Why are people so negative regarding clean eating?
Replies
-
I spend the majorly of my time with sick people, and I promise you solving their nutritional problems is nowhere near as cut and dry as people like to pretend it is.
Yes, helping people who have actual diseases somehow related to nutrition can be very difficult to treat. On top of normal issues of compliance you have the special dietary needs as well.
That's why RDs have to have so much education and whatnot.0 -
When IIFYM'er start arguing over how nutritious a Twinkie is, thats when I think you start to go off the deep end and may start to lose some votes. It always has to be some silly extreme example. You state the obvious like "eating too much of anything isn't good for you" and then back it by saying "even twinkies are healthy". For most people outside of the IIFYM crowd we are perfectly capable of understanding the nutritional difference between an avocado and a twinkie. While someone may decide to fit a twinkie into their diet. they also for the most part understand its not a healthy choice. Now you guys are just really stretching it.0
-
who cares what people say,do what YOU want.0
-
When IIFYM'er start arguing over how nutritious a Twinkie is, thats when I think you start to go off the deep end and may start to lose some votes. It always has to be some silly extreme example. You state the obvious like "eating too much of anything isn't good for you" and then back it by saying "even twinkies are healthy". For most people outside of the IIFYM crowd we are perfectly capable of understanding the nutritional difference between an avocado and a twinkie. While someone may decide to fit a twinkie into their diet. they also for the most part understand its not a healthy choice. Now you guys are just really stretching it.
Why do you continue to demonize food? What specifically is unhealthy about a twinkie? Seriously, what? Back up your food shaming and demonizing with some sort of science or evidence or anything. Other than antequated beliefs and ideals that have done nothing to help the masses except make weight control and fitness daunting and intimidating to the average person.
General claims "This is healthy" "This isn't healthy" help no one, ever. Explain why?!0 -
When IIFYM'er start arguing over how nutritious a Twinkie is, thats when I think you start to go off the deep end and may start to lose some votes. It always has to be some silly extreme example. You state the obvious like "eating too much of anything isn't good for you" and then back it by saying "even twinkies are healthy". For most people outside of the IIFYM crowd we are perfectly capable of understanding the nutritional difference between an avocado and a twinkie. While someone may decide to fit a twinkie into their diet. they also for the most part understand its not a healthy choice. Now you guys are just really stretching it.
A Twinkie absolutely can be a healthy choice. There is absolutely nothing in the world inherently wrong with Twinkies. Nothing.
Don't discount the mental aspect of this. Compliance and sustainability are by far the most critical factors in a diet. Being able to eat a Twinkie or two and not feel guilty, but instead happy that you can fit it into your daily goals, not only makes compliance skyrocket but it also proves you're in a great place mentally with regards to food.0 -
When IIFYM'er start arguing over how nutritious a Twinkie is, thats when I think you start to go off the deep end and may start to lose some votes. It always has to be some silly extreme example. You state the obvious like "eating too much of anything isn't good for you" and then back it by saying "even twinkies are healthy". For most people outside of the IIFYM crowd we are perfectly capable of understanding the nutritional difference between an avocado and a twinkie. While someone may decide to fit a twinkie into their diet. they also for the most part understand its not a healthy choice. Now you guys are just really stretching it.
Why do you continue to demonize food? What specifically is unhealthy about a twinkie? Seriously, what? Back up your food shaming and demonizing with some sort of science or evidence or anything. Other than antequated beliefs and ideals that have done nothing to help the masses except make weight control and fitness daunting and intimidating to the average person.
General claims "This is healthy" "This isn't healthy" help no one, ever. Explain why?!
QFT0 -
When IIFYM'er start arguing over how nutritious a Twinkie is, thats when I think you start to go off the deep end and may start to lose some votes. It always has to be some silly extreme example. You state the obvious like "eating too much of anything isn't good for you" and then back it by saying "even twinkies are healthy". For most people outside of the IIFYM crowd we are perfectly capable of understanding the nutritional difference between an avocado and a twinkie. While someone may decide to fit a twinkie into their diet. they also for the most part understand its not a healthy choice. Now you guys are just really stretching it.
This guy, who seems to be educated on such matters, fails to be able to define the "nutritional difference" himself, so your attempt at implying that IIFYM followers are dumb because they are not "perfectly capable" is negated.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html0 -
No single food item stands on it's own. Chicken is widely considered healthy, but if you ate nothing but chicken, you'd be missing out on a lot of nutrients. Ditto for carrots, apples, pretty much any single food. There was someone earlier today who wanted to do a fruit-only fast. Fruits are clean and healthy foods, but eating nothing BUT fruit isn't any good for you.
So, yeah. Eating nothing BUT Twinkies would leave you nutritionally unbalanced. But no one here is suggesting eating only Twinkies. Just, if you want a Twinkie and it fits your goals, eat a frickin' Twinkie. It's 150 calories. Most people could fit that into their day without sacrificing nutrition.
(And I don't even like Twinkies, but the first time I see Raspberry Zingers back on the shelves, I'm getting a box!)0 -
When IIFYM'er start arguing over how nutritious a Twinkie is, thats when I think you start to go off the deep end and may start to lose some votes. It always has to be some silly extreme example. You state the obvious like "eating too much of anything isn't good for you" and then back it by saying "even twinkies are healthy". For most people outside of the IIFYM crowd we are perfectly capable of understanding the nutritional difference between an avocado and a twinkie. While someone may decide to fit a twinkie into their diet. they also for the most part understand its not a healthy choice. Now you guys are just really stretching it.
Just stop. No one has claimed that twinkies are nutrient dense. That are saying if you eat enough nutrient dense foods AND twinkles, you can still be a healthy individual. Stop putting words in other people's mouths, that they in no way said, just so you can make your erroneous thinking seem more legit. It's dishonest, misleading and wrong.0 -
I spend the majorly of my time with sick people, and I promise you solving their nutritional problems is nowhere near as cut and dry as people like to pretend it is.
Yes, helping people who have actual diseases somehow related to nutrition can be very difficult to treat. On top of normal issues of compliance you have the special dietary needs as well.
That's why RDs have to have so much education and whatnot.
They have a ton of education, but regardless they still don't have all of the answers. Because no one out there does. One moment we think Xyz is unhealthy, and the next thing we know TUV is the real culprit. We have recommended fat intake levels, sodium levels, sugar levels, but still we're just guessing, hopefully with some education to back it up.
It's no different with healthy people. Unless any of us has lived our lives, had extensive testing, died, had a full autopsy, and returned to MFP, we're speaking from very limited experience.0 -
I don't follow IIFYM myself (it sounds entirely like too much effort for my goals...) but some of its more eloquent followers do make a good point in regards to what is considered "junk" food. A twinkie for example may not be considered a "healthy" choice but by the same token in the context of a balanced diet it is not necessarily an unhealthy choice either. It is in all likelihood a neutral choice. Some dieters may find that thinking liberating which frees them up to align them more closely to the things that actually work - the fundamentals.
I'm going to be really lazy and quote Lyle McDonald here:I’d note before continuing that this much of the above rationalizing tends to be more for people who are only paying somewhat ‘superficial’ attention to ‘eating well’ (or some other fairly abstract goal). That is, the type of thing I’m going to talk about doesn’t generally occur among folks who are diet obsessed and track macros or calories or what have you. Rather it’s for folks who, while they may say that they are concerned with their diet or body weight or body fat, are focusing on the wrong things (a topic I addressed in more detail in Fundamental Principles vs. Minor Details).
Finally type of behavior seems to occur more prevalently in people who tend to divide foods into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ categories (a category that many popular diets and dietary approaches tend to promote). ‘Good’ foods become equated with healthy and, altogether too often, can be eaten without consequence (i.e. weight gain). Researchers call this the ‘health halo’ by which supposed ‘healthy foods’ have a halo of invincibility around them In the same vein ‘bad’ foods are equated with being unhealthy and this categories are not only absolute but cause us to do some of those strange mental gymnastics when it comes to how we approach our food intake.
You can find examples of this all over the place where people assume that ‘healthy/good’ foods can be eaten in uncontrolled amounts whereas the tiniest amount of ‘unhealthy/bad foods’ mean that the diet has failed, the dieter is immoral and weak, and health will simply be destroyed (this is seen at the greatest extreme in a psychological condition called orthorexia whereby people see food as a moral choice judging not only themselves but others by the foods that they choose to eat). You can see some good examples of this in the comments section of Straight Talk About High-Fructose Corn Syrup: What it is and What it Ain’t. – Research Review.
link: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/the-dieters-paradox-research-review.html0 -
LOL, you guys choosing to continue this... great0
-
In before thread gets locked0
-
You think someone who has been obese most of their life can jump in to "clean eating?" It usually leads to failure.this is a 180 with their diet, it's something extreme and cause a lot of physical and psychological stress on them. Also take note how most "diets" are extreme methods anyways and lead to failure. For these people the most important thing is getting the weight off. That's it. This will improve their health, regardless of food choices(clean or dirty).
Agreed.
I think if a person is obese the absolute best thing you can do for your health is to shift the weight however you choose to do this and the method which fits their preferences.
I think there are additional factors to consider when you are merely overweight / normal weight however.0 -
In for round two of internet arguing
0 -
IDK, but I would like to introduce new evidence. Below is the abstract.
"In a new landmark study, the debate about clean eating or not clean eating has been shown to result in a drastic increase in thoughts of suicide and other ailments among partcipants. While the study was small, consisting of an N=1 population base, the user was forced to read and engage in conversation via forum posts. The user reported a great deal of melancholy, including thoughts of suicide, as well as the temptation to quit his job so he could not afford the internet so it would be shut off and he would have no choice but to stop looking. Other health markers were negatively elevated, including a 20% increase in blood pressure during and after.
Another interesting item of note, the patients brain activity was greatly diminished after participating. It appeared as if the participants brain was rebelling and choosing to shut down. More research is needed."0 -
Woah page 2 did you guys figure it out yet?0
-
Woah page 2 did you guys figure it out yet?
Yeah, Verbal Kint was Keyser Soze...
Any other questions?0 -
In...
...again.0 -
I don't follow IIFYM myself (it sounds entirely like too much effort for my goals...) but some of its more eloquent followers do make a good point in regards to what is considered "junk" food. A twinkie for example may not be considered a "healthy" choice but by the same token in the context of a balanced diet it is not necessarily an unhealthy choice either. It is in all likelihood a neutral choice. Some dieters may find that thinking liberating which frees them up to align them more closely to the things that actually work - the fundamentals.
I'm going to be really lazy and quote Lyle McDonald here:I’d note before continuing that this much of the above rationalizing tends to be more for people who are only paying somewhat ‘superficial’ attention to ‘eating well’ (or some other fairly abstract goal). That is, the type of thing I’m going to talk about doesn’t generally occur among folks who are diet obsessed and track macros or calories or what have you. Rather it’s for folks who, while they may say that they are concerned with their diet or body weight or body fat, are focusing on the wrong things (a topic I addressed in more detail in Fundamental Principles vs. Minor Details).
Finally type of behavior seems to occur more prevalently in people who tend to divide foods into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ categories (a category that many popular diets and dietary approaches tend to promote). ‘Good’ foods become equated with healthy and, altogether too often, can be eaten without consequence (i.e. weight gain). Researchers call this the ‘health halo’ by which supposed ‘healthy foods’ have a halo of invincibility around them In the same vein ‘bad’ foods are equated with being unhealthy and this categories are not only absolute but cause us to do some of those strange mental gymnastics when it comes to how we approach our food intake.
You can find examples of this all over the place where people assume that ‘healthy/good’ foods can be eaten in uncontrolled amounts whereas the tiniest amount of ‘unhealthy/bad foods’ mean that the diet has failed, the dieter is immoral and weak, and health will simply be destroyed (this is seen at the greatest extreme in a psychological condition called orthorexia whereby people see food as a moral choice judging not only themselves but others by the foods that they choose to eat). You can see some good examples of this in the comments section of Straight Talk About High-Fructose Corn Syrup: What it is and What it Ain’t. – Research Review.
link: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/the-dieters-paradox-research-review.html
Just adding to this a quote from one of my favorite peeps in the industry, Eric Helms.I think one of the most pervasive, and possibly detrimental mind sets is that of seeing foods as either “good” or “bad”. This is a rather seductive way of looking at foods because it is simplistic. Look at a food, identify it as friend or foe, and then go with the “good” option not the “bad” option and you’ll be healthy, fit, lean and sexy! It’s that easy! But of course, that’s not the case.
One of the problems with this mindset is that it fits perfectly into the behavioral paradigm that leads to obesity in the first place; the all or nothing mindset. One thing I find to be a commonality among folks who struggle with weight gain and permanent weight loss, is that they lose the middle ground. They bounce between being “on the diet” and falling off the band wagon and lapsing into cycles of overeating. We have no problem losing weight, we have trouble keeping the weight off. We crash diet and lose 20-30lbs in a few months, and then it all comes back on when we can’t maintain the crash diet approach.
All or nothing Black and white mindsets ignore the concepts of magnitude and frequency which are all important when it comes to long term change. Of course 1g of sugar eaten every 2 weeks will not have the same effect as 100g of sugar eaten daily, but we love to label sugar as “bad”. Even water consumed in massive excess can lead to hyponatremia and death. Sugar is not good or bad, and neither is water, they just are what they are and without attention to magnitude or frequency, labels like “good” or “bad” are misleading.
We tend to be overly reductionist in our approach to nutrition. Originally, we believed fat was the singular cause of the obesity epidemic. When the low fat craze had no impact on preventing the worsening of the obesity epidemic, we went the way of the low carb craze, and folks started consuming fat with abandon. When this didn’t turn the trend of waist expansion around, we decided that it’s not just fat or carbs, the causes are specific types of carbs and fat; specifically sugar, high fructose corn syrup and trans fat are the culprits!
The need to blame singular nutrients highlights the all or nothing, black or white attitude that is in and of itself one of the roots of unhealthy eating behavior and consequently obesity. Again, it comes down to seeking balance. The concept of balance in nutrition is inclusive of the concepts of magnitude and frequency that are needed for long term lifestyle change. Balance recognizes that it is not the small piece of chocolate that you had that wasn’t on your diet plan that was the problem, it was the carton of ice cream you had afterward!
The meal plan foods are “good”, and a piece of chocolate is “bad” and once you’d crossed over from “good” to “bad”, you said: “Screw it! I already blew it, I might as well just have cookie dough ice cream until I puke!” That is the all too common result of the all or nothing mindset in action. On the other hand, a balanced approach realizes that a small piece of chocolate is only ~100 calories, and will make a minuscule difference in terms of weight loss over time. In fact, a balanced meal plan might even allow for a daily range of calories, so that the following day could be reduced by 100 calories. Even more shockingly, a balanced meal plan might even include a piece of chocolate (blasphemy I know)!
There are truly VERY few foods that are actively bad for you. Most of the foods that we identify as “bad”, are simply low or devoid of micro-nutrients, minerals, fiber and other things like phytochemicals and protein that can be beneficial for you. These foods only become a problem when they occur frequently and with enough magnitude (frequency and magnitude!) to replace a significant enough portion of your diet that you become deficient in beneficial nutrients.
Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! It’s not as though we have a health food critic living in our esophagus that has a control box that he switches from “get leaner and healthier” to “get fatter and unhealthier” every time he spots “good” or “bad” food. Thus, a healthy diet should be inclusionary vs. exclusionary; focused around including healthy foods, not excluding “unhealthy” foods. Meet your nutrient needs, and feel free to eat things that you may have traditionally seen as “bad” in moderation; so that you are still meeting your allotted caloric intake for your weight loss goals. Don’t make the mistake of looking at foods as “good” or “bad!” Good diets can include “bad” foods and bad diets can include “good” foods. Don’t get too caught up with what you have for lunch, because it is not a singular choice that will determine the success of your health and fitness goals, it is the balanced lifestyle you commit to long term!
http://dynamicduotraining.com/wordpress/15-nutrition-myths-you-want-to-knowallow-the-experts-to-tell/
Edited to highlight my favorite quote.0 -
Oh, what the hell . . .In0
-
Eh, why not.. In0
-
IDK, but I would like to introduce new evidence. Below is the abstract.
"In a new landmark study, the debate about clean eating or not clean eating has been shown to result in a drastic increase in thoughts of suicide and other ailments among partcipants. While the study was small, consisting of an N=1 population base, the user was forced to read and engage in conversation via forum posts. The user reported a great deal of melancholy, including thoughts of suicide, as well as the temptation to quit his job so he could not afford the internet so it would be shut off and he would have no choice but to stop looking. Other health markers were negatively elevated, including a 20% increase in blood pressure during and after.
Another interesting item of note, the patients brain activity was greatly diminished after participating. It appeared as if the participants brain was rebelling and choosing to shut down. More research is needed."
LOL! Bravo, sir! Bravo.0 -
I brought the popcorn....... Oh and the Gazelle!!!
0 -
Oh GAWD why is this thread still alive? And it ROLLED? Somebody make is stop, already!
The only roll I have for this bullsh!t pissing contest of a thread is
0 -
noncommittal bump.0
-
IDK, but I would like to introduce new evidence. Below is the abstract.
"In a new landmark study, the debate about clean eating or not clean eating has been shown to result in a drastic increase in thoughts of suicide and other ailments among partcipants. While the study was small, consisting of an N=1 population base, the user was forced to read and engage in conversation via forum posts. The user reported a great deal of melancholy, including thoughts of suicide, as well as the temptation to quit his job so he could not afford the internet so it would be shut off and he would have no choice but to stop looking. Other health markers were negatively elevated, including a 20% increase in blood pressure during and after.
Another interesting item of note, the patients brain activity was greatly diminished after participating. It appeared as if the participants brain was rebelling and choosing to shut down. More research is needed."
:laugh:0 -
Thank goodness this rolled and it's not on my topics anymore.0
-
What! I leave for a few hours and we stopped talking about Twinkies! /how rude
0 -
People are negative about clean eating because it has no definitiion and is essentially meaningless.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions