the "mindset" behind clean eating/paleo

BeachIron

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?

I think quite a bit of the variance is how we all choose to deal with imperfect information. The take I've gotten from some clean eaters, some family members included, is that we don't know what effect recent changes to our food supply may have and while there is no proof that any of the modern additives, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, etc. are dangerous, they want to avoid them anyway just in case. I don't think this is patently unreasonable but, for me, I'm not going to fundamentally change my lifestyle without better evidence. The unknowable unknown (a/k/a black swan) is probably much more likely to kill me first, to be honest. My only request is that if this is someone's view that they be honest about this rather than claiming that they "KNOW."

Protein is another area and I don't think it's just the IIFYM types in the bodybuilding and fitness communities that eat a higher protein intake. Many of the clean eaters in the bodybuilding and fitness communities do the same. For me, eating a high protein diet couldn't be easier and I don't eat much in the way of protein powder because I don't find it necessary. I do use it to add taste to Greek yogurt but that's about it. I love meat and dairy and if anything have to guide myself into getting enough fiber which is my hardest nutrient to hit on a day to day basis. That said, I don't think the 1 gram per pound of lean body mass is that far off of what would be optimal, if for no other reason than so many people have had success with it and the studies that are available seem to fall somewhere in that general vicinity. No one, however, is saying that they "KNOW" that is the right number, just that it's probably somewhere close to that and a little more than optimal isn't going to hurt. But again, that is how some of us choose to deal with imperfect information.

The list of grey areas clearly goes on and on.

ndj1979

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.

Hold on a second there buddy...where do you get off trying to represent me???? I will be nasty, sarcastic, a wise *kitten*, et al, and you will NOT be apologizing for me ....

bahahahahahahaha ....

JK - good post...

and forum goof too...

Achrya

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.

I needed saved from squash and brought back to oreos, since I hate the former but was eating it because I would learn to like it (or so I was told) and it was so much better for me. If I had a dollar for every "you'll get used to it." In regards to so called health food...I'd have quite a few dollars.

BrainyBurro

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.

people do need to be saved from eating disorders and brought back to healthy relationships with food.

until i came to this site, i had minimal knowledge about EDs. i have since learned (from having friends on here who are struggling with these disorders) that the guilt/shame of eating foods that they perceive to be "bad" or "unhealthy" is a huge part of their disorder. one cannot read the PMs i've exchanged with these friends without coming away from them recognizing that food shaming or labeling is a problem.

if you don't want to eat a pop tart because it doesn't give you enough nutrition per calorie, or because you don't like they way they taste... fine. but if you call it "bad" and say that your decision not to eat a pop tart is the "healthy" decision and that you'll likely live longer by avoiding "foods full of artificial chemicals" or any of the other nebulous claptrap i hear from people in that camp, then i'm going to call BS on that argument... every single time. i have one friend who i wish i could get to eat a packet of pop tarts every morning. she could use those extra 400 calories, even if they don't pack a potent nutritional punch.

sluggz

DavPul - I didn't conveniently leave that out, read my first post. I said it here: "Clean eating in my opinion, absolutely is TOO rigid, the reason is this: The mindset you bring up, is necessary in order to resolve one's self to not eat the food-like products that are readily available all over the place. And secondly because sticking to it, especially in the beginning, is really F-ing hard! "

You also missed where I said you have every right to voice your opinion, you just don't have to do it on a board that is discussing clean eating when you don't agree with the concept of clean eating. You can do it other places, but specifically going there just to pick a fight or start an argument is exactly what i said it is.

I'm not a clean eater, also from my first post "First of all, I'm not a clean eater, but I definitely lean that direction. That being said, I'm eating a Papa Murphy's pizza as I type this. What can I say? It was heavy Squat and Bench day."
so you can point that finger somewhere else too.

By all means, eat the way you find best to work for you. Others can do the same.

BeachGingerOnTheRocks

Whatever the mindset, if clean eating/paleo works for someone as a way of life, that is great. There are tons of these types of threads daily. Most of them, I completely ignore. I've been told my diet is crap and that I live on pop tarts and junk food when people have never bothered to look at what I eat before making these blanket assumptions. I've been told I deserved cancer and how could I continue to pollute my body with having survived it - by someone who never even looked at my diary. Occasionally I make the washed pop tart joke because (1) I don't know whether there is a consensus among clean eaters on what defines "clean"; (2) pop tarts are the one food that is demonized most; and (3) soggy pop tarts are truly gross no matter how you eat.

I do tend to post in threads when I see someone say that another person will not have success unless they eat completely clean because it isn't true. I'm not out to save MFP, but if new people read that, believe that, and end up giving up when they "fail", it makes me sad because that is one less success story that I want to read. The thing that draws me into threads are when the posts go the direction of "clean" being the "only" way or when people begin to mock those who don't eat clean. I don't mock the diet, but I do mock the sanctimony and the insults when I see them. Otherwise, I'm happy going about my business.

There are posts almost every day made by people who are upset that they binged, that they ate pizza and wonder if they blew it or can get back on track. I see people beating themselves up about easily fixable problems. I do post in those threads to tell people that it is okay, that they can keep on going and even learn to incorporate those foods into their diets in moderation or slowly so that future binges can be avoided. I do tell them that if the goal is weight loss, then a calorie deficit is what matters, because that's just basic math and science. When they have other goals, then macros and nutrition are the focus of the discussion. Why do I post? Because I have had unbelievable success. 60 pounds lost, then 34% body fat post chemo, and now, 2 years and 3 weeks later, I'm sub-20% body fat, strong, and very happy.

I don't go around saying IIFYM is the only way. Why would I? It isn't. I do believe that micronutrients are extremely important, as do most IIFYMers. My diet is healthy, balanced, fits within my recomposition goals, allows for plenty of boxed foods that are (gasp) nutrient-dense, includes grains, nuts, fruits, vegetables, meats of all kinds, occasional sweets, processed protein powders when I don't feel like eating meat, and my diet even includes pizza and and ice cream. Even on days I eat fast food, I hit my macros AND micros because the rest of my diet is great. And when I aim to get to "competition weight," I understand what needs to be in my diet and what doesn't. But 99% of MFP isn't aiming for competition weight for anything, so that information isn't something I put in the forums to help someone aiming to lose weight.

MsEndomorph

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.

people do need to be saved from eating disorders and brought back to healthy relationships with food.

until i came to this site, i had minimal knowledge about EDs. i have since learned (from having friends on here who are struggling with these disorders) that the guilt/shame of eating foods that they perceive to be "bad" or "unhealthy" is a huge part of their disorder. one cannot read the PMs i've exchanged with these friends without coming away from them recognizing that food shaming or labeling is a problem.

if you don't want to eat a pop tart because it doesn't give you enough nutrition per calorie, or because you don't like they way they taste... fine. but if you call it "bad" and say that your decision not to eat a pop tart is the "healthy" decision and that you'll likely live longer by avoiding "foods full of artificial chemicals" or any of the other nebulous claptrap i hear from people in that camp, then i'm going to call BS on that argument... every single time. i have one friend who i wish i could get to eat a packet of pop tarts every morning. she could use those extra 400 calories, even if they don't pack a potent nutritional punch.

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, clean eating is no more responsible for anorexia than "dirty" eating is responsible for bulimia. I've never met a paleo anorexic, because an anorexic isn't concerned about anything other than eating as few calories a day as possible. Sure, their diet probably consists of things like carrots and celery, but that's purely due to calorie density, not concerns about chemicals. That's a totally different aspect of a food relationship. If you're meeting your minimum caloric intake, your macros are in decent enough order, and you don't eat poptarts because you don't like processed foods and you'd rather be safe than sorry (from cancer, fat, whatever) , GOOD for you. Seems like a perfectly healthy relationship with food.

It's almost like people who make it their mission to bring the True Love Waits crew into the world of sex. Just leave them alone! If they want to be virgins until they're 30, who cares? At least they're garanteed not to get pregnant!

I can't speak for everyone's hidden motives, but I'm of the opinion that most of it stems from insecurity with one's own choices. If you don't buy into the "good" and "bad" mentality, those labels won't bother you.

BrainyBurro

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.

people do need to be saved from eating disorders and brought back to healthy relationships with food.

until i came to this site, i had minimal knowledge about EDs. i have since learned (from having friends on here who are struggling with these disorders) that the guilt/shame of eating foods that they perceive to be "bad" or "unhealthy" is a huge part of their disorder. one cannot read the PMs i've exchanged with these friends without coming away from them recognizing that food shaming or labeling is a problem.

if you don't want to eat a pop tart because it doesn't give you enough nutrition per calorie, or because you don't like they way they taste... fine. but if you call it "bad" and say that your decision not to eat a pop tart is the "healthy" decision and that you'll likely live longer by avoiding "foods full of artificial chemicals" or any of the other nebulous claptrap i hear from people in that camp, then i'm going to call BS on that argument... every single time. i have one friend who i wish i could get to eat a packet of pop tarts every morning. she could use those extra 400 calories, even if they don't pack a potent nutritional punch.

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, clean eating is no more responsible for anorexia than "dirty" eating is responsible for bulimia. I've never met a paleo anorexic, because an anorexic isn't concerned about anything other than eating as few calories a day as possible. Sure, their diet probably consists of things like carrots and celery, but that's purely due to calorie density, not concerns about chemicals. That's a totally different aspect of a food relationship. If you're meeting your minimum caloric intake, your macros are in decent enough order, and you don't eat poptarts because you don't like processed foods and you'd rather be safe than sorry (from cancer, fat, whatever) , GOOD for you. Seems like a perfectly healthy relationship with food.

It's almost like people who make it their mission to bring the True Love Waits crew into the world of sex. Just leave them alone! If they want to be virgins until they're 30, who cares? At least they're garanteed not to get pregnant!

i'm fine with it if somebody wants to argue that this is all about semantics. i am willing to argue the semantic aspect as well.

words mean things. the clean eaters chose the word "clean" to imply something. i object to that. i object to food being called "bad" or "unhealthy" or "dirty". i object to the idea that food stops being food just because human hands have touched it between the field and my dinner plate.

these all sound like silly things to argue about, and for rational informed adults they probably are, but there are lots of uninformed people out there who act on words such as these in ways that are emotionally, mentally, and physical harmful to themselves.

if the clean eaters want to start calling themselves "nutrient dense eaters" and stop implying, inferring, and directly stating that their food choices are somehow inherently better than others', then much of this controversy would go away.

and to give you an idea why semantics matters, what if the entire world of IIFYM eaters decided tonight to start referring to that philosophy as "sane eating"? don't you think that would rustle the jimmies of a whole lot of clean eaters?

tjthegreatone

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.

people do need to be saved from eating disorders and brought back to healthy relationships with food.

until i came to this site, i had minimal knowledge about EDs. i have since learned (from having friends on here who are struggling with these disorders) that the guilt/shame of eating foods that they perceive to be "bad" or "unhealthy" is a huge part of their disorder. one cannot read the PMs i've exchanged with these friends without coming away from them recognizing that food shaming or labeling is a problem.

if you don't want to eat a pop tart because it doesn't give you enough nutrition per calorie, or because you don't like they way they taste... fine. but if you call it "bad" and say that your decision not to eat a pop tart is the "healthy" decision and that you'll likely live longer by avoiding "foods full of artificial chemicals" or any of the other nebulous claptrap i hear from people in that camp, then i'm going to call BS on that argument... every single time. i have one friend who i wish i could get to eat a packet of pop tarts every morning. she could use those extra 400 calories, even if they don't pack a potent nutritional punch.

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, clean eating is no more responsible for anorexia than "dirty" eating is responsible for bulimia. I've never met a paleo anorexic, because an anorexic isn't concerned about anything other than eating as few calories a day as possible. Sure, their diet probably consists of things like carrots and celery, but that's purely due to calorie density, not concerns about chemicals. That's a totally different aspect of a food relationship. If you're meeting your minimum caloric intake, your macros are in decent enough order, and you don't eat poptarts because you don't like processed foods and you'd rather be safe than sorry (from cancer, fat, whatever) , GOOD for you. Seems like a perfectly healthy relationship with food.

It's almost like people who make it their mission to bring the True Love Waits crew into the world of sex. Just leave them alone! If they want to be virgins until they're 30, who cares? At least they're garanteed not to get pregnant!

I can't speak for everyone's hidden motives, but I'm of the opinion that most of it stems from insecurity with one's own choices. If you don't buy into the "good" and "bad" mentality, those labels won't bother you.

Anorexia is not the only eating disorder out there.

Orthorexia is increasingly recognised. Far more people have 'ED- not otherwise specified' than anorexia or bulimia and I think that the obsession with being 'clean' can stem from an unhealthy place. It's rooted in the fear of food (just like anorexia) but it circumvents the issue by determining that some foods are 'safe' and clean whilst others (often arbitrarily determined) are not.

There is a scary undercurrent of disordered eating on this site that does need to be addressed.

I'm not for shoving pop tarts down people's throats (I don't even know what they are! I live in the UK), but if you came on here to get fitter or healthier it would be a shame to depart with an eating disorder. Bear in mind that about 30%+ of dieters will develop an eating disorder. All these nutrition/diet subcultures are not helping the problem.

_noob_

One of the things I vehemently disagree with some on here about is the health value of non-organic produce. To insinuate that they are even remotely unhealthy or bad is bordering on irresponsible IMO.

People who are genuinely clueless don't need to go around worrying about non organic produce being "unhealthy".

I have problems with those in the medical community or "authorities" who way similar things.

MsEndomorph

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.

people do need to be saved from eating disorders and brought back to healthy relationships with food.

until i came to this site, i had minimal knowledge about EDs. i have since learned (from having friends on here who are struggling with these disorders) that the guilt/shame of eating foods that they perceive to be "bad" or "unhealthy" is a huge part of their disorder. one cannot read the PMs i've exchanged with these friends without coming away from them recognizing that food shaming or labeling is a problem.

if you don't want to eat a pop tart because it doesn't give you enough nutrition per calorie, or because you don't like they way they taste... fine. but if you call it "bad" and say that your decision not to eat a pop tart is the "healthy" decision and that you'll likely live longer by avoiding "foods full of artificial chemicals" or any of the other nebulous claptrap i hear from people in that camp, then i'm going to call BS on that argument... every single time. i have one friend who i wish i could get to eat a packet of pop tarts every morning. she could use those extra 400 calories, even if they don't pack a potent nutritional punch.

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, clean eating is no more responsible for anorexia than "dirty" eating is responsible for bulimia. I've never met a paleo anorexic, because an anorexic isn't concerned about anything other than eating as few calories a day as possible. Sure, their diet probably consists of things like carrots and celery, but that's purely due to calorie density, not concerns about chemicals. That's a totally different aspect of a food relationship. If you're meeting your minimum caloric intake, your macros are in decent enough order, and you don't eat poptarts because you don't like processed foods and you'd rather be safe than sorry (from cancer, fat, whatever) , GOOD for you. Seems like a perfectly healthy relationship with food.

It's almost like people who make it their mission to bring the True Love Waits crew into the world of sex. Just leave them alone! If they want to be virgins until they're 30, who cares? At least they're garanteed not to get pregnant!

I can't speak for everyone's hidden motives, but I'm of the opinion that most of it stems from insecurity with one's own choices. If you don't buy into the "good" and "bad" mentality, those labels won't bother you.

Anorexia is not the only eating disorder out there.

Orthorexia is increasingly recognised. Far more people have 'ED- not otherwise specified' than anorexia or bulimia and I think that the obsession with being 'clean' can stem from an unhealthy place. It's rooted in the fear of food (just like anorexia) but it circumvents the issue by determining that some foods are 'safe' and clean whilst others (often arbitrarily determined) are not.

There is a scary undercurrent of disordered eating on this site that does need to be addressed.

I'm not for shoving pop tarts down people's throats (I don't even know what they are! I live in the UK), but if you came on here to get fitter or healthier it would be a shame to depart with an eating disorder. Bear in mind that about 30%+ of dieters will develop an eating disorder. All these nutrition/diet subcultures are not helping the problem.

You can't be serious.

Eating disorder fear mongering??? I think I've seen it all.

That is not a "real disorder" that's being increasingly recognized. It's something someone made up based on his own experience with obsessive eating and has attempted to circulate. I'm sure his experience is true and real, and I'm sure there are others who've dealt with the same, but eating disorders are not about FOOD and they've never been about FOOD and they never will be. A style of eating, a discussion about styles of eating...those things do not cause eating disorders.

The dramatics here are killing me. Faster than poptarts.

CookNLift

my primary change has been towards an 80/20 paleo diet. doesn't mean I'll pass up the chance for a white castle burger

bad food is only bad if you eat too much. too much of a good thing can be bad. there is objectional scientific data on everything. we need to blame scientists here and tell them to get their **** together.

VBnotbitter

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.

people do need to be saved from eating disorders and brought back to healthy relationships with food.

until i came to this site, i had minimal knowledge about EDs. i have since learned (from having friends on here who are struggling with these disorders) that the guilt/shame of eating foods that they perceive to be "bad" or "unhealthy" is a huge part of their disorder. one cannot read the PMs i've exchanged with these friends without coming away from them recognizing that food shaming or labeling is a problem.

if you don't want to eat a pop tart because it doesn't give you enough nutrition per calorie, or because you don't like they way they taste... fine. but if you call it "bad" and say that your decision not to eat a pop tart is the "healthy" decision and that you'll likely live longer by avoiding "foods full of artificial chemicals" or any of the other nebulous claptrap i hear from people in that camp, then i'm going to call BS on that argument... every single time. i have one friend who i wish i could get to eat a packet of pop tarts every morning. she could use those extra 400 calories, even if they don't pack a potent nutritional punch.

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, clean eating is no more responsible for anorexia than "dirty" eating is responsible for bulimia. I've never met a paleo anorexic, because an anorexic isn't concerned about anything other than eating as few calories a day as possible. Sure, their diet probably consists of things like carrots and celery, but that's purely due to calorie density, not concerns about chemicals. That's a totally different aspect of a food relationship. If you're meeting your minimum caloric intake, your macros are in decent enough order, and you don't eat poptarts because you don't like processed foods and you'd rather be safe than sorry (from cancer, fat, whatever) , GOOD for you. Seems like a perfectly healthy relationship with food.

It's almost like people who make it their mission to bring the True Love Waits crew into the world of sex. Just leave them alone! If they want to be virgins until they're 30, who cares? At least they're garanteed not to get pregnant!

I can't speak for everyone's hidden motives, but I'm of the opinion that most of it stems from insecurity with one's own choices. If you don't buy into the "good" and "bad" mentality, those labels won't bother you.

Anorexia is not the only eating disorder out there.

Orthorexia is increasingly recognised. Far more people have 'ED- not otherwise specified' than anorexia or bulimia and I think that the obsession with being 'clean' can stem from an unhealthy place. It's rooted in the fear of food (just like anorexia) but it circumvents the issue by determining that some foods are 'safe' and clean whilst others (often arbitrarily determined) are not.

There is a scary undercurrent of disordered eating on this site that does need to be addressed.

I'm not for shoving pop tarts down people's throats (I don't even know what they are! I live in the UK), but if you came on here to get fitter or healthier it would be a shame to depart with an eating disorder. Bear in mind that about 30%+ of dieters will develop an eating disorder. All these nutrition/diet subcultures are not helping the problem.

You can't be serious.

Eating disorder fear mongering??? I think I've seen it all.

That is not a "real disorder" that's being increasingly recognized. It's something someone made up based on his own experience with obsessive eating and has attempted to circulate. I'm sure his experience is true and real, and I'm sure there are others who've dealt with the same, but eating disorders are not about FOOD and they've never been about FOOD and they never will be. A style of eating, a discussion about styles of eating...those things do not cause eating disorders.

The dramatics here are killing me. Faster than poptarts.

Sorry to butt in but I think that is exactly what they are saying. Eating disorders, as you say, are not about food. At the basic level it's about control, when the sufferer feels lack of control in other areas. Whether they are controlling quantity (anorexia) or obsessing about types of food consumed (orthorexia) it's all part of the same spectrum.

Like so many in this thread, and the forums as a whole, you are arguing About something you agree on.

CoderGal

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?

I think quite a bit of the variance is how we all choose to deal with imperfect information. The take I've gotten from some clean eaters, some family members included, is that we don't know what effect recent changes to our food supply may have and while there is no proof that any of the modern additives, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, etc. are dangerous, they want to avoid them anyway just in case. I don't think this is patently unreasonable but, for me, I'm not going to fundamentally change my lifestyle without better evidence. The unknowable unknown (a/k/a black swan) is probably much more likely to kill me first, to be honest. My only request is that if this is someone's view that they be honest about this rather than claiming that they "KNOW."

Protein is another area and I don't think it's just the IIFYM types in the bodybuilding and fitness communities that eat a higher protein intake. Many of the clean eaters in the bodybuilding and fitness communities do the same. For me, eating a high protein diet couldn't be easier and I don't eat much in the way of protein powder because I don't find it necessary. I do use it to add taste to Greek yogurt but that's about it. I love meat and dairy and if anything have to guide myself into getting enough fiber which is my hardest nutrient to hit on a day to day basis. That said, I don't think the 1 gram per pound of lean body mass is that far off of what would be optimal, if for no other reason than so many people have had success with it and the studies that are available seem to fall somewhere in that general vicinity. No one, however, is saying that they "KNOW" that is the right number, just that it's probably somewhere close to that and a little more than optimal isn't going to hurt. But again, that is how some of us choose to deal with imperfect information.

The list of grey areas clearly goes on and on.

Exactly. I have no problem with people choosing to never put a cookie in their mouth. You can totally live life healthily without cookies if that's what you want to do. You can also do so with cookies. I know a woman who grew up with my great grandmother and lived into her hundreds. I think she died at around 109-115? Around there, can't remember the exact number. The only thing I ever saw her put in her mouth was cake pizza cookies chocolate and tea. She use to say "Who said you couldn't live a long life on crackers and tea". She was quite quick witted and had no sign of health problems, always remembered who I was (and I was only in that area a few times a year). What if someone grew up with her her whole life wishing cancer on her and badgering her saying it's not good for her to be doing what she's doing? She shouldn't eat this, she's bad because she shouldn't share that with people etc. She absolutely loved her crackers and tea and sharing cookies with any kid when they visited their great grandparents. It could have made her life quite the unhappy place and potentially shorter, she definitely would have taken it to heart.

I also don't like the "facts" that are absolutely not facts that get thrown around, the cancer threats (found another one today in another thread), etc. If someone feels like they're in a better place if they're stressed out and want a cookie and gets to have a cookie and they're happy for it, I see no need to torture someone over it. If someone doesn't want the cookie, don't stress that on them either, it's their choice. Don't restrict everyones choice. Though I do think that if someone is obsessing over eating to many cookies or not eating any cookies to the point they can get stressed over it, I think it might be a good idea to let them know. It gives the possibility to make someone happier and a more pleasant person who isn't wishing cancer and cookies on people...

tjthegreatone

I don't think it is scaremongering - simply putting out the stark truth there.

Eating disorders are about control - of food - food being the battleground the ED sufferer chooses to fight on. They may well have chosen something else to battle with - in which case the disorder would have another name. We are arguing semantics here. Dieting IS a recognised risk factor for developing an eating disorder, and people need to be aware that the correct approach is to choose a slow and sustainable method to weight loss, not cutting out entire food groups based on spurious claims with no evidence to back them up.

There are several posts on here with people wailing because they slipped and ate pizza/chips/some other 'non'-clean food, and then they get discouraged and derailed. There are several people on this site who struggle to hit even 1000 calories a day because all they are eating are 'clean' or 'paleo' foods. How is this acceptable or sustainable or healthier? Of course we all human and fail and fall off the wagon' every now and again, but it is much more difficult to stay on if your wagon is a tightrope.

I stand by my words.

MzPix

This discussion makes me laugh but want to cry.

People assuming users on a website are such ignorant sheep that they need saved from a conversation that might make them end up with an unrecognized theoretical eating disorder because they read other people's opinions on the interwebz?!?

What the? :noway:

https://www.google.com/search?q=find+a+hobby

bcattoes

I have no problem with most clean eating posts, especially since a good majority of the people posting are misusing the term. And while I do not agree that all man-made additives are unhealthy, I doubt many of them are healthy.

Paleo is another matter for me. I don't care who eats Paleo, but don't tell me that grains and legumes are poison or unhealthy. That is just utter nonsense.