CICO vs. "clean eating"
Replies
-
skinny1soon wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »IMO, I think a more important question is, why aren't more people using CICO and CE together? CICO is necessary to lose weight but I think quality of food is equally important. I would think that using them together would compound success. Again, just my opinion.
As for long term, I feel that after you have done CICO for so long you start to know what is the right amount to maintain your weight. Listen to your body, and adjust portions accordingly whether you be CE or not.
Most of us here would advocate a diet rich in nutrient dense foods and probably even follow an 80/20 rule, but to different people clean eating means different things. If you look at the link I posted originally, you will get the understand.
I"m not arguing that fact.
I don't like the term mainly because it has a lot of gray areas. Would it mean the same to a vegan, paleo, LCHF, etc...? And my other issue is it doesn't guarantee that it will support ones goals. I know a lot of people who complain about not losing weight be eating clean and they don't understand it. And then they look at my diet and can't figure out why I lose 1 lb a week. Essentially, the industry (and more so bloggers/youtubers who dont' have a clue) have confused people so much, that they make it hard to lose weight. And then people fail to address the most important and basic requirement of weight loss... addressing the energy balance requirement (eating less than you burn).
When I train people, i tend to recommend small steps. And step one is always figuring out actual caloric needs.
I agree, as I said above in a few replies my view of CE is different then what others would consider CE. My question is more based on what we as individuals view as CE. Which looking back probably should have specified. I assumed people were on the same page as CE being what we personal believe CE to be, and not a general rule with a list.
I would say it's probably more accurate, at least on this website, that people don't define CE because it's a ridiculous industry term. I literally have no definition for CE.6 -
[Out of curiosity what you would consider to be CE? For me, it would be basically raw fruit and vegetables, nuts. Nothing processed. But in the real world, for me, I wouldn't not be able to live like that for the rest of my life. lol [/quote]
I think the term "clean eating" is such a vague and ambiguous term as to render it meaningless except to the individual who professes to do it.3 -
skinny1soon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »IMO, I think a more important question is, why aren't more people using CICO and CE together? CICO is necessary to lose weight but I think quality of food is equally important. I would think that using them together would compound success. Again, just my opinion.
As for long term, I feel that after you have done CICO for so long you start to know what is the right amount to maintain your weight. Listen to your body, and adjust portions accordingly whether you be CE or not.
"Clean eating" is counter-productive for me because it results in me eliminating foods that make it easier for me to stay at my goal. Foods that either are convenient or promote my health or make it easier for me to meet fitness goals or just make me happy. And for what? I have yet to see anything that demonstrates clear benefits from eliminating these foods.
That's why I don't practice "clean eating." If people find it makes it easier for them to meet their goals and it makes them happy, that's great. But should it be a goal for everyone? No.
I didn't say you had to follow CE, since all of us have a different view of what CE is.
I was answering the question that you asked ("IMO, I think a more important question is, why aren't more people using CICO and CE together?") by providing my perspective on why I don't use them together.
Out of curiosity what you would consider to be CE? For me, it would be basically raw fruit and vegetables, nuts. Nothing processed. But in the real world, for me, I wouldn't not be able to live like that for the rest of my life. lol
I've never heard a consistent definition -- every person seems to have a different one. Some common things I hear: Nothing from a box or can, nothing with more than five ingredients, nothing with "chemicals," nothing from the center aisles of the grocery store, nothing "processed," nothing frozen, only eat things you can create in your own home, don't eat anything with an ingredient you can't pronounce, don't eat anything with a nutrition label/ingredients list, no dairy, no meat, only whole foods, etc.
I would say that if your definition of "clean eating" is one that would be impossible for you to follow, then it isn't a very useful category. A useful set of food guidelines would be one that promoted happiness and health and was actually possible to follow consistently, IMO.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »IMO, I think a more important question is, why aren't more people using CICO and CE together? CICO is necessary to lose weight but I think quality of food is equally important. I would think that using them together would compound success. Again, just my opinion.
As for long term, I feel that after you have done CICO for so long you start to know what is the right amount to maintain your weight. Listen to your body, and adjust portions accordingly whether you be CE or not.
"Clean eating" is counter-productive for me because it results in me eliminating foods that make it easier for me to stay at my goal. Foods that either are convenient or promote my health or make it easier for me to meet fitness goals or just make me happy. And for what? I have yet to see anything that demonstrates clear benefits from eliminating these foods.
That's why I don't practice "clean eating." If people find it makes it easier for them to meet their goals and it makes them happy, that's great. But should it be a goal for everyone? No.
I didn't say you had to follow CE, since all of us have a different view of what CE is.
I was answering the question that you asked ("IMO, I think a more important question is, why aren't more people using CICO and CE together?") by providing my perspective on why I don't use them together.
Out of curiosity what you would consider to be CE? For me, it would be basically raw fruit and vegetables, nuts. Nothing processed. But in the real world, for me, I wouldn't not be able to live like that for the rest of my life. lol
As you've acknowledged, Clean Eating means something different to pretty much everyone you ask. A user has compiled an exhaustive list of all the various examples we see here on a pretty regular basis - quoting it again.Here's the list that @diannethegeek compiled of many definitions offered by various posters for "clean eating". Which definition are we using here? Under some of these definitions Fritos are clean, while avocados are not clean.Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
No take-out or junk food at all.
Nothing at all with a barcode.
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
Don't eat foods that have a mascot.
If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
Eat "food" and not "food-like substances."
No added sugar.
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown.
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
A plant-based whole food diet.
Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food.
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation.
No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
Eat a plant based diet consisting of whole plant foods.
No bad carbs and processed foods.
Anything that makes a better choice.
Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.
Clean eating means eating optimally.
So you are saying that to you, clean eating is basically raw foods? Not sure that's even on the list!
But again, you say "nothing processed" - that also is a subjective term. Pretty much everything that is commercially available is processed in some way - and again I would ask - why is the bag of frozen birdseye steamable grains and vegetables (clearly processed) that I just ate for lunch, something that I should eliminate from my diet?
I've seen at least two definitions of clean eating given today that weren't on my list. I may need to do some updating.6 -
skinny1soon wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »IMO, I think a more important question is, why aren't more people using CICO and CE together? CICO is necessary to lose weight but I think quality of food is equally important. I would think that using them together would compound success. Again, just my opinion.
As for long term, I feel that after you have done CICO for so long you start to know what is the right amount to maintain your weight. Listen to your body, and adjust portions accordingly whether you be CE or not.
Most of us here would advocate a diet rich in nutrient dense foods and probably even follow an 80/20 rule, but to different people clean eating means different things. If you look at the link I posted originally, you will get the understand.
I"m not arguing that fact.
I don't like the term mainly because it has a lot of gray areas. Would it mean the same to a vegan, paleo, LCHF, etc...? And my other issue is it doesn't guarantee that it will support ones goals. I know a lot of people who complain about not losing weight be eating clean and they don't understand it. And then they look at my diet and can't figure out why I lose 1 lb a week. Essentially, the industry (and more so bloggers/youtubers who dont' have a clue) have confused people so much, that they make it hard to lose weight. And then people fail to address the most important and basic requirement of weight loss... addressing the energy balance requirement (eating less than you burn).
When I train people, i tend to recommend small steps. And step one is always figuring out actual caloric needs.
I agree, as I said above in a few replies my view of CE is different then what others would consider CE. My question is more based on what we as individuals view as CE. Which looking back probably should have specified. I assumed people were on the same page as CE being what we personal believe CE to be, and not a general rule with a list.
Is a term even useful if it means something different for everyone? At that point, it would probably be more useful for everyone -- when necessary -- to just speak specifically about what they mean.
If I say "clean eating" and mean that I eat whole grains, avoid foods with added salt, and only local meat and someone else says "clean eating" and means organic vegetables, grain-free, and no foods with more than five ingredients, and a third person says "clean eating" and means they're doing raw foods and avoiding anything with preservatives, we're not going to be able to share a meal, let alone speak meaningfully as a group about what "clean eating" means until we clarify what we're talking about.
At that point, I think it's more useful for people to just be specific about what they're including (or not including) in their diets.5 -
They aren't really the same thing, but I do think clean eating is important. A lot of people on here are only interested in CICO and say it doesn't really matter as long as it fits your calories or macros. That's true for weight loss, but there are so many other aspects to health other than weight. I think it's a lot easy to stay under your calorie goal when you eat mostly clean, and also it's better to eat foods that provide you nutrients, vitamins, etc. than something calorie dense but providing nothing to benefit you other than energy.1
-
BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »They aren't really the same thing, but I do think clean eating is important. A lot of people on here are only interested in CICO and say it doesn't really matter as long as it fits your calories or macros. That's true for weight loss, but there are so many other aspects to health other than weight. I think it's a lot easy to stay under your calorie goal when you eat mostly clean, and also it's better to eat foods that provide you nutrients, vitamins, etc. than something calorie dense but providing nothing to benefit you other than energy.
There are many things that would be considered clean and are very calorie dense.... nuts, red meat (to some people this is clean), avocados, cheese....
Heck, if I ate equivalent calories from a big mac vs nuts, the former would fill me up more and allow me to stay within a deficit.1 -
BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »They aren't really the same thing, but I do think clean eating is important. A lot of people on here are only interested in CICO and say it doesn't really matter as long as it fits your calories or macros. That's true for weight loss, but there are so many other aspects to health other than weight. I think it's a lot easy to stay under your calorie goal when you eat mostly clean, and also it's better to eat foods that provide you nutrients, vitamins, etc. than something calorie dense but providing nothing to benefit you other than energy.
But again - there are plenty of foods that would not likely be on anyone's definition of "clean eating" which provide nutrients, vitamins, etc. Things like the frozen breakfast egg muffins I mentioned upthread - they have eggs and bacon and spinach and cheese. Because they come in a box, and a plastic wrap inside that box, and I microwave them for 90 seconds - they are deemed "unclean" and therefore assumed "unhealthy". When I make a breakfast casserole on the weekends with eggs and sausage and spinach and cheese, and then eat that all week - that's healthy? Same with the frozen birdseye blend of grains and veggies that I added some sauteed shrimp (which also was in a bag in the freezer section in the middle of my grocery store". It was a pretty balanced meal, and was less than 500 calories, so it was a great fit for me. I don't see that as providing nothing to benefit me other than energy...
5 -
I've been thinking a lot lately about "why" people are so obsessed with clean eating in its various (sometimes contradicting) forms, and came across an article that offers an opinion on the matter and I found it interesting.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/eating-toward-immortality/515658/
As for the original question, I believe paying attention to nutrition a good thing, but being so rigid about it to where you deny yourself the simple pleasures of life and let it interfere with your social life or mental health is the opposite of healthy.
ETA: To explain my last point. Take a look at the forums. Almost every day all kinds of threads pop up that go like "I'm eating clean, why am I not losing weight?", " I feel bad and ashamed, I ate cake", "I dread going out because all my friends want to eat is pizza", "my friend of Facebook keeps posting pictures of cookies", "how do I diet when my family doesn't", "my MFP friends have junk in their diaries"...etc. That kind of diet induced anxiety is not healthy nor fun. Dieting can be a pleasant experience. It needn't be a torture device.7 -
BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »They aren't really the same thing, but I do think clean eating is important. A lot of people on here are only interested in CICO and say it doesn't really matter as long as it fits your calories or macros. That's true for weight loss, but there are so many other aspects to health other than weight. I think it's a lot easy to stay under your calorie goal when you eat mostly clean, and also it's better to eat foods that provide you nutrients, vitamins, etc. than something calorie dense but providing nothing to benefit you other than energy.
These threads always reach the exact same dead end.
Go ask a vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a raw vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a vegetarian what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a paleo dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a keto dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask an IIFYM'er what "clean eating" is.
You'd get a different answer from every single one of them. Some foods that a paleo, keto or IIFYM'er considers perfectly "clean" would be anathema to a veg*an. Some foods that a veg*an considers "clean" would be off limits to many paleo/keto dieters. And so on.
"Clean eating" is a ridiculous, nebulous, undefinable concept. It's an emotionally charged phrase and has pseudoscience and fearmongering woven all through it. Each one of the groups above would most likely claim that theirs is the "healthiest" way to eat, and they would all have their own reasons why they believe that (whether they're supported by science or not).8 -
^^ Facinating! Thanks0
-
BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »They aren't really the same thing, but I do think clean eating is important. A lot of people on here are only interested in CICO and say it doesn't really matter as long as it fits your calories or macros. That's true for weight loss, but there are so many other aspects to health other than weight. I think it's a lot easy to stay under your calorie goal when you eat mostly clean, and also it's better to eat foods that provide you nutrients, vitamins, etc. than something calorie dense but providing nothing to benefit you other than energy.
These threads always reach the exact same dead end.
Go ask a vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a raw vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a vegetarian what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a paleo dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a keto dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask an IIFYM'er what "clean eating" is.
You'd get a different answer from every single one of them. Some foods that a paleo, keto or IIFYM'er considers perfectly "clean" would be anathema to a veg*an. Some foods that a veg*an considers "clean" would be off limits to many paleo/keto dieters. And so on.
"Clean eating" is a ridiculous, nebulous, undefinable concept. It's an emotionally charged phrase and has pseudoscience and fearmongering woven all through it. Each one of the groups above would most likely claim that theirs is the "healthiest" way to eat, and they would all have their own reasons why they believe that (whether they're supported by science or not).
Once upon a time in the What is Clean Eating debate thread someone attempted a venn diagram to see what could be agreed on. Non-starchy vegetables was the only thing left at the center, and even that gets blown out of the water by gmo/organic/pesticide debates.5 -
Calories in Calories out is the way of life for me, it's all about sustainability for me, and realistically, I don't think I could avoid sugar, soda, or candy foreverrrrrr..I just eat moderately and train and eat happily.3
-
michelle172415 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Even eating "clean" whatever that means since different people define it differently, often in radical ways, a person can eat more calories than their body burns and put on weight. I have a friend here who was Vegan and put on her weight as a Vegan. That is about as "clean" whatever that means, as it can get, yet eat too many calories and your body will store them as fat.
I disagree wholeheartedly that Vegan is "about as 'clean'.....as it can get". There are plenty of foods that are junk and are terrible for you that are free of animal products. I also don't think that eating clean is very hard to define. You shop around the perimeter of the grocery store. Don't eat foods that come in a bag or bag or that contain ingredients that you can't pronounce. Choose sustainable fish. Choose chickens that are pastured and fed a natural NON-vegetarian diet, no antibiotics, no GMO in the feed, same goes with eggs. Look for grassfed cows. Basically, avoid buying meats from CAFO's.
Personally, I find that "eating clean" is more sustainable. Who wants to spend the rest of their lives counting calories? I sure don't. I do it now because I have to. Eating has not yet become intuitive for me, but I know if time, that it will.
I'm going to re-post this...this was compiled by @diannethegeek on a clean eating thread some time back...all of these things were mentioned by various "clean" eaters in the thread..."clean" isn't particularly easy to define because everyone has a different definition....Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
No take-out or junk food at all.
Nothing at all with a barcode.
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
Don't eat foods that have a mascot.
If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
Eat "food" and not "food-like substances."
No added sugar.
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown.
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
A plant-based whole food diet.
Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food.
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation.
No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
Eat a plant based diet consisting of whole plant foods.
No bad carbs and processed foods.
Anything that makes a better choice.
Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.
Clean eating means eating optimally.
3 -
I'd like to take issue with the idea that only "clean" foods (whatever that means at this point) provide nutrients and other essential components necessary for a healthy life. Some foods are more nutrient-dense than others, making it easier to meet your micros with fewer calories, but to imply hamburgers, pizza and frozen dinners have no nutritional value is pure hogwash. The only thing I can think of at the moment that provides energy with no other nutritional value is sugar by the spoonful. Everything else has at least a minimal number of nutrients, and those count toward your goals the same as apples or broccoli (if those fit in your definition of clean food).2
-
Calories in Calories out is the way of life for me, it's all about sustainability for me, and realistically, I don't think I could avoid sugar, soda, or candy foreverrrrrr..I just eat moderately and train and eat happily.
Nor is there any reason to. Many people completely fail to comprehend the concepts of context and dosage. It could be argued that water is the "cleanest" thing we could put in our bodies, but even too much (or too little) water will kill you.
A diet consisting entirely (or even mostly) of sugar, soda and candy wouldn't be a good thing. I doubt many people would argue that point. But an occasional indulgence in sugar, soda and/or candy, within the scope of an overall well-balanced diet, is going to have exactly zero negative effects. You'd have more negative effects from the stress and psychological trauma of ingesting such horrible things, if you're brainwashed to think that way.3 -
I'd like to take issue with the idea that only "clean" foods (whatever that means at this point) provide nutrients and other essential components necessary for a healthy life. Some foods are more nutrient-dense than others, making it easier to meet your micros with fewer calories, but to imply hamburgers, pizza and frozen dinners have no nutritional value is pure hogwash. The only thing I can think of at the moment that provides energy with no other nutritional value is sugar by the spoonful. Everything else has at least a minimal number of nutrients, and those count toward your goals the same as apples or broccoli (if those fit in your definition of clean food).
Yes this is the point that I am always trying to make in these threads. There are a number of foods which would even be considered ultra processed, which provide nutrients. Even the dreaded hamburger helper, which my family eats a couple times a month, can be part of a healthy diet. I add a salad, some garlic bread, and often frozen vegetables to it. It's definitely not clean, and sure, I could make it from scratch and it might be tastier, but would it be definitively more nutritious?3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I'd like to take issue with the idea that only "clean" foods (whatever that means at this point) provide nutrients and other essential components necessary for a healthy life. Some foods are more nutrient-dense than others, making it easier to meet your micros with fewer calories, but to imply hamburgers, pizza and frozen dinners have no nutritional value is pure hogwash. The only thing I can think of at the moment that provides energy with no other nutritional value is sugar by the spoonful. Everything else has at least a minimal number of nutrients, and those count toward your goals the same as apples or broccoli (if those fit in your definition of clean food).
Yes this is the point that I am always trying to make in these threads. There are a number of foods which would even be considered ultra processed, which provide nutrients. Even the dreaded hamburger helper, which my family eats a couple times a month, can be part of a healthy diet. I add a salad, some garlic bread, and often frozen vegetables to it. It's definitely not clean, and sure, I could make it from scratch and it might be tastier, but would it be definitively more nutritious?
Not about Hamburger Helper, but here's a great article which addresses, in quantifiable scientific terms, the difference in the body's reaction to a fast food meal and a "healthy" home-prepared meal: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/0 -
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Study done with a kansas state nutrition professor who ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories. If you've seen the documentary supersize me then I suggest watching fathead. Where the guy does the same "nothing but fast food" diet in a caloric deficit and debunks supersize me. Both cases the people not only lose weight but also become healthier.
http://jamesclear.com/junk-food-science
Pretty good little article on junk food, how to change those eating habits, and why we do binge eat them.
The thing with any diet is finding the diet that works for you. Diets aren't for everyone. With CICO the "standard" is eating whatever you want as long as you stay in a deficit but really any diet is CICO. This works for some people however if you don't have your eating habits under control I feel as if that diet is a mistake. You'll always get those people "its all about willpower" who make it seem like its some simple feat to achieve. There are a number of people I know who just can't do "CICO." They can't just have that 1 piece of cake without over indulging. That's when I will suggest to them clean eating. Am I saying to do this forever? No however until you have your eating habits under control it can be a huge downfall for many.
1 -
skinny1soon wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »IMO, I think a more important question is, why aren't more people using CICO and CE together? CICO is necessary to lose weight but I think quality of food is equally important. I would think that using them together would compound success. Again, just my opinion.
As for long term, I feel that after you have done CICO for so long you start to know what is the right amount to maintain your weight. Listen to your body, and adjust portions accordingly whether you be CE or not.
Most of us here would advocate a diet rich in nutrient dense foods and probably even follow an 80/20 rule, but to different people clean eating means different things. If you look at the link I posted originally, you will get the understand.
I"m not arguing that fact.
I don't like the term mainly because it has a lot of gray areas. Would it mean the same to a vegan, paleo, LCHF, etc...? And my other issue is it doesn't guarantee that it will support ones goals. I know a lot of people who complain about not losing weight be eating clean and they don't understand it. And then they look at my diet and can't figure out why I lose 1 lb a week. Essentially, the industry (and more so bloggers/youtubers who dont' have a clue) have confused people so much, that they make it hard to lose weight. And then people fail to address the most important and basic requirement of weight loss... addressing the energy balance requirement (eating less than you burn).
When I train people, i tend to recommend small steps. And step one is always figuring out actual caloric needs.
I agree, as I said above in a few replies my view of CE is different then what others would consider CE. My question is more based on what we as individuals view as CE. Which looking back probably should have specified. I assumed people were on the same page as CE being what we personal believe CE to be, and not a general rule with a list.
My definition of clean eating:
A diet predominately of whole fresh food eg meat, fish, fruit, veggies, eggs, nuts, cold pressed oils.
No packet meals eg frozen ready meals, meals in boxes/packets/tins.
Whole grains ( which ironically come in packets and tins), rice, pasta, beans, legumes etc
Then there's stuff like yogurt and milk, which i consider healthy, but again comes in packages. The whole clean eating thing just gets too damn confusing
In a nutshell, stay away from "super" processed food, and made made foods, stick to things that are found in nature..
Please dont shoot me for this list, I'm just putting forth my definition of clean eating. And no, I am not a clean eater, one day maybe...1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »They aren't really the same thing, but I do think clean eating is important. A lot of people on here are only interested in CICO and say it doesn't really matter as long as it fits your calories or macros. That's true for weight loss, but there are so many other aspects to health other than weight. I think it's a lot easy to stay under your calorie goal when you eat mostly clean, and also it's better to eat foods that provide you nutrients, vitamins, etc. than something calorie dense but providing nothing to benefit you other than energy.
These threads always reach the exact same dead end.
Go ask a vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a raw vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a vegetarian what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a paleo dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a keto dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask an IIFYM'er what "clean eating" is.
You'd get a different answer from every single one of them. Some foods that a paleo, keto or IIFYM'er considers perfectly "clean" would be anathema to a veg*an. Some foods that a veg*an considers "clean" would be off limits to many paleo/keto dieters. And so on.
"Clean eating" is a ridiculous, nebulous, undefinable concept. It's an emotionally charged phrase and has pseudoscience and fearmongering woven all through it. Each one of the groups above would most likely claim that theirs is the "healthiest" way to eat, and they would all have their own reasons why they believe that (whether they're supported by science or not).
Once upon a time in the What is Clean Eating debate thread someone attempted a venn diagram to see what could be agreed on. Non-starchy vegetables was the only thing left at the center, and even that gets blown out of the water by gmo/organic/pesticide debates.
and things you cant pronounce debates.
What if I have a lisp and I cant pronounce spinach - should I not eat it??
Admittedly the things you cant pronounce is one of the sillier definitions - as is aisles of the supermarket.
If people want to make reasonable definitions for themselves about the actual foods - not the words or the layout of the store - and then they focus on fresh fruit/vegetables/ home cooked meals, etc - that is well and good.
For me, I see no need to have a definition or to try to eat clean.
I try to eat a reasonably balanced healthy diet - but I do not avoid cake, lollies chocolate, frozen meals etc - in moderation.
I am a healthy BMI and I do not have any medical conditions - so that is good enough for me.
3 -
broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Study done with a kansas state nutrition professor who ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories. If you've seen the documentary supersize me then I suggest watching fathead. Where the guy does the same "nothing but fast food" diet in a caloric deficit and debunks supersize me. Both cases the people not only lose weight but also become healthier.
http://jamesclear.com/junk-food-science
Pretty good little article on junk food, how to change those eating habits, and why we do binge eat them.
The thing with any diet is finding the diet that works for you. Diets aren't for everyone. With CICO the "standard" is eating whatever you want as long as you stay in a deficit but really any diet is CICO. This works for some people however if you don't have your eating habits under control I feel as if that diet is a mistake. You'll always get those people "its all about willpower" who make it seem like its some simple feat to achieve. There are a number of people I know who just can't do "CICO." They can't just have that 1 piece of cake without over indulging. That's when I will suggest to them clean eating. Am I saying to do this forever? No however until you have your eating habits under control it can be a huge downfall for many.
But this is going right back to confusing calories in vs calories out with a specific "diet", and separating "clean eating" from the basics of weight loss/gain. If you eat "clean" and consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight. If you eat "clean" and consume fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. The same if you eat paleo, keto, vegan or McDonalds. CICO is not a diet or a way of eating, it's a fundamental energy equation. Nothing more. It applies no matter how or what you eat. Always.3 -
broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Study done with a kansas state nutrition professor who ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories. If you've seen the documentary supersize me then I suggest watching fathead. Where the guy does the same "nothing but fast food" diet in a caloric deficit and debunks supersize me. Both cases the people not only lose weight but also become healthier.
http://jamesclear.com/junk-food-science
Pretty good little article on junk food, how to change those eating habits, and why we do binge eat them.
The thing with any diet is finding the diet that works for you. Diets aren't for everyone. With CICO the "standard" is eating whatever you want as long as you stay in a deficit but really any diet is CICO. This works for some people however if you don't have your eating habits under control I feel as if that diet is a mistake. You'll always get those people "its all about willpower" who make it seem like its some simple feat to achieve. There are a number of people I know who just can't do "CICO." They can't just have that 1 piece of cake without over indulging. That's when I will suggest to them clean eating. Am I saying to do this forever? No however until you have your eating habits under control it can be a huge downfall for many.
But this is going right back to confusing calories in vs calories out with a specific "diet", and separating "clean eating" from the basics of weight loss/gain. If you eat "clean" and consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight. If you eat "clean" and consume fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. The same if you eat paleo, keto, vegan or McDonalds. CICO is not a diet or a way of eating, it's a fundamental energy equation. Nothing more. It applies no matter how or what you eat. Always.
I agree thats what CICO actually is. However people do consider CICO to be a diet. With the belief that you can eat whatever you want as long as you're in a deficit. Became popular with the whole pop tart debacle.0 -
broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Study done with a kansas state nutrition professor who ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories. If you've seen the documentary supersize me then I suggest watching fathead. Where the guy does the same "nothing but fast food" diet in a caloric deficit and debunks supersize me. Both cases the people not only lose weight but also become healthier.
http://jamesclear.com/junk-food-science
Pretty good little article on junk food, how to change those eating habits, and why we do binge eat them.
The thing with any diet is finding the diet that works for you. Diets aren't for everyone. With CICO the "standard" is eating whatever you want as long as you stay in a deficit but really any diet is CICO. This works for some people however if you don't have your eating habits under control I feel as if that diet is a mistake. You'll always get those people "its all about willpower" who make it seem like its some simple feat to achieve. There are a number of people I know who just can't do "CICO." They can't just have that 1 piece of cake without over indulging. That's when I will suggest to them clean eating. Am I saying to do this forever? No however until you have your eating habits under control it can be a huge downfall for many.
But this is going right back to confusing calories in vs calories out with a specific "diet", and separating "clean eating" from the basics of weight loss/gain. If you eat "clean" and consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight. If you eat "clean" and consume fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. The same if you eat paleo, keto, vegan or McDonalds. CICO is not a diet or a way of eating, it's a fundamental energy equation. Nothing more. It applies no matter how or what you eat. Always.
I agree thats what CICO actually is. However people do consider CICO to be a diet. With the belief that you can eat whatever you want as long as you're in a deficit. Became popular with the whole pop tart debacle.
Some people do consider the moon landing to have never taken place.
It doesn't make them right or entitle them to define what history gets written.
Edit: You can eat whatever you want as long as you're in a deficit if that's your jam. You're still conflating health & nutrition with what you eat vs. what you burn. They are two separate issues. The yardstick the ladies at the fabric counter measure a fabric with has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of fabric it is or the properties it will bring to its intended use.
4 -
broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Study done with a kansas state nutrition professor who ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories. If you've seen the documentary supersize me then I suggest watching fathead. Where the guy does the same "nothing but fast food" diet in a caloric deficit and debunks supersize me. Both cases the people not only lose weight but also become healthier.
http://jamesclear.com/junk-food-science
Pretty good little article on junk food, how to change those eating habits, and why we do binge eat them.
The thing with any diet is finding the diet that works for you. Diets aren't for everyone. With CICO the "standard" is eating whatever you want as long as you stay in a deficit but really any diet is CICO. This works for some people however if you don't have your eating habits under control I feel as if that diet is a mistake. You'll always get those people "its all about willpower" who make it seem like its some simple feat to achieve. There are a number of people I know who just can't do "CICO." They can't just have that 1 piece of cake without over indulging. That's when I will suggest to them clean eating. Am I saying to do this forever? No however until you have your eating habits under control it can be a huge downfall for many.
But this is going right back to confusing calories in vs calories out with a specific "diet", and separating "clean eating" from the basics of weight loss/gain. If you eat "clean" and consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight. If you eat "clean" and consume fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. The same if you eat paleo, keto, vegan or McDonalds. CICO is not a diet or a way of eating, it's a fundamental energy equation. Nothing more. It applies no matter how or what you eat. Always.
I agree thats what CICO actually is. However people do consider CICO to be a diet. With the belief that you can eat whatever you want as long as you're in a deficit. Became popular with the whole pop tart debacle.
OK, so what do you tell people who follow your advice to eat your version of "clean" and continue to gain? Cut out another food group? It sounds like you believe eating "clean" has magical weight loss properties, which isn't doing the people you pass this advice on to any favors.1 -
broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Study done with a kansas state nutrition professor who ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories. If you've seen the documentary supersize me then I suggest watching fathead. Where the guy does the same "nothing but fast food" diet in a caloric deficit and debunks supersize me. Both cases the people not only lose weight but also become healthier.
http://jamesclear.com/junk-food-science
Pretty good little article on junk food, how to change those eating habits, and why we do binge eat them.
The thing with any diet is finding the diet that works for you. Diets aren't for everyone. With CICO the "standard" is eating whatever you want as long as you stay in a deficit but really any diet is CICO. This works for some people however if you don't have your eating habits under control I feel as if that diet is a mistake. You'll always get those people "its all about willpower" who make it seem like its some simple feat to achieve. There are a number of people I know who just can't do "CICO." They can't just have that 1 piece of cake without over indulging. That's when I will suggest to them clean eating. Am I saying to do this forever? No however until you have your eating habits under control it can be a huge downfall for many.
But this is going right back to confusing calories in vs calories out with a specific "diet", and separating "clean eating" from the basics of weight loss/gain. If you eat "clean" and consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight. If you eat "clean" and consume fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. The same if you eat paleo, keto, vegan or McDonalds. CICO is not a diet or a way of eating, it's a fundamental energy equation. Nothing more. It applies no matter how or what you eat. Always.
I agree thats what CICO actually is. However people do consider CICO to be a diet. With the belief that you can eat whatever you want as long as you're in a deficit. Became popular with the whole pop tart debacle.
OK, so what do you tell people who follow your advice to eat your version of "clean" and continue to gain? Cut out another food group? It sounds like you believe eating "clean" has magical weight loss properties, which isn't doing the people you pass this advice on to any favors.
Where in my post did I ever say eating clean is some magic to weight loss. The first link I posted even displays the opposite of that. Where they eat little debbie snack cakes as their primary source of calories and another where a guy is eating nothing but fast food in deficits. As I said in both cases they lost weight and got healthier..
My advice was to try a multitude of diets and see which one works for you. That if you can't eat something like a piece of cake without over indulging then you shouldn't eat cake until you have things under control.
Again I agree that CICO isn't a diet however the OP clearly was refering to CICO as a diet, we all know what they mean't by asking CICO VS Clean eating. The 2 links I posted was to display both worlds. That each diet works as long as they are in deficits.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cuadrado12 wrote: »I have always considered "clean eating" to mean minimally processed. There are plenty of grains out there that fall into that category.
I think eating less processed items (like whole foods without added ingredients, added sugar etc.) is really important. You could make extremely poor food choices, be unhealthy, and still meet weight goals / fall within a specific calorie range. You can also be very thin on the outside and be unhealthy on the inside.
I also think that keeping track of calories for just a little bit can give you some perspective into how certain items (like soda, desserts, alcohol) can really be deterring your health goals. I also think you can get some great bang for your buck with eating healthier items. I am not a fan of CICO as a permanent thing, but I think it's a great teaching tool starting out.
If the underlying premise is that a non-whole food or a food with added ingredients or a food with added sugar is automatically a poor choice or will lead to poor health, then I reject that. I don't think there is any evidence to support the claim that these foods, in and of themselves, will lead to poor health.
If I'm meeting my nutritional needs and including some white rice or protein powder or jam sweetened with fruit juice or a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee in my diet, how is that going to hurt me? If I dress a salad with some olive oil, a non-whole food, how is that going to cause harm?
The choice isn't "eat poorly" or "only eat clean foods." There is a whole range of eating between those two choice and those of us who include non-whole foods in our diets aren't necessarily compromising our health.
I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I was really just alluding to the people who only care about calories.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »They aren't really the same thing, but I do think clean eating is important. A lot of people on here are only interested in CICO and say it doesn't really matter as long as it fits your calories or macros. That's true for weight loss, but there are so many other aspects to health other than weight. I think it's a lot easy to stay under your calorie goal when you eat mostly clean, and also it's better to eat foods that provide you nutrients, vitamins, etc. than something calorie dense but providing nothing to benefit you other than energy.
These threads always reach the exact same dead end.
Go ask a vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a raw vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a vegetarian what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a paleo dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a keto dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask an IIFYM'er what "clean eating" is.
You'd get a different answer from every single one of them. Some foods that a paleo, keto or IIFYM'er considers perfectly "clean" would be anathema to a veg*an. Some foods that a veg*an considers "clean" would be off limits to many paleo/keto dieters. And so on.
"Clean eating" is a ridiculous, nebulous, undefinable concept. It's an emotionally charged phrase and has pseudoscience and fearmongering woven all through it. Each one of the groups above would most likely claim that theirs is the "healthiest" way to eat, and they would all have their own reasons why they believe that (whether they're supported by science or not).
Once upon a time in the What is Clean Eating debate thread someone attempted a venn diagram to see what could be agreed on. Non-starchy vegetables was the only thing left at the center, and even that gets blown out of the water by gmo/organic/pesticide debates.
And wouldn't the non-starchy vegetable have to be fresh (not processed, not frozen, not canned, not dried) and grown within 100 miles of your home (to satisfy the "eat-local" clean eaters), which would mean the Venn Diagram clean eaters would all have to move to arable land near enough to the equator to have a year-round growing season, which would require amazingly dense housing circling and threading through the arable land? And, I'm not sure, but I really don't think non-starchy vegetables are among the more calorie-dense-per-acre foods. Could the bodies of people who starved to death trying to survive year-round on unprocessed locally grown non-starchy vegetables (in competition with other people trying to eat clean) be used as organic fertilizer?
I think people who want to eat clean would be wise to keep it a secret, especially the VDCErs (Venn Diagram Clean Eaters). They don't need competition for the locally grown non-starchy greens.3 -
Misschellechelle: I'm gonna skip the debate and just answer your question. Some lucky people can just "eat less" and lose what they need to. Or some lucky people can just cut back on carbs and restrict sugar (eat cleaner) and in a month or so, the extra 10 pounds is gone.
If you've never needed to lose weight before, it might work out best to opt for whatever your definition of clean eating is, and skip the calorie counting. Assume you'll be one of the lucky ones! But you really have to be honest with yourself at every meal. Are you really eating less than usual?
I think people eat "clean" because they are trying to be in tune with what their body really needs in order to function best. And they want to shut off the inappropriate messages their brain is giving them to eat unhealthy foods. New habits take about a month to form, and during that time, your brain actually grows new neural pathways to support the new habit.
You'll know within a week if you can be successful without counting calories.
Good luck with that 10 pounds and regaining optimum health!
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »IMO, I think a more important question is, why aren't more people using CICO and CE together? CICO is necessary to lose weight but I think quality of food is equally important. I would think that using them together would compound success. Again, just my opinion.
As for long term, I feel that after you have done CICO for so long you start to know what is the right amount to maintain your weight. Listen to your body, and adjust portions accordingly whether you be CE or not.
Most of us here would advocate a diet rich in nutrient dense foods and probably even follow an 80/20 rule, but to different people clean eating means different things. If you look at the link I posted originally, you will get the understand.
I"m not arguing that fact.
I don't like the term mainly because it has a lot of gray areas. Would it mean the same to a vegan, paleo, LCHF, etc...? And my other issue is it doesn't guarantee that it will support ones goals. I know a lot of people who complain about not losing weight be eating clean and they don't understand it. And then they look at my diet and can't figure out why I lose 1 lb a week. Essentially, the industry (and more so bloggers/youtubers who dont' have a clue) have confused people so much, that they make it hard to lose weight. And then people fail to address the most important and basic requirement of weight loss... addressing the energy balance requirement (eating less than you burn).
When I train people, i tend to recommend small steps. And step one is always figuring out actual caloric needs.
I agree, as I said above in a few replies my view of CE is different then what others would consider CE. My question is more based on what we as individuals view as CE. Which looking back probably should have specified. I assumed people were on the same page as CE being what we personal believe CE to be, and not a general rule with a list.
My definition of clean eating:
A diet predominately of whole fresh food eg meat, fish, fruit, veggies, eggs, nuts, cold pressed oils. Whole grains (which ironically come in packets and tins... see below), rice, pasta, beans, legumes etc
No packet meals eg frozen ready meals, meals in boxes/packets/tins.
Then there's stuff like yogurt and milk, which i consider healthy, but again comes in packages. The whole clean eating thing just gets too damn confusing
In a nutshell, stay away from "super" processed food, and made man made foods, stick to things that are found in nature..
Please dont shoot me for this list, I'm just putting forth my definition of clean eating. And no, I am not a clean eater, one day maybe...
Good Lord, was i half asleep when i wrote this post!!?? Typo's galore and sentences in the wrong places2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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