do to keep me eating what I'd like to eat daily. I've done just fine eating mostly whole foods and not tracking a damn thing, but I end up eating like 50-60g fat that way and I don't like that vs how I am when I track.
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    For what it's worth I think that the paleo/clean eaters and IIFYMs are opposite sides of the same orthorexia nervosa coin.

    I don't understand the obsession with eating 'clean' food (especially when there is nothing even remotely approaching a consensus on what this is) or 'eating like a caveman' with zero evidence of any improvement in any of the parameters you care to measure - well-being, longevity, weight-loss, fitness, chronic disease etc. All we have is subjective anecdotes about people feeling better/less symptomatic (not measurable) and lets not forget the placebo effect.

    Your body is designed to extract the nutrients from whatever crap you put in your mouth and flush out the toxins. That's why you have a complex 6 metre long GI tract and endless enzymes, a liver and kidneys with an impressive mechanism of extracting toxins (I remember being enthralled in my first year biochemistry classes). So 'clean eating' or paleo - no.

    Now onto the IIFYM crowd (popular here). Unless you are actively restricting calories to an unhealthy degree or failing to eat food from a variety of sources I see no reason for obsessively tracking macronutrients or micronutrients come to think of it. Especially when we know that most people just make up a split without any scientific thought or rationale (my macro split is based on what I think I can eat within the foods I like). Who made up the rules that you should have, for example, is it 0.85 or 1g of protein per pound/kg of body fat or whatever the latest figures that were clearly plucked out of thin air?

    In some communities in the world, people eat a diet consisting of 70% carbohydrates (I'm thinking much of Asia), in other communities, it is closer to 70% fat (Inuits etc). I don't see that one is necessarily superior to the other.

    Again the Krebs cycle tells me that your body can derive energy from carbohydrates, protein and fat - I suppose the only caveat is that in TRUE starvation, where there is no carbohydrate available AT ALL, protein will need to be metabolised for gluconeogenesis (man, haven't thought about this stuff in years - amazing what getting obsessed with your diet and fitness does for your brain!).

    So, obsessively tracking macros - no, not for me.

    I'm trying to strike a sensible balance between eating well and ensuring that I don't drift into disordered eating behaviours labelled as being 'healthy' - and as a scientist I always remember that my body is cleverer than I can ever hope to be. It's doing things I have no idea about and that I can never control, and it does them well, or the human race would have been extinct years ago.

    Sorry about the long post.

    "Obsessively" tracking macros? Is that different than just regular tracking of them?

    As for the recommended macro splits those come from many sources. Such as: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23739654

    Basing them off body weight/composition to meet a safe and effective guideline is better than just winging it.
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member

    It really is absolutely ridiculous.

    Yeah, but that's what makes the forums so much fun at times ;)

    I think a lot of these issues stem from the fact that there is a lot of inherent uncertainty in nutrition and there is very little settled science in reality. As such people can argue different positions equally effectively.

    What we do know is that a consistent calorie deficit and adherence are probably the two key drivers to a successful weight loss programme. An individual's personal biochemistry and psychological status will therefore effect how they find adherence in a real world setting so broad brush approaches such as clean eating, IIFYM or any other strategy will always be heavily (and hilariously) debated.

    I guess the old adage "know thyself" is about the best anyone can do...
  • tjthegreatone
    tjthegreatone Posts: 324
    tjthegreatone = smartest person alive!
    :blushing:
    That is by far the kindest thing anyone has ever said to me! Made my evening :blushing:
  • _noob_
    _noob_ Posts: 3,306 Member

    I guess the old adage "know thyself" is about the best anyone can do...

    I'd add the caveat of knowing what constitutes an experimental control is with "know thyself".
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member

    I guess the old adage "know thyself" is about the best anyone can do...

    I'd add the caveat of knowing what constitutes an experimental control is with "know thyself".

    You're an optimist!
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    For what it's worth I think that the paleo/clean eaters and IIFYMs are opposite sides of the same orthorexia nervosa coin.

    I don't understand the obsession with eating 'clean' food (especially when there is nothing even remotely approaching a consensus on what this is) or 'eating like a caveman' with zero evidence of any improvement in any of the parameters you care to measure - well-being, longevity, weight-loss, fitness, chronic disease etc. All we have is subjective anecdotes about people feeling better/less symptomatic (not measurable) and lets not forget the placebo effect.

    Your body is designed to extract the nutrients from whatever crap you put in your mouth and flush out the toxins. That's why you have a complex 6 metre long GI tract and endless enzymes, a liver and kidneys with an impressive mechanism of extracting toxins (I remember being enthralled in my first year biochemistry classes). So 'clean eating' or paleo - no.

    Now onto the IIFYM crowd (popular here). Unless you are actively restricting calories to an unhealthy degree or failing to eat food from a variety of sources I see no reason for obsessively tracking macronutrients or micronutrients come to think of it. Especially when we know that most people just make up a split without any scientific thought or rationale (my macro split is based on what I think I can eat within the foods I like). Who made up the rules that you should have, for example, is it 0.85 or 1g of protein per pound/kg of body fat or whatever the latest figures that were clearly plucked out of thin air?

    In some communities in the world, people eat a diet consisting of 70% carbohydrates (I'm thinking much of Asia), in other communities, it is closer to 70% fat (Inuits etc). I don't see that one is necessarily superior to the other.

    Again the Krebs cycle tells me that your body can derive energy from carbohydrates, protein and fat - I suppose the only caveat is that in TRUE starvation, where there is no carbohydrate available AT ALL, protein will need to be metabolised for gluconeogenesis (man, haven't thought about this stuff in years - amazing what getting obsessed with your diet and fitness does for your brain!).

    So, obsessively tracking macros - no, not for me.

    I'm trying to strike a sensible balance between eating well and ensuring that I don't drift into disordered eating behaviours labelled as being 'healthy' - and as a scientist I always remember that my body is cleverer than I can ever hope to be. It's doing things I have no idea about and that I can never control, and it does them well, or the human race would have been extinct years ago.

    Sorry about the long post.
    I liked this post. Thanks for sharing. That's not sarcastic either lol. And if you're good at doing a natural split and realize you crave different foods for different reasons and aren't lacking in nutrients, then who cares, don't obsessively count, it's a bad way to be. I would like to add something though. When I got the calorie countinig thing down (which is just as obsessive as macro counting), I did start paying attention to macros and micros. And I started noticing a difference when things were left out. And I started noticing what was in different foods. I kind of like the fact I know a little bit more about how food is absorbed and just because you get a lot of one nutrient doesn't mean you're going to absorb it since there may be a dependency on something else etc. It was a learning experience that I enjoyed and I was able to pin point a few nutrients my friends were lacking that have been proven to make them feel a certain way so it can be helpful. But once you know that stuff yeah, the obsessive macrotracking as well as calorie counting can stop.

    As for the magic 0.85 number. From what I understand it's more along the lines of 0.82. And there's an interesting post on that:
    "Based on the sound research, many review papers have concluded 0.82g/lb is the upper limit at which protein intake benefits body composition (Phillips & Van Loon, 2011)" more studies on that here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1031360-potential-protein-needs-and-calculating (it's an interesting read for what it's worth). Anyway, that's where the semi random guide number came from.

    "In some communities in the world, people eat a diet consisting of 70% carbohydrates (I'm thinking much of Asia), in other communities, it is closer to 70% fat (Inuits etc). I don't see that one is necessarily superior to the other." - And the only thing I think people should at least be aware about is that protein helps retain LBM, fat helps absorb many fat soluable nutrients, and carbs are a great way to get quick energy. Many of the high carb places in the world are rather active. For example, Okinawans are physically active into their 90s and I believe that is one of the places where they have a fair amount of carbs? And I agree there's never been any proof that 'this all over trumps that'. All we do know is higher protein help retain lbm. Low carbs sometimes help those with diseases that come from a sedentary obese lifestyle. I know when I have a bunch of carbs during a long hike I feel a ton better compared to anything else...which makes sense considering glycogen replenishment etc. And many people who maintain healthy lifestyles and eat a fair amount of fat haven't shown the ill effects everyone blames fat on. One thing that is important is getting enough macronutrients to avoid health deficencies which really you only need to be mindful of while on a calorie deficit and many people can do this naturally. Once you reach over the minimums fill in however you feel because none has really proven to be better then another as far as I know anyway.

    If I'm working on getting lean I get more protein, more carbs if I'm exercising allot...and well..I just love fat lol.
  • chatogal
    chatogal Posts: 436 Member
    not reading anything else except for the op's opening post. I like it :-) As for me, I just try and eat a healthy well balanced diet. I like cooking, so I prefer non processed food...does it mean "never"....nope...Heck, I just want to be normal and as healthy as I can be...cant we have a thread for normal eating folks??
  • tjthegreatone
    tjthegreatone Posts: 324
    For what it's worth I think that the paleo/clean eaters and IIFYMs are opposite sides of the same orthorexia nervosa coin.

    I don't understand the obsession with eating 'clean' food (especially when there is nothing even remotely approaching a consensus on what this is) or 'eating like a caveman' with zero evidence of any improvement in any of the parameters you care to measure - well-being, longevity, weight-loss, fitness, chronic disease etc. All we have is subjective anecdotes about people feeling better/less symptomatic (not measurable) and lets not forget the placebo effect.

    Your body is designed to extract the nutrients from whatever crap you put in your mouth and flush out the toxins. That's why you have a complex 6 metre long GI tract and endless enzymes, a liver and kidneys with an impressive mechanism of extracting toxins (I remember being enthralled in my first year biochemistry classes). So 'clean eating' or paleo - no.

    Now onto the IIFYM crowd (popular here). Unless you are actively restricting calories to an unhealthy degree or failing to eat food from a variety of sources I see no reason for obsessively tracking macronutrients or micronutrients come to think of it. Especially when we know that most people just make up a split without any scientific thought or rationale (my macro split is based on what I think I can eat within the foods I like). Who made up the rules that you should have, for example, is it 0.85 or 1g of protein per pound/kg of body fat or whatever the latest figures that were clearly plucked out of thin air?

    In some communities in the world, people eat a diet consisting of 70% carbohydrates (I'm thinking much of Asia), in other communities, it is closer to 70% fat (Inuits etc). I don't see that one is necessarily superior to the other.

    Again the Krebs cycle tells me that your body can derive energy from carbohydrates, protein and fat - I suppose the only caveat is that in TRUE starvation, where there is no carbohydrate available AT ALL, protein will need to be metabolised for gluconeogenesis (man, haven't thought about this stuff in years - amazing what getting obsessed with your diet and fitness does for your brain!).

    So, obsessively tracking macros - no, not for me.

    I'm trying to strike a sensible balance between eating well and ensuring that I don't drift into disordered eating behaviours labelled as being 'healthy' - and as a scientist I always remember that my body is cleverer than I can ever hope to be. It's doing things I have no idea about and that I can never control, and it does them well, or the human race would have been extinct years ago.

    Sorry about the long post.

    "Obsessively" tracking macros? Is that different than just regular tracking of them?

    As for the recommended macro splits those come from many sources. Such as: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23739654

    Basing them off body weight/composition to meet a safe and effective guideline is better than just winging it.

    I read the abstract. Sadly I do not have access to the paper so I am unable to critique it effectively. However, from the abstract:
    1) The study was a short term one (total 61 days)
    2) The subjects had a significant calorie deficit (40% is pretty sporting!)
    3) The abstract says that all groups lost comparable amounts of weight
    4) MOST IMPORTANT: the abstract says that the high protein people lost less fat-free mass (?LBM) than the other groups and quotes a P-value but does not quantify by how much. Statistically significant =/= practically relevant. This is the key bit of information missing.

    I found this paper more compelling (full paper is free):
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14988451
    They find that people on higher protein diets report greater satiety. This might be more relevant to most people here and I think would probably be a good reason for a high protein macro approach if you want to restrict calories.

    I used the word 'obsessive' because I see people here being encouraged to chug down protein shakes as substitutes for meals in a big to up their protein macros. If the difference in LBM lost is not big enough to be clinically relevant then why go through that?
  • Barbellgirl
    Barbellgirl Posts: 544 Member
    It does make me chuckle momentarily when I consider that the 'paleo' diet could really have only been bourne out of this day and age as it totally negates any understanding of anthropology, geography, seasonality and so on.

    Eat it if you like, but don't pretend its anything other than a marketing gimmick.


    Also: the 'no legume' thing still puzzles me...presumably leguminous plants existed in the Paleolithic era.....

    Steve, here's a good article for you, the reason is lectins:

    http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    or you could start a whole new post about the negative aspect of clean eating - like any diet that has a name, there are pro's and con's.

    Chelled- I agree to no such thing. There's absolutely no reason to believe that people need to be saved every time the word "clean" gets mentioned in relation to diet. And there's no reason you HAVE to read those posts, and there's no reason you HAVE to voice your opinion in those posts. You can start your own and allow people to see your opinions there. Trolling for the the word clean just so you "save" people or pick a fight is being an A-hole.

    So what I'm reading here is that your opinion is that other people shouldn't voice their opinion when it differs from your opinion? Like, do you HAVE to voice your opinion right now? Or could you be moving on? Why do you feel you HAVE to save this thread from the opinion of others? And if someone does offer their opinion, they are just being an a-hole. How, exactly, are you NOT the a-hole in this conversation?

    And the part you keep conveniently leaving out is how hard this "clean eating" lifestyle is to maintain and how many, many people use the inability to eat 100% "clean" as their primary excuse to not even start trying to lose weight, and how many, many people start out with 8 "clean" days of eating, cave in and eat a french fry, then get frustrated, mentally beat themselves up, and trying to lose weight altogether.

    People like that compose 99% of my overweight IRL friends, who have watched me lose 50+ pounds while eating pizza and McD's and never having a day where I got frustrated because my co-workers brought pizza in for lunch. These forums have thread after thread of people on Motivation and Support asking how people do this and can someone help because the keep falling off the wagon. Meanwhile, folks like Chelle and myself try to tell them there IS NO WAGON. That losing weight can be fun and enjoyable and without the religious levels of guilt you clean eaters want to lay upon their immortal souls.

    That's my opinion and I'll type it anywhere I damn well please, tyvm
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    It does make me chuckle momentarily when I consider that the 'paleo' diet could really have only been bourne out of this day and age as it totally negates any understanding of anthropology, geography, seasonality and so on.

    Eat it if you like, but don't pretend its anything other than a marketing gimmick.


    Also: the 'no legume' thing still puzzles me...presumably leguminous plants existed in the Paleolithic era.....

    Steve, here's a good article for you, the reason is lectins:

    http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html
    I'll have to read this after, I always wondered about that.
  • tjthegreatone
    tjthegreatone Posts: 324
    To CoderGal:

    I'll return the favour - I liked your post too! I agree that there probably is an optimum protein consumption amount to retain lean body mass, but I don't think that the number is known, or can be validated across a huge range of people. From your post you are inferring that it is dependent on the individual: energy needs and activity profile (as well as other genetic factors that can't be quantified) and I tend to agree with you. But I have no evidence. In my last post I was looking at a paper that someone else posted about the effects of high protein on preserving LBM. I bet if I could access that paper, the authors would have overstated the case a bit.

    One thing I'll give the IIFYM crowd - there is decent quality research out there on the topic (with most papers either stating an equivalence or possibly some superiority to high carb diets).

    Paleo on the other hand is almost inevitably compared with the standard American diet - what dietary regimen would not emerge as superior?
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    That losing weight can be fun and enjoyable and without the religious levels of guilt you clean eaters want to lay upon their immortal souls.

    That's my opinion and I'll type it anywhere I damn well please, tyvm

    MTE -QFT
  • MsEndomorph
    MsEndomorph Posts: 604 Member
    CoderGal, thanks, that clears it up. What you are saying is that it matters what you eat because some food is nutritionally better than others, but it's Ok to eat "junk" too.
    I still fail to see why anyone needs to "save" people from doing their best to minimize or if they feel the need, eliminate as much of the "junk" as possible.

    This.
    I'll take a little less of the martyrdom being shoved down my throat.

    No one needs to be saved from squash and brought back to poptarts and Oreos. No one here can possibly REALLY believe that. All it is in insecurity. Do what you do with confidence and it won't matter if other people think your Hot Pockets are garbage.
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    For what it's worth I think that the paleo/clean eaters and IIFYMs are opposite sides of the same orthorexia nervosa coin.

    I don't understand the obsession with eating 'clean' food (especially when there is nothing even remotely approaching a consensus on what this is) or 'eating like a caveman' with zero evidence of any improvement in any of the parameters you care to measure - well-being, longevity, weight-loss, fitness, chronic disease etc. All we have is subjective anecdotes about people feeling better/less symptomatic (not measurable) and lets not forget the placebo effect.

    Your body is designed to extract the nutrients from whatever crap you put in your mouth and flush out the toxins. That's why you have a complex 6 metre long GI tract and endless enzymes, a liver and kidneys with an impressive mechanism of extracting toxins (I remember being enthralled in my first year biochemistry classes). So 'clean eating' or paleo - no.

    Now onto the IIFYM crowd (popular here). Unless you are actively restricting calories to an unhealthy degree or failing to eat food from a variety of sources I see no reason for obsessively tracking macronutrients or micronutrients come to think of it. Especially when we know that most people just make up a split without any scientific thought or rationale (my macro split is based on what I think I can eat within the foods I like). Who made up the rules that you should have, for example, is it 0.85 or 1g of protein per pound/kg of body fat or whatever the latest figures that were clearly plucked out of thin air?

    In some communities in the world, people eat a diet consisting of 70% carbohydrates (I'm thinking much of Asia), in other communities, it is closer to 70% fat (Inuits etc). I don't see that one is necessarily superior to the other.

    Again the Krebs cycle tells me that your body can derive energy from carbohydrates, protein and fat - I suppose the only caveat is that in TRUE starvation, where there is no carbohydrate available AT ALL, protein will need to be metabolised for gluconeogenesis (man, haven't thought about this stuff in years - amazing what getting obsessed with your diet and fitness does for your brain!).

    So, obsessively tracking macros - no, not for me.

    I'm trying to strike a sensible balance between eating well and ensuring that I don't drift into disordered eating behaviours labelled as being 'healthy' - and as a scientist I always remember that my body is cleverer than I can ever hope to be. It's doing things I have no idea about and that I can never control, and it does them well, or the human race would have been extinct years ago.

    Sorry about the long post.

    "Obsessively" tracking macros? Is that different than just regular tracking of them?

    As for the recommended macro splits those come from many sources. Such as: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23739654

    Basing them off body weight/composition to meet a safe and effective guideline is better than just winging it.

    I read the abstract. Sadly I do not have access to the paper so I am unable to critique it effectively. However, from the abstract:
    1) The study was a short term one (total 61 days)
    2) The subjects had a significant calorie deficit (40% is pretty sporting!)
    3) The abstract says that all groups lost comparable amounts of weight
    4) MOST IMPORTANT: the abstract says that the high protein people lost less fat-free mass (?LBM) than the other groups and quotes a P-value but does not quantify by how much. Statistically significant =/= practically relevant. This is the key bit of information missing.

    I found this paper more compelling (full paper is free):
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14988451
    They find that people on higher protein diets report greater satiety. This might be more relevant to most people here and I think would probably be a good reason for a high protein macro approach if you want to restrict calories.

    I used the word 'obsessive' because I see people here being encouraged to chug down protein shakes as substitutes for meals in a big to up their protein macros. If the difference in LBM lost is not big enough to be clinically relevant then why go through that?

    i don't see that (in bold). i see protein shakes recommended to augment protein intake from regular meals.

    meal replacement shakes are an entirely different subject and very few people recommending protein shakes on here would also recommend slim-fast, herbalife, shakeology, etc.

Categories