Clean Eating Bashing?

jonnythan

Of course everything is made up of chemicals. So are we, and everything around us. What does that have to do with it?

You don't associate much with other clean eaters, do you?

jayrudq appears pretty new to this conversation.

bcattoes

If people say “I want to be strong”, “I want to be fit”, “I want to be attractive” on MFP, what does that mean? It has to be bullsh*t, right, because no one can clearly, scientifically, objectively define what being strong, fit, and attractive is? And yet these types of comments are posted all the time and don’t cause a sh*tstorm - no one calls these people smug and arrogant.

So why is “clean eating” found to be offensive while these other subjective goals are fine? Whenever a thread mentions it, the “anti-clean eaters” relentlessly dissect the definition until they find something that they can take offense to, and then go after the person.

If I say “I want to be fit”, the response could be, “what does that mean, brah?” Maybe fit means being able to run a marathon to me. “How arrogant, not everyone can run a marathon or wants to, do you think that only runners are fit, they are scientifically harmful, blah blah blah.” You can be offended by damn near everything.

Great post

devil_in_a_blue_dress

I agree! This is myFITNESSpal, not myWEIGHTLOSSpal. Eating clean contributes to fitness in more ways than eating twinkies at a deficit does.

Why does eating twinkies mean you aren't fit?

NO ONE SAID THAT! This is exactly what I'm talking about.

:huh:

Nobody said that, but implied that eating twinkies at a deficit is somehow inferior to fitness related goals than "eating clean". Right. It's the Twinkie eaters that are hating.

highervibes

I started here in March eating Paleo and lost 25lbs doing so. I had bloodwork done and my numbers showed remarkable improvment (triglycerides, cholesterol, A1C and magnesium/iron) I missed the foods I had previously enjoyed and thanks to one of Jonnythan's posts I said "I'll try it" I eat a lot of what people would consider "good" and also "bad" food but since I stopped seeing food as good or bad, I've been able to stay the course and go on to lose another 33lbs. I recently had more bloodwork and I'm happy to report even more improvments!

I find that I can eat more whole foods vs fast foods so if I'm really hungry I'll try and keep it leaner and cleaner but if I want McNuggets or a pizza, Ima have it. Balance.

waldo56

I'm often offended by the use of fit around here. It's often equated to low bf%. Which is ridiculous. In fact, once you start reducing your bf below a certain percentage you'll find your performance suffers at a certain point.

Performance at what?

Have you ever watched the Olympics? Aside for a few sports, most male athletes are well into the single digits, and most female athletes have a strong 6 pack.

Pro fighters? Single digits.

Suffering performance is largely an excuse to stay fat used by noncompetitive recreational weight lifters.

JoRocka

In fact, once you start reducing your bf below a certain percentage you'll find your performance suffers at a certain point.

Says who? Proof? Studies? Articles?

I'd like to know what % of BF that is?

Most people don't every come anywhere near low teens single digit BF%. And Top atheletes are CLEARLY not suffering and they are all low teens/singles.

jimmmer

I'm often offended by the use of fit around here. It's often equated to low bf%. Which is ridiculous. In fact, once you start reducing your bf below a certain percentage you'll find your performance suffers at a certain point.

Performance at what?

Have you ever watched the Olympics? Aside for a few sports, most male athletes are well into the single digits, and most female athletes have a strong 6 pack.

Pro fighters? Single digits.

Suffering performance is largely an excuse to stay fat used by noncompetitive recreational weight lifters.

Pro fighters don't live at single digits. In fact they tend loosen up a bit between fights. Then they "make weight" before the bout.

And I wasn't talking about genetically gifted uber-mortals in the olympics. Does everything have to be taken to such ridiculous extremes around here?

I was talking about us mere mortals. I've found that when I was training a lot as a martial artist, I suffered less injuries and was sick less at a slightly higher bf %. When I dropped too low, then things start going south. Sorry, can't link you to a study. Just speaking from personal experience.

Remember top athletes are a small % of the population for a reason. Not everyone is cut out to win olympic gold or play in the NFL.

AverageUkDude

I'm often offended by the use of fit around here. It's often equated to low bf%. Which is ridiculous. In fact, once you start reducing your bf below a certain percentage you'll find your performance suffers at a certain point.

Performance at what?

Have you ever watched the Olympics? Aside for a few sports, most male athletes are well into the single digits, and most female athletes have a strong 6 pack.

Pro fighters? Single digits.

Suffering performance is largely an excuse to stay fat used by noncompetitive recreational weight lifters.

Pro fighters don't live at single digits. In fact they tend loosen up a bit between fights. Then they "make weight" before the bout.

And I wasn't talking about genetically gifted uber-mortals in the olympics. Does everything have to be taken to such ridiculous extremes around here?

I was talking about us mere mortals. I've found that when I was training a lot as a martial artist, I suffered less injuries and was sick less at a slightly higher bf %. When I dropped too low, then things start going south. Sorry, can't link you to a study. Just speaking from personal experience.

Remember top athletes are a small % of the population for a reason. Not everyone is cut out to win olympic gold or play in the NFL.

And can we also remember 99% of these guys are on juice, its not a fair comparison

jonnythan

Does everything have to be taken to such ridiculous extremes around here?

Just speaking from personal experience.

Extrapolating "just my personal experience" to "in fact, your performance will suffer" is quite a ridiculous extreme IMO.

jayrudq

Of course everything is made up of chemicals. So are we, and everything around us. What does that have to do with it?

You don't associate much with other clean eaters, do you?

jayrudq appears pretty new to this conversation.

Ha! Yeah, in comparison, I am new to this conversation on this site. But I don't consider myself new to science, nutrition, and critical thinking. I am also a skeptic and do not believe in the goodness of the free market (a little healthy paranoia has served me well over the years).

Eating so-called healthy is a preference. I think it serves me well, too. I prefer to think about the chicken I just ate running around on the farm where I buy it, pecking away, as opposed to the grocery store one who lived in a cage and was processed in a factory - it tastes better to me and I am happier keeping my dollars local. Same with vegetables, meat, etc. Do I buy organic? In some cases, yes. Am I healthier than anyone else? I doubt it. I have lots of bad habits, have lived hard, and partied harder. So who am I to judge others? Do I think it is easier to lose weight and maintain a healthy weight eating this way. Hell yes. Do I think I know more and am right? Of course, who doesn't?

But people aren't going to die from McDonalds or poptarts. It is the heart disease they get from them! :sad: Ok, I just had to.

jonnythan

But people aren't going to die from McDonalds or poptarts. It is the heart disease they get from them! :sad: Ok, I just had to.

You were doing so well before you ruined with this little joke.

jofjltncb6

So I can better understand, you believe there is no nutritional difference between the beef in a McDonalds Big Mac and a rib eye from a grass fed cow.

Why would you try to compare ground beef to ribeye? Make a fair comparison.

Ok, McDonald's ground beef to ground beef from a grass fed cow...

There would be no significant nutritional differences. There are some minor differences in the fat profile, but they're extremely minor and not worth worrying about.

^this

And yet I still make great effort and pay more for locally raised grass fed *and* finished beef, 1) for the minor differences, and 2) because I just don't like the CAFO approach to raising my food. I don't have an "animals are people too" perspective, but I just don't like the approach to conventionally raised livestock. (I do the same for chicken, buying only locally raised pastured chickens.)

Bonus: I can hold it over the heads of those cretins who would dare to eat inferior meat. Nothing tastes as good as being morally superior feels.

zmoreno10

But people aren't going to die from McDonalds or poptarts. It is the heart disease they get from them! :sad: Ok, I just had to.

Stupid poptarts

jimmmer

Does everything have to be taken to such ridiculous extremes around here?

Just speaking from personal experience.

Extrapolating "just my personal experience" to "in fact, your performance will suffer" is quite a ridiculous extreme IMO.

Well, it is my personal experience. But it's not only my personal experience. I always thought it was a pretty commonly known thing for athletes and coaches.

You reach a tipping point where further reducing bf% starts to mess up your immune system and your recovery.

Anyway, it's the difference between reading about something and doing it. You've obviously read a lot of stuff.

waldo56

Remember top athletes are a small % of the population for a reason. Not everyone is cut out to win olympic gold or play in the NFL.

They might be special snowflakes, but not in the way you think. Certainly not special snowflakes in the way body fat affects performance.

Special snowflakes in the ratio of muscle fiber types and Achilles length, yes.

But you can work your tail off and get darn close. Any non-disabled male can work their way to a sub 12 sec 100 and >35" vert. or <20 min 5K. The extra boost from genetics is the difference between great and very good.

jonnythan

Does everything have to be taken to such ridiculous extremes around here?

Just speaking from personal experience.

Extrapolating "just my personal experience" to "in fact, your performance will suffer" is quite a ridiculous extreme IMO.

Well, it is my personal experience. But it's not only my personal experience. I always thought it was a pretty commonly known thing for athletes and coaches.

You reach a tipping point where further reducing bf% starts to mess up your immune system and your recovery.

Anyway, it's the difference between reading about something and doing it. You've obviously read a lot of stuff.

Well let's look at the big picture. You said that lowering BF% can lead to performance suffering as a way to attack the idea that low body fat means fit.

Reality is that very, very, very few people ever approach any such limit. It's simply not a concern.

msf74

Remember top athletes are a small % of the population for a reason. Not everyone is cut out to win olympic gold or play in the NFL.

And also that form follows function with athletes and not vice versa.

There does seem to be a pervasive idea that having a six pack automatically equates with being athletically fit but that is not always the case. You can rock a set of sick pack abs and be weak and in poor health (generally because the individual has fallen foul of an excessive deficit and / or poor diet composition.)

Different mindset really. Training for performance v training for aesthetics....

waldo56

Well, it is my personal experience. But it's not only my personal experience. I always thought it was a pretty commonly known thing for athletes and coaches.

You reach a tipping point where further reducing bf% starts to mess up your immune system and your recovery.

Anyway, it's the difference between reading about something and doing it. You've obviously read a lot of stuff.

But this point is MUCH lower than most people believe it is. Somewhere around 7-8% in guys. And real 7-8%, not I think I'm 8% but really I'm 15%. Drift on both issues tends to cause many dudes in the high teens-low 20's to now want to go lower out of fear of affecting performance, whereas they are so laughably far from that point it isn't even a concern at all.

I've dipped into the single digits wit no performance issues. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not a special snowflake.

jimmmer

Does everything have to be taken to such ridiculous extremes around here?

Just speaking from personal experience.

Extrapolating "just my personal experience" to "in fact, your performance will suffer" is quite a ridiculous extreme IMO.

Well, it is my personal experience. But it's not only my personal experience. I always thought it was a pretty commonly known thing for athletes and coaches.

You reach a tipping point where further reducing bf% starts to mess up your immune system and your recovery.

Anyway, it's the difference between reading about something and doing it. You've obviously read a lot of stuff.

Well let's look at the big picture. You said that lowering BF% can lead to performance suffering as a way to attack the idea that low body fat means fit.

Reality is that very, very, very few people ever approach any such limit. It's simply not a concern.

Actually, that was an aside.

My main thrust is that fit means "apt for a task". That is why I do not consider low bf% as fit. You may be fit and have a low bf%, but the low bf% is not what makes you fit.

You simply don't understand the perspective I am coming from. Probably because you haven't read about it in a scientific paper yet.

msf74

But this point is MUCH lower than most people believe it is. Somewhere around 7-8% in guys. And real 7-8%, not I think I'm 8% but really I'm 15%. Drift on both issues tends to cause many dudes in the high teens-low 20's to now want to go lower out of fear of affecting performance, whereas they are so laughably far from that point it isn't even a concern at all.

I've dipped into the single digits wit no performance issues. Quite the opposite actually.

I think this is right as well.

The problem is usually unsuitable dieting strategies (normally involving excessive deficits and lack of recovery) than low BF per se.