Eating clean

Options
245

Replies

  • galgenstrick
    galgenstrick Posts: 2,086 Member
    Options
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    everher wrote: »
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    "Everything in moderation" is just as vague as "clean eating"...

    I don't feel everything in moderation is vague at all. Moderation is something most people here have yet to learn.

    I also think it's an especially important idea for some people who seem to think just because they don't consume sweets or soda or "junk" food they are going to lose weight or become "healthier".

    I can't tell you how many posts I've read in the couple months I've been here that say, "I cut out all soda, candy, etc. but still haven't lost any weight".

    Because people just start overeating on other things.

    Eating anything in moderation is misleading and leads people to believe they can just forget about micronutrients as long as it fits their macros. You still need to eat primarily nutritionally dense foods in order to stay healthy. Most importantly, you can't quantify "moderation" so it's a pretty worthless term for trying to help people decide how to eat.

    In the context of postings that promote cutting out certain foods to lose weight, moderation is not at all vague and/or misleading, and it does not imply that you don't pay attention to macros/micro nutrients.

    How to eat has nothing to do with he actual loss of pounds, how much you eat does.

    In other words, everything in moderation means to eat whatever you've been eating, just less of it.

    Understood. I never advocate cutting out foods completely. However the term is still vague for someone that doesn't understand how weight loss works and how to stay healthy. Exactly how much chocolate cake is a moderate amount? How about carrots? I think telling someone to just eat exactly the same foods but less of them is bad advice. It will work for weight loss, no doubt -- but depending on what they're eating and what their background is it's probably not the healthiest lifestyle. People blow IIFYM way out of proportion. No, you shouldn't just eat whatever you want if it fits your macros and completely ignore the other nutritional aspects of your health. That's probably not what your advocating either, but that's what the term "moderation" implies which is why it's vague and misleading
    When you have been living on nothing but chocolate cake and ice cream, eating less and not making any other changes, is going to be difficult. Any change is going to be extremely difficult. We have met some of those people in here, but they are few and far between.

    The idea of "moderation" - IMO - is the opposite of the strict, exact, restrictive mindset and the rigid rules that people struggle to live by, and feel so terrible when they "fail". So quantifying "moderate" beyond "enough, but not too much" becomes counterproductive. Most people do have some "real" food in their diet, or at least have some notion of what that constitutes, and can tweak their diets to achieve better nutrition.

    Fair enough
  • kayemme
    kayemme Posts: 1,782 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    cerise_noir wrote: »
    Ha....I got up to 275lbs eating 'healthy' and 'clean'.

    It means nothing to me.

    I also gained a lot of weight eating healthy and clean. It means nothing to me either.

    Will you elaborate? Thanks.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    "Everything in moderation" is just as vague as "clean eating"... OP, for overall health just make sure the majority of your food comes from nutrient dense sources such as fruits, vegetables, and unprocessed meats. The occasional treat is fine to keep your cravings away.

    Oddly enough, this is "moderation" as I understand it. Remember it is usually combined with other advice, such as: "if you focus on getting a balanced diet primarily composed of a variety of nutrient dense foods, anything can be included in moderation."
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    everher wrote: »
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    "Everything in moderation" is just as vague as "clean eating"...

    I don't feel everything in moderation is vague at all. Moderation is something most people here have yet to learn.

    I also think it's an especially important idea for some people who seem to think just because they don't consume sweets or soda or "junk" food they are going to lose weight or become "healthier".

    I can't tell you how many posts I've read in the couple months I've been here that say, "I cut out all soda, candy, etc. but still haven't lost any weight".

    Because people just start overeating on other things.

    Eating anything in moderation is misleading and leads people to believe they can just forget about micronutrients as long as it fits their macros. You still need to eat primarily nutritionally dense foods in order to stay healthy. Most importantly, you can't quantify "moderation" so it's a pretty worthless term for trying to help people decide how to eat.

    I think this is rather offensive, suggesting that people saying "moderation" are suggesting that nutrition does not matter.

    How I would define moderation is "what fits into a diet that meets general nutritional needs." In other words, if you eat so much fruit that you lack micros mainly from vegetables, protein, or healthy fats, that's not moderation. That fruit is generally considered "healthy" and would be okay if one were "clean eating" doesn't make any amount within any diet healthful.

    That's why I think moderation (combined with other advice) is far healthier than "clean eating," as well as not relying on pretty arbitrary claims (like that food that is "processed" -- such as greek yogurt and smoked salmon -- are "bad").

    To apply this to OP's question, OP, if you do focus on what you want to eat for nutritional reasons in your day (for example, I focus on meals and make sure I get a decent amount of protein and lots of vegetables in all meals, and a variety of different kinds of vegetables, and I also make sure to include sources of healthy fats, like nuts, avocados, fatty fish, olives/olive oil, in my diet), then you can basically eat whatever else fits within a a reasonable calorie limit. You won't have too much of anything, or a disproportionate amount of sweet stuff or whatever.

    Personally, for example, I don't have sweets for a meal, of course. What fits in, usually, beyond my healthful meals (that sometimes include more indulgent elements, like prime rib or pulled pork or a juicy burger with a bun plus roasted potatoes, or pizza), is a little something extra after dinner. I sometimes just have more fruit, but sometimes have good cheese, and sometimes have chocolate or ice cream.

    That's exactly why I'm saying it's vague. Without elaboration "moderation" or "iifym" can mean just about anything.

    I don't think it's usually without elaboration -- it's usually in the context of a broader conversation in which eating a healthful diet is also recommended.

    I am always happy to explain what "moderation" means to me, if asked, and to defend my definition (something that is usually not the case for someone claiming he or she "eats clean").
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Hmm, related to the above, because I'm interested in the whole "eating in an old-fashioned way" thing, in part just as an exercise or out of interest,* I've thought a lot about the differences between how I eat and how ancestors of mine would have eaten. (I know a pretty good amount about family history on some sides of my family.) What always strikes me is how much more nutritious food I have available consistently, as well as ingredients and preparations that can be delicious and healthful that they wouldn't have known about or had available (that weren't known to me as a kid even -- Chicago in the 2010s is a lot more varied in the food choices than where and when I grew up). Yes, it's also harder because of all the choices and how easy and cheap it is, even if one cooks from whole foods, mostly, but it's healthier to have processed and "unnatural" things like frozen fish, produce easily available in January, etc. And that I can also have really good coffee and go out for Ethiopian, well, bonus!

    *I'm always mad at those dress up and live like it's the 17th century (or whatever era) shows because they don't take it seriously enough. I'm always like "I'd be much better and really get into the exercise." Not that I've ever applied! ;-)
  • SymbolismNZ
    SymbolismNZ Posts: 190 Member
    Options
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    IMHO, I hate the term clean eating - everything is healthy in moderation. others will probably address the sugar is an addiction statement

    This is only true when it comes to your body weight, not so true when you're looking into body composition or impact on your neurology. I know (from experience of these threads) that there is a big "Hey, what you eat doesn't matter as long as you're under your calorie limit" movement in this place and that principles of CICO are all that should be obeyed but there are more than enough research papers now indicating that too much sucrose can cause issues in neural receptors, that not getting your micro-nutrient balances right can impact your metabolism, immune system, cause inflammation, damage the ability for certain genes to activate within your body, that ingesting a combination of high fat and high sucrose in your diet creates stiffening/thickening in the arterial walls of your heart, that too much insulin can lead to accelerated neuro-degenerative diseases, that excess refined sugar can cause your body to produce oncogenes that increase the risk of damaged cells to become cancerous (in particular sun damage and melanomas), that the circadian rhythm (day night cycles) impacts how our body absorbs nutrients, that fasting and intermittent fasting has some major health benefits, one in particular being that cancer patients who fasted between 48 and 72 hours before chemotherapy had greater efficacy of chemotherapy treatment, that certain compounds in foods like ginger and chili peppers have an impact on lowering the risk of certain cancer types, etc etc etc.

    If you're only interested in "What does the scale say?" then the viewpoint that anything as long as it fits your calorie limit is fine, is definitely fine for you.

    If you're interested in "What does the research suggest around lowering my risks of neurological disease, development of cancerous cells and heart damage?" then there are certainly foods you should eat as little as possible.

    Research:

    Sucrose creating higher risk of issues in neural receptors: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

    Micronutrient Balance impacting metabolism, immune system inflammation and gene activation:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2585731/

    Sucrose + Fat causing higher risk of arterial damage:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517483/
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24882067

    Too much insulin causing higher risk of neuro-degenerative diseases:
    http://pages.ucsd.edu/~mboyle/COGS163/pdf-files/W7-Insulin and neurodegenerative disease- shared and specific mechanisms-review.pdf

    Excess refined sugar producing higher risk of oncogenes:
    http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v23/n38/full/1207716a.html

    Day/Night Cycles causing an impact on how our body uses food:
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/308/5724/1043

    Fasting creating greater efficacy of chemotherapy treatments:
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/cc.9.22.13954

    Compounds within food lowering risk of lung cancer:
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.6b02480




  • kayemme
    kayemme Posts: 1,782 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Hmm, related to the above, because I'm interested in the whole "eating in an old-fashioned way" thing, in part just as an exercise or out of interest,* I've thought a lot about the differences between how I eat and how ancestors of mine would have eaten. (I know a pretty good amount about family history on some sides of my family.) What always strikes me is how much more nutritious food I have available consistently, as well as ingredients and preparations that can be delicious and healthful that they wouldn't have known about or had available (that weren't known to me as a kid even -- Chicago in the 2010s is a lot more varied in the food choices than where and when I grew up). Yes, it's also harder because of all the choices and how easy and cheap it is, even if one cooks from whole foods, mostly, but it's healthier to have processed and "unnatural" things like frozen fish, produce easily available in January, etc. And that I can also have really good coffee and go out for Ethiopian, well, bonus!

    *I'm always mad at those dress up and live like it's the 17th century (or whatever era) shows because they don't take it seriously enough. I'm always like "I'd be much better and really get into the exercise." Not that I've ever applied! ;-)

    Between this and the post above, I think we'd get along pretty well!

    I eat clean, but now I focus on lean. That's why sometimes I write it like (c)lean. I don't eat meat (incl. fish) nor dairy, and I keep all isolated fats to a minimum. I can see how a person could eat "clean" and still gain weight, especially if fats, meats, dairy & eggs are included in that definition (because they can be "clean" but they are not necessarily "lean").

    I'm not a hater on meats/eggs/whatever, but I just don't eat them myself any more.

    Thanks for all your elaboration. It was very insightful!

  • galgenstrick
    galgenstrick Posts: 2,086 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    "Everything in moderation" is just as vague as "clean eating"... OP, for overall health just make sure the majority of your food comes from nutrient dense sources such as fruits, vegetables, and unprocessed meats. The occasional treat is fine to keep your cravings away.

    Oddly enough, this is "moderation" as I understand it. Remember it is usually combined with other advice, such as: "if you focus on getting a balanced diet primarily composed of a variety of nutrient dense foods, anything can be included in moderation."
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    everher wrote: »
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    "Everything in moderation" is just as vague as "clean eating"...

    I don't feel everything in moderation is vague at all. Moderation is something most people here have yet to learn.

    I also think it's an especially important idea for some people who seem to think just because they don't consume sweets or soda or "junk" food they are going to lose weight or become "healthier".

    I can't tell you how many posts I've read in the couple months I've been here that say, "I cut out all soda, candy, etc. but still haven't lost any weight".

    Because people just start overeating on other things.

    Eating anything in moderation is misleading and leads people to believe they can just forget about micronutrients as long as it fits their macros. You still need to eat primarily nutritionally dense foods in order to stay healthy. Most importantly, you can't quantify "moderation" so it's a pretty worthless term for trying to help people decide how to eat.

    I think this is rather offensive, suggesting that people saying "moderation" are suggesting that nutrition does not matter.

    How I would define moderation is "what fits into a diet that meets general nutritional needs." In other words, if you eat so much fruit that you lack micros mainly from vegetables, protein, or healthy fats, that's not moderation. That fruit is generally considered "healthy" and would be okay if one were "clean eating" doesn't make any amount within any diet healthful.

    That's why I think moderation (combined with other advice) is far healthier than "clean eating," as well as not relying on pretty arbitrary claims (like that food that is "processed" -- such as greek yogurt and smoked salmon -- are "bad").

    To apply this to OP's question, OP, if you do focus on what you want to eat for nutritional reasons in your day (for example, I focus on meals and make sure I get a decent amount of protein and lots of vegetables in all meals, and a variety of different kinds of vegetables, and I also make sure to include sources of healthy fats, like nuts, avocados, fatty fish, olives/olive oil, in my diet), then you can basically eat whatever else fits within a a reasonable calorie limit. You won't have too much of anything, or a disproportionate amount of sweet stuff or whatever.

    Personally, for example, I don't have sweets for a meal, of course. What fits in, usually, beyond my healthful meals (that sometimes include more indulgent elements, like prime rib or pulled pork or a juicy burger with a bun plus roasted potatoes, or pizza), is a little something extra after dinner. I sometimes just have more fruit, but sometimes have good cheese, and sometimes have chocolate or ice cream.

    That's exactly why I'm saying it's vague. Without elaboration "moderation" or "iifym" can mean just about anything.

    I don't think it's usually without elaboration -- it's usually in the context of a broader conversation in which eating a healthful diet is also recommended.

    I am always happy to explain what "moderation" means to me, if asked, and to defend my definition (something that is usually not the case for someone claiming he or she "eats clean").

    Agreed. And I agree with your definition of it. I've just seen a lot of people say "eat everything in moderation" without any other substance or context and I think that's too vague to be helpful -- especially for the beginner that doesn't know where or how to start.
  • galgenstrick
    galgenstrick Posts: 2,086 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    I think people truly are failing to understand what moderation means, if they think those saying "anything can be healthy in moderation" is synonymous with, "nutrition isn't important" or "eat anything you want as long as you are under your calories". A moderate amount of any calorie dense food, it stands to reason, if not by definition, would be mixed in with other foods. Otherwise it isn't moderation, it is a diet of exclusively calorie dense "junk" food.

    Yes. I think that's what I was trying to get at. People are failing to see what moderation means because of blanket statements like eat whatever you want as long as it's under your calories
  • SymbolismNZ
    SymbolismNZ Posts: 190 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    I think people truly are failing to understand what moderation means, if they think those saying "anything can be healthy in moderation" is synonymous with, "nutrition isn't important" or "eat anything you want as long as you are under your calories". A moderate amount of any calorie dense food, it stands to reason, if not by definition, would be mixed in with other foods. Otherwise it isn't moderation, it is a diet of exclusively calorie dense "junk" food.

    Maybe, but even in moderation certain food groups put you at a higher risk of damage in parts of your body/brain, not to mention skew your micronutrient levels.

    But in saying that, it's a tradeoff.... it's kind of similar to drug use in my view, if you want to indulge moderately in a drug (alcohol, cannabis, DMT/hallucinogenics, nicotine) for the entertainment/mood benefits and don't mind the risks, that's all good.
  • galgenstrick
    galgenstrick Posts: 2,086 Member
    Options
    SymbolismNZ wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    I think people truly are failing to understand what moderation means, if they think those saying "anything can be healthy in moderation" is synonymous with, "nutrition isn't important" or "eat anything you want as long as you are under your calories". A moderate amount of any calorie dense food, it stands to reason, if not by definition, would be mixed in with other foods. Otherwise it isn't moderation, it is a diet of exclusively calorie dense "junk" food.

    Maybe, but even in moderation certain food groups put you at a higher risk of damage in parts of your body/brain, not to mention skew your micronutrient levels.

    But in saying that, it's a tradeoff.... it's kind of similar to drug use in my view, if you want to indulge moderately in a drug (alcohol, cannabis, DMT/hallucinogenics, nicotine) for the entertainment/mood benefits and don't mind the risks, that's all good.

    Which food groups are those?
  • SymbolismNZ
    SymbolismNZ Posts: 190 Member
    Options
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    SymbolismNZ wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    I think people truly are failing to understand what moderation means, if they think those saying "anything can be healthy in moderation" is synonymous with, "nutrition isn't important" or "eat anything you want as long as you are under your calories". A moderate amount of any calorie dense food, it stands to reason, if not by definition, would be mixed in with other foods. Otherwise it isn't moderation, it is a diet of exclusively calorie dense "junk" food.

    Maybe, but even in moderation certain food groups put you at a higher risk of damage in parts of your body/brain, not to mention skew your micronutrient levels.

    But in saying that, it's a tradeoff.... it's kind of similar to drug use in my view, if you want to indulge moderately in a drug (alcohol, cannabis, DMT/hallucinogenics, nicotine) for the entertainment/mood benefits and don't mind the risks, that's all good.

    Which food groups are those?

    Most of them can be seen in the post I made a page back, including research indicating the risks.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    Options
    illyasHodrick wrote: »
    ...Cut out oils...

    Oils (and other healthy fats) help us absorb many of the nutrients in our foods - think of the fat-soluble vitamins like vitamin A. For example, you absorb hardly any beta-carotene if there is no fat consumed along with it. It would be a mistake to eliminate all fats. :)

    Olive oil, nuts, and other nutritious fat sources are NOT unclean foods. They are part of a healthy, balanced diet.
  • SymbolismNZ
    SymbolismNZ Posts: 190 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Just want to make sure I am understanding you. You are comparing the recommendation of those advocating for eating a variety of foods in moderation with similar risks of recreational drug use?

    Were the studies you posted done on humans and were the substances you consider to be dangerous consumed in moderation? The title of one of the articles is "excess sugar consumption". If it's in excess, it is hardly moderation, is it?

    Considering both have risk factors of neurological and physiological impacts on your system, then from purely a biomedical standpoint, it's a reasonable enough comparison.

    Due to the nature of research and the usual deadline/time critical element of trials, you'll generally find the majority of trials deal in "excess" in order to create the response more quickly and therefore within the confines of their trial, however if you look at refined sugar causing higher risk of damaged cells becoming cancerous, they indicate that while excess sugar in all formats (fructose, (ga)lactose, dextrose/glucose, sucrose) causes damage, refined sugar, in particular sucrose in table granulated form carries risk factors regardless of the amount of consumption.
  • kayemme
    kayemme Posts: 1,782 Member
    Options
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    illyasHodrick wrote: »
    ...Cut out oils...

    Oils (and other healthy fats) help us absorb many of the nutrients in our foods - think of the fat-soluble vitamins like vitamin A. For example, you absorb hardly any beta-carotene if there is no fat consumed along with it. It would be a mistake to eliminate all fats. :)

    Olive oil, nuts, and other nutritious fat sources are NOT unclean foods. They are part of a healthy, balanced diet.

    This is why this argument gets so hairy; see, I disagree. Isolated oils are not (in my reasonably-researched opinion) exactly healthy. Eating olives, sure. Avocados? Hells yes! Food already has all the fats you need packed right in them, but extracting them is not the same as eating them within their natural state.

    You can look at my diary if you like. I still acquired 11g of fat (so far) without a drop of extracted oil.

    So I agree with "cutting out oils" because they're so easy to overdo at 9.5 cals/gram.

    I'm not at all hating on your answer. I actually agree with you on the level that the body needs some fats; I just think that we don't need extracted oils.

    Bests, always.

Categories