Lifting, Eating "Clean," and Muscle Definition

Dr_Gains

I think its funny how people want to have amazing bodies on the outside but completly neglect their insides. I eat clean for total body health not for body composition.

oh and yes eat the muffin and put it into your macros lol. will be fine. I am referring to the peeps who fit in 90% junk into their diet plan. Adding in some stuff you like is obviously just fine.

tigersword

I'm pretty sure your body DOES recognize all of the million mystery applications of GM corn found in a big mac. It may not affect your weight, but it'll affect your health.

Exactly which "mystery applications" are you referring to? That might be the silliest thing I've read all morning, and I've read some silly stuff on here today.

The website is in pdf, so it won't let me copy/paste: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/ingredientslist.pdf
Take a look at the bun and sauce. Not to mention the meat itself.

I'm still not seeing any mystery applications. I see pretty straight forward recipes. Would you feel better if they listed "vitamin c" instead of calling it "ascorbic acid?" There's nothing mystical, magical, weird, or harmful in any of the ingredients lists, it's stuff you eat in other foods on a daily basis.

It's just that those other foods don't require an "ingredients list."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you saw an ingredients list that listed "glutamic acid, aspartic acid, glucose, sucrose, fructose, galactose, inulin, maltose, and phenylalanine" on it, would you eat it, or skip it?

jwdieter

Agreed, but that's an entirely different topic. I just wanted to know if I could have a muffin (homemade, of course!) while I train. LOL!

You can eat a muffin. Geebus. Enjoy life, eat at a deficit, get decent protein/fats, exercise, and win.

WhiteRabbit1313

I don't know anything about eating for weight loss/muscle gain, so if people are saying you can eat it and look great, you probably can. But for health purposes, I think the list of ingredients is more important than the nutrition facts.

Agreed, but that's an entirely different topic. I just wanted to know if I could have a muffin (homemade, of course!) while I train. LOL!

I'm super sorry to have sidetracked your thread!

No worries! I understand--I do it, too

WhiteRabbit1313

Agreed, but that's an entirely different topic. I just wanted to know if I could have a muffin (homemade, of course!) while I train. LOL!

You can eat a muffin. Geebus. Enjoy life, eat at a deficit, get decent protein/fats, exercise, and win.

Yeah, I was oversimplifying But, will do!

emilynw10

I'm pretty sure your body DOES recognize all of the million mystery applications of GM corn found in a big mac. It may not affect your weight, but it'll affect your health.

Exactly which "mystery applications" are you referring to? That might be the silliest thing I've read all morning, and I've read some silly stuff on here today.

The website is in pdf, so it won't let me copy/paste: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/ingredientslist.pdf
Take a look at the bun and sauce. Not to mention the meat itself.

I'm still not seeing any mystery applications. I see pretty straight forward recipes. Would you feel better if they listed "vitamin c" instead of calling it "ascorbic acid?" There's nothing mystical, magical, weird, or harmful in any of the ingredients lists, it's stuff you eat in other foods on a daily basis.

It's just that those other foods don't require an "ingredients list."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you saw an ingredients list that listed "glutamic acid, aspartic acid, glucose, sucrose, fructose, galactose, inulin, maltose, and phenylalanine" on it, would you eat it, or skip it?

There is nothing wrong with any of those things...

If you saw an ingredients list with MSG, azocarbonamide, red #3, hydrogenated whatever, aspartame.... would you skip it or eat it?

Acg67

I'm pretty sure your body DOES recognize all of the million mystery applications of GM corn found in a big mac. It may not affect your weight, but it'll affect your health.

Exactly which "mystery applications" are you referring to? That might be the silliest thing I've read all morning, and I've read some silly stuff on here today.

The website is in pdf, so it won't let me copy/paste: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/ingredientslist.pdf
Take a look at the bun and sauce. Not to mention the meat itself.

I'm still not seeing any mystery applications. I see pretty straight forward recipes. Would you feel better if they listed "vitamin c" instead of calling it "ascorbic acid?" There's nothing mystical, magical, weird, or harmful in any of the ingredients lists, it's stuff you eat in other foods on a daily basis.

It's just that those other foods don't require an "ingredients list."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you saw an ingredients list that listed "glutamic acid, aspartic acid, glucose, sucrose, fructose, galactose, inulin, maltose, and phenylalanine" on it, would you eat it, or skip it?

There is nothing wrong with any of those things...

If you saw an ingredients list with MSG, azocarbonamide, red #3, hydrogenated whatever, aspartame.... would you skip it or eat it?

LMAO

emilynw10

I'm pretty sure your body DOES recognize all of the million mystery applications of GM corn found in a big mac. It may not affect your weight, but it'll affect your health.

Exactly which "mystery applications" are you referring to? That might be the silliest thing I've read all morning, and I've read some silly stuff on here today.

The website is in pdf, so it won't let me copy/paste: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/ingredientslist.pdf
Take a look at the bun and sauce. Not to mention the meat itself.

I'm still not seeing any mystery applications. I see pretty straight forward recipes. Would you feel better if they listed "vitamin c" instead of calling it "ascorbic acid?" There's nothing mystical, magical, weird, or harmful in any of the ingredients lists, it's stuff you eat in other foods on a daily basis.

It's just that those other foods don't require an "ingredients list."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you saw an ingredients list that listed "glutamic acid, aspartic acid, glucose, sucrose, fructose, galactose, inulin, maltose, and phenylalanine" on it, would you eat it, or skip it?

There is nothing wrong with any of those things...

If you saw an ingredients list with MSG, azocarbonamide, red #3, hydrogenated whatever, aspartame.... would you skip it or eat it?

LMAO

Oh shush

KombuchaCat

I think that eating clean has more to do with ethics and overall health than with acheiving a certain body type. I know many people who have acheived a great results following IIFYM and not caring where the macronutrients come from. However I think if you are concerned about overall disease prevention, energy level, optimal performance, etc physically and also how your food is produced, environmental impact, humane animal treatment, etc then eating clean is becomes more important.

tigersword

I'm pretty sure your body DOES recognize all of the million mystery applications of GM corn found in a big mac. It may not affect your weight, but it'll affect your health.

Exactly which "mystery applications" are you referring to? That might be the silliest thing I've read all morning, and I've read some silly stuff on here today.

The website is in pdf, so it won't let me copy/paste: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/ingredientslist.pdf
Take a look at the bun and sauce. Not to mention the meat itself.

I'm still not seeing any mystery applications. I see pretty straight forward recipes. Would you feel better if they listed "vitamin c" instead of calling it "ascorbic acid?" There's nothing mystical, magical, weird, or harmful in any of the ingredients lists, it's stuff you eat in other foods on a daily basis.

It's just that those other foods don't require an "ingredients list."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you saw an ingredients list that listed "glutamic acid, aspartic acid, glucose, sucrose, fructose, galactose, inulin, maltose, and phenylalanine" on it, would you eat it, or skip it?

There is nothing wrong with any of those things...

If you saw an ingredients list with MSG, azocarbonamide, red #3, hydrogenated whatever, aspartame.... would you skip it or eat it?

LOL

MSG, you mean sodium GLUTAMIC ACID? Nothing wrong with it, as you already stated. Aspartame, you mean ASPARTIC ACID and PHENYLALANINE? Nothing wrong with those either, as you again have already stated. And did you by chance mean azodicarbonamide? I know that can cause issues if you inhale too much of it, but I'm not really into inhaling bread, I choose to eat it. And Red #3? The most studied, and safest of food colorings? You're just showing that you don't have a real understanding of food chemistry.

Also, the ingredients list I put up is a partial list of the ingredients in a navel orange.

WhiteRabbit1313

I think its funny how people want to have amazing bodies on the outside but completly neglect their insides. I eat clean for total body health not for body composition.

oh and yes eat the muffin and put it into your macros lol. will be fine. I am referring to the peeps who fit in 90% junk into their diet plan. Adding in some stuff you like is obviously just fine.

Oh, and I agree with this, too. I DO care about my health, but I am also realistic about the level that I'm at, right now, and firmly believe in eating in the "real world." I am accustomed to being extreme, so if a diet says "no sugar," for example, I take it as the absolute law and won't touch it. I'm still learning balance. So, my friend, who has been working hard to achieve any muscle tone (because she's naturally skinny) told me you HAVE to eat clean to achieve the results, I assumed she meant never having dessert again, which is totally impossible for me, as a life change.

thatonegirlwiththestuff

I agree, you want to eat as clean as possible and eat the appropriate amount of calories for your goals. Perhaps slightly off topic but I personally don't believe "calories are calories". Your body will react very differently to a 450 calorie McDonald's burger than it will to a 450 calories of lean steak and vegetables. If this wasn't the case, pro bodybuilders (for example) wouldn't live off of Chicken & veggies (and other "clean" foods) to achieve the very low body fat %s while still being muscular.

.

QFT. I consume a lot of calories, but all healthy, in the forms of lean meats/veggies/low carbs and have done 10x better on this method than counting calories alone.

WhiteRabbit1313

I agree, you want to eat as clean as possible and eat the appropriate amount of calories for your goals. Perhaps slightly off topic but I personally don't believe "calories are calories". Your body will react very differently to a 450 calorie McDonald's burger than it will to a 450 calories of lean steak and vegetables. If this wasn't the case, pro bodybuilders (for example) wouldn't live off of Chicken & veggies (and other "clean" foods) to achieve the very low body fat %s while still being muscular.

.

QFT. I consume a lot of calories, but all healthy, in the forms of lean meats/veggies/low carbs and have done 10x better on this method than counting calories alone.

Eek, really? No cake or wine, EVER, or are you saying, for instance, you're eating 97% "clean"?

tigersword

I agree, you want to eat as clean as possible and eat the appropriate amount of calories for your goals. Perhaps slightly off topic but I personally don't believe "calories are calories". Your body will react very differently to a 450 calorie McDonald's burger than it will to a 450 calories of lean steak and vegetables. If this wasn't the case, pro bodybuilders (for example) wouldn't live off of Chicken & veggies (and other "clean" foods) to achieve the very low body fat %s while still being muscular.

.

QFT. I consume a lot of calories, but all healthy, in the forms of lean meats/veggies/low carbs and have done 10x better on this method than counting calories alone.

Were your macros the same before and after? If you've changed your macro ratio, that would be the reason, not an arbitrary distinction of whether food is "clean" or not.

mustgetmuscles1

False.

I eat fast food, diet soda, as well as normal everyday food and had zero problems cutting body fat. Just counted protein and fat macros and stayed in a small calorie deficit while lifting weights. I also eat a lot of "clean" foods (that would meet most peoples definition of the term) to get necessary nutrients and make more room for some good stuff.

SideSteel

In.

msf74

I agree, you want to eat as clean as possible and eat the appropriate amount of calories for your goals. Perhaps slightly off topic but I personally don't believe "calories are calories". Your body will react very differently to a 450 calorie McDonald's burger than it will to a 450 calories of lean steak and vegetables. If this wasn't the case, pro bodybuilders (for example) wouldn't live off of Chicken & veggies (and other "clean" foods) to achieve the very low body fat %s while still being muscular.

.

QFT. I consume a lot of calories, but all healthy, in the forms of lean meats/veggies/low carbs and have done 10x better on this method than counting calories alone.

Were your macros the same before and after? If you've changed your macro ratio, that would be the reason, not an arbitrary distinction of whether food is "clean" or not.

I think it's also to do with the way that calorie information is calculated due to difficulties in the Atwater system.

So, for example a medium sized apple may be classed as having 100 calories and a biscuit may be classed as having the same. However in reality those calorie numbers simply represent the maximum calories available to be delivered by the different food items rather than the actual calories delivered. So in reality the apple delivers 65 cals but the biscuit 100 cals.

So, you get this rather odd situation where someone says "I was eating 2000 calories of junk and didn't lose a thing but I ate 2,000 calories of clean food and dropped loads of weight yo!" In reality the "clean" diet although calculated to be the same was in reality delivering less.

tigersword

I agree, you want to eat as clean as possible and eat the appropriate amount of calories for your goals. Perhaps slightly off topic but I personally don't believe "calories are calories". Your body will react very differently to a 450 calorie McDonald's burger than it will to a 450 calories of lean steak and vegetables. If this wasn't the case, pro bodybuilders (for example) wouldn't live off of Chicken & veggies (and other "clean" foods) to achieve the very low body fat %s while still being muscular.

.

QFT. I consume a lot of calories, but all healthy, in the forms of lean meats/veggies/low carbs and have done 10x better on this method than counting calories alone.

Were your macros the same before and after? If you've changed your macro ratio, that would be the reason, not an arbitrary distinction of whether food is "clean" or not.

I think it's also to do with the way that calorie information is calculated due to difficulties in the Atwater system.

So, for example a medium sized apple may be classed as having 100 calories and a biscuit may be classed as having the same. However in reality those calorie numbers simply represent the maximum calories available to be delivered by the different food items rather than the actual calories delivered. So in reality the apple delivers 65 cals but the biscuit 100 cals.

So, you get this rather odd situation where someone says "I was eating 2000 calories of junk and didn't lose a thing but I ate 2,000 calories of clean food and dropped loads of weight yo!" In reality the "clean" diet although calculated to be the same was in reality delivering less.

Yes but that's an assumption, it could very easily be true the opposite way. All calorie counts and all metabolism numbers are just rough estimates, with a margin of error of at least 100 calories or so per day, if not more. I haven't seen any real distinction between the accuracy of "clean" or "dirty" foods, especially as there's no real definition for either.

UsedToBeHusky

I think its funny how people want to have amazing bodies on the outside but completly neglect their insides. I eat clean for total body health not for body composition.

oh and yes eat the muffin and put it into your macros lol. will be fine. I am referring to the peeps who fit in 90% junk into their diet plan. Adding in some stuff you like is obviously just fine.

Anyone trying to eat at a deficit wouldn't fill 90% of their calories with junk food because they would be half-starved to death at the end of the day.

I'm pretty sure this has been covered before, but most of the "clean-eaters" are not eating clean 100% of the time, and have their occassional treats... to keep themselves sane!

IIFYM is not really any different. You eat what you need to meet your macro goals, and if you want something, and it doesn't screw up your macro ratios too severely, then you can have it. Guess what that means... IIFYM isn't 100% junk, or even 90% junk, or even 50% junk.

Be real... and as previously stated about the "mystery" ingredients in processed food. It's usually the same compounds you would find in whole foods if you broke the whole foods down into their chemical elements.

Why people want to split hairs over this issue is beyond me? It's tomato or tomato; potato or potato.

Look at that... those words look exactly the same when typed out regardless of how you pronounce it... the same is true with the clean-eating and IIFYM methods. They sound different... but are pretty much the same on paper.

msf74

Yes but that's an assumption, it could very easily be true the opposite way. All calorie counts and all metabolism numbers are just rough estimates, with a margin of error of at least 100 calories or so per day, if not more. I haven't seen any real distinction between the accuracy of "clean" or "dirty" foods, especially as there's no real definition for either.

Absolutely, it simply is a possible explanation of a somewhat head scratching scenario. Obviously a calorie is a calorie but bioavailability is something altogether different.