Why "clean eating" is a myth

parkscs

Wow, I looked away from this thread for a few hours, and I missed the logical leap from avoiding twinkies in favor of fresh meats, fruits and vegetables to following a religion that opposes gay marriage. Amazing.

I have tried doing the fairly 'clean' thing in the past.

With my significantly-less clean BUT more educated approach now I am stronger and fitter while generally putting less effort in.

But you're comparing apples to oranges. The real question is how would you perform with a clean AND educated approach.

ninerbuff

Wow, I looked away from this thread for a few hours, and I missed the logical leap from avoiding twinkies in favor of fresh meats, fruits and vegetables to following a religion that opposes gay marriage. Amazing.

I have tried doing the fairly 'clean' thing in the past.

With my significantly-less clean BUT more educated approach now I am stronger and fitter while generally putting less effort in.

But you're comparing apples to oranges. The real question is how would you perform with a clean AND educated approach.

Ask an Olympic athlete. If you're going the the approach that clean eating only along with great education will improve performance, then an Olympic athlete eating only clean, but needing 8,000 to 10,000 calories a day probably wouldn't perform well because to intake that much in just clean foods, they'd have to probably be eating on the hour, every hour on a good amount of calories and probably end up with a full stomach all the time. You wouldn't be able to convince any athlete that they perform better on a full stomach with high intensity training.
Which is why many Olympians do eat calorie dense junk foods. Not for the nutrition (which they supplant with other whole foods), but for the caloric value they need to train.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Hornsby

I'm currently maintaining at 32-3400 and I can't imagine having to get to that number in just whole / "clean" foods. Granted, there are tons of them in my daily intake, but I gotta throw some "junk" in as well.

cwsreddy

Evidence I've seen also suggests that physical fitness and not being obese are more important than what you eat in most cases.

You've never heard of a runner dying of a heart attack or a former athlete dying of a heart attack or a triathlete developing cancer at a young age? I can keep going.

Weight =/= Fitness =/= Health

There's a reason they are three separate words.

And genetics is a cause for many young people having health issues (It's the same reason why I have higher LDL's than most. Both my mother and father have higher LDLs ). IMO, health is determined by many factors: genetics, body composition (not weight) and over fitness level/exercise.

This issue with these discussion is we don't look at health holistically. Many people, will try to correlate one particular part of someones diet and link it to cancer. When in reality, family history, medications, fitness and diet all have to be considered. My wife was in an out of hospitals for 3 years with a variety of health issues. One of the common themes I keep hearing is they are starting to link more health issues to family history.

so true, oh and thanks for re-opening :flowerforyou:

geebusuk

This issue with these discussion is we don't look at health holistically.

Missed that that reply was to my post.

Yes, it seems many seem to presume that there is a direct relationship between food and all sorts of nastiness.
If someone changes what they are eating and get better, it so often seems it MUST be their change in diet.
Even when there's a whole load of other factors at play; before and after.

So, also illness =/= dirty eating.

There are so, so many other factors to consider and it's rare these are given near the detail they deserve.

cwsreddy

This issue with these discussion is we don't look at health holistically.

Missed that that reply was to my post.

Yes, it seems many seem to presume that there is a direct relationship between food and all sorts of nastiness.
If someone changes what they are eating and get better, it so often seems it MUST be their change in diet.
Even when there's a whole load of other factors at play; before and after.

So, also illness =/= dirty eating.

There are so, so many other factors to consider and it's rare these are given near the detail they deserve.

of course there are other factors, but diet is one of the contributing factor. I'd argue it's probably the second biggest after genetic factors and ahead of environmental factors. I truly think you CAN beat genetics through food, but it's very hard to do and requires incredible discipline.

4realrose8

"Let food by thy medicine, and medicine be thy food." ~Hippocrates

Titus 3:9

geebusuk

Do you have any evidence that diet is second to genetics?
That's not the impression I've got,but I've not had access to enough raw/reasonably raw data to analyse decently myself.

cwsreddy

Do you have any evidence that diet is second to genetics?
That's not the impression I've got,but I've not had access to enough raw/reasonably raw data to analyse decently myself.

i said probably. if you've got data that shows otherwise that's awesome and i'd love to see it. i'd prefer to put food first tbh.

fast_eddie_72

I think the reason people focus on food related illness risk is because it's one of the variables that you have the most control over.

(edit)

Do you have any evidence that diet is second to genetics?
That's not the impression I've got,but I've not had access to enough raw/reasonably raw data to analyse decently myself.

The above to that point. If genetics can be addressed at all, it is a very difficult and sometimes extreme solution. Some women with a very high family risk of breast cancer opt to have preemptive mastectomies. Obviously that's an extreme way of addressing a risk. By comparison, some diet changes are extremely simple. Really doesn't matter if it's a bigger or smaller impact if it's been demonstrated to be a significant impact and is easy to address.

ninerbuff

Missed that that reply was to my post.

Yes, it seems many seem to presume that there is a direct relationship between food and all sorts of nastiness.
If someone changes what they are eating and get better, it so often seems it MUST be their change in diet.
Even when there's a whole load of other factors at play; before and after.

So, also illness =/= dirty eating.

There are so, so many other factors to consider and it's rare these are given near the detail they deserve.

Exactly. When people give testimonials, lots of details to improving their health gets left out. Watch any weight loss infomercial and they tout the program they are selling, then have people give testimonials. And practically everyone of them attribute it to the program. They don't include things like:

I reduced my calorie intake
I ensured that I got in my correct macro/micro nutrients
I exercised to improve my health and fitness (if it's from a diet only site like Nutrisystem for example)
I got enough sleep/rest
I stopped risk behavior (smoking/drugs etc.)
I reduced my stress
I proactively improved on my personal life
I increased my N.E.A.T. by taking stairs instead of the elevator
I strategically abstained from food, drugs, chemicals, etc. that cause me issues (rash, gout, GERD, etc)
I worked on living inside a cleaner environment in my home (yes this can actually help)

So let's say someone does all of them. If they eliminated just one of them, would the outcome be a bit different? Maybe (smoking would still definitely be more harmful), maybe not (not taking the stairs wouldn't significantly make a huge difference unless they were climbing a lot of stories each day).

So yes, it's not just about eating and food.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

cwsreddy

Missed that that reply was to my post.

Yes, it seems many seem to presume that there is a direct relationship between food and all sorts of nastiness.
If someone changes what they are eating and get better, it so often seems it MUST be their change in diet.
Even when there's a whole load of other factors at play; before and after.

So, also illness =/= dirty eating.

There are so, so many other factors to consider and it's rare these are given near the detail they deserve.

Exactly. When people give testimonials, lots of details to improving their health gets left out. Watch any weight loss infomercial and they tout the program they are selling, then have people give testimonials. And practically everyone of them attribute it to the program. They don't include things like:

I reduced my calorie intake
I ensured that I got in my correct macro/micro nutrients
I exercised to improve my health and fitness (if it's from a diet only site like Nutrisystem for example)
I got enough sleep/rest
I stopped risk behavior (smoking/drugs etc.)
I reduced my stress
I proactively improved on my personal life
I increased my N.E.A.T. by taking stairs instead of the elevator
I strategically abstained from food, drugs, chemicals, etc. that cause me issues (rash, gout, GERD, etc)
I worked on living inside a cleaner environment in my home (yes this can actually help)

So let's say someone does all of them. If they eliminated just one of them, would the outcome be a bit different? Maybe (smoking would still definitely be more harmful), maybe not (not taking the stairs wouldn't significantly make a huge difference unless they were climbing a lot of stories each day).

So yes, it's not just about eating and food.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

strangely the same poster you quoted mentioned in his next post that it's mostly about eating and food.

LiftAllThePizzas

I think the whole article is utter crap. There ARE foods that are highly nutritious, you know loaded with vitamins, minerals, the stuff your body needs to actually function. There are also foods that are empty calories that offer little more beyond "I eat you because you taste good." Having icecream or a treat here and there while "eating well" (I though there were no bad foods huh) most of the time like he's suggesting--Wow that's hardly revolutionary! Notice how he didn't advocate eating "junk" 100% of the time. But hey Mr, since clean eating doesn't exist is it ok if I go ahead and eat nothing but donuts, Twinkies and the like 90% of the time right? Since there's no bad foods and all foods are equally nutritious my health won't suffer, nah...just wow.

This post makes no sense. You don't get bonus points for getyig way more vitamins than you need.

If certain foods make up the bulk of your diet you won't be getting any vitamins and minerals

Not a single person is debating that.

Also, water generally can aid in hydration.

the debate lies in whether fortified nutrients are equivalent to fresh, whole food nutrients tbh. Jonny thinks they're equivalent. Many don't. I tend to believe that the nutrients in a tomato picked today are more bioavailable and potent than the nutrients coming from rocks that are injected into a poptart

Put someone on a diet of fortified foods and someone else on a diet of fresh whole foods. Compare...

If health and nutrition were binary or one-dimensional that would be a good experiment.

If you want to ignore context and dosage, you could also have one person eat nothing but carrots, and another person eat everything but carrots, and the person eating only carrots would get sick, thus proving that carrots are bad for you.

jonnythan

You will live a lot longer eating Pop-tarts than you will eating cauliflower.

cwsreddy

I think the whole article is utter crap. There ARE foods that are highly nutritious, you know loaded with vitamins, minerals, the stuff your body needs to actually function. There are also foods that are empty calories that offer little more beyond "I eat you because you taste good." Having icecream or a treat here and there while "eating well" (I though there were no bad foods huh) most of the time like he's suggesting--Wow that's hardly revolutionary! Notice how he didn't advocate eating "junk" 100% of the time. But hey Mr, since clean eating doesn't exist is it ok if I go ahead and eat nothing but donuts, Twinkies and the like 90% of the time right? Since there's no bad foods and all foods are equally nutritious my health won't suffer, nah...just wow.

This post makes no sense. You don't get bonus points for getyig way more vitamins than you need.

If certain foods make up the bulk of your diet you won't be getting any vitamins and minerals

Not a single person is debating that.

Also, water generally can aid in hydration.

the debate lies in whether fortified nutrients are equivalent to fresh, whole food nutrients tbh. Jonny thinks they're equivalent. Many don't. I tend to believe that the nutrients in a tomato picked today are more bioavailable and potent than the nutrients coming from rocks that are injected into a poptart

Put someone on a diet of fortified foods and someone else on a diet of fresh whole foods. Compare...

If health and nutrition were binary or one-dimensional that would be a good experiment.

If you want to ignore context and dosage, you could also have one person eat nothing but carrots, and another person eat everything but carrots, and the person eating only carrots would get sick, thus proving that carrots are bad for you.

good thing that isn't the experiment that poster was suggesting.

SoreTodayStrongTomorrow222

http://evidencemag.com/clean-eating/

If you're really interested in the info, then read the article. If you want to debate the info, read the article first then debate the information you disagree with, BUT be sure to have a reference to support your stance.
From what I've read and discovered from my time in the fitness industry, I find this article to be quite accurate when it comes to "clean eating" and it being a myth, especially when lots of information on eating is taken out of context.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Although I understand the point of this article.... I don't think that anyone would dispute that not eating yellow number 5 is better than eating it... Although there may not be any acute health issues directly related to these types of food, I am pretty damn sure that non-processed foods are healthier than processed foods, simply because many of the ingredients in processed foods do not exist naturally.

Also, this article is kind of betting on the fact that a person is already health conscience, and based on the obesity rates in the U.S., most people are not.

Further, although poor eating habits might not be the direct cause of a health problem, you bet your *kitten* that it exacerbates the symptoms.

ninerbuff

Missed that that reply was to my post.

Yes, it seems many seem to presume that there is a direct relationship between food and all sorts of nastiness.
If someone changes what they are eating and get better, it so often seems it MUST be their change in diet.
Even when there's a whole load of other factors at play; before and after.

So, also illness =/= dirty eating.

There are so, so many other factors to consider and it's rare these are given near the detail they deserve.

Exactly. When people give testimonials, lots of details to improving their health gets left out. Watch any weight loss infomercial and they tout the program they are selling, then have people give testimonials. And practically everyone of them attribute it to the program. They don't include things like:

I reduced my calorie intake
I ensured that I got in my correct macro/micro nutrients
I exercised to improve my health and fitness (if it's from a diet only site like Nutrisystem for example)
I got enough sleep/rest
I stopped risk behavior (smoking/drugs etc.)
I reduced my stress
I proactively improved on my personal life
I increased my N.E.A.T. by taking stairs instead of the elevator
I strategically abstained from food, drugs, chemicals, etc. that cause me issues (rash, gout, GERD, etc)
I worked on living inside a cleaner environment in my home (yes this can actually help)

So let's say someone does all of them. If they eliminated just one of them, would the outcome be a bit different? Maybe (smoking would still definitely be more harmful), maybe not (not taking the stairs wouldn't significantly make a huge difference unless they were climbing a lot of stories each day).

So yes, it's not just about eating and food.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

strangely the same poster you quoted mentioned in his next post that it's mostly about eating and food.

This is the next post I see from him right after.

Do you have any evidence that diet is second to genetics?
That's not the impression I've got,but I've not had access to enough raw/reasonably raw data to analyse decently myself.

Sounds more to me like he believes that genetics supercedes diet. Guess I need confirmation from him to clear that up.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

_John_

You will live a lot longer eating Pop-tarts than you will eating cauliflower.

as your sole source of calories I could not agree more with this statement. Fortified cereal would be one of the better "sole calorie source" foods in the world today in the same vein of thinking.

Hornsby

http://evidencemag.com/clean-eating/

If you're really interested in the info, then read the article. If you want to debate the info, read the article first then debate the information you disagree with, BUT be sure to have a reference to support your stance.
From what I've read and discovered from my time in the fitness industry, I find this article to be quite accurate when it comes to "clean eating" and it being a myth, especially when lots of information on eating is taken out of context.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Although I understand the point of this article.... I don't think that anyone would dispute that not eating yellow number 5 is better than eating it... Although there may not be any acute health issues directly related to these types of food, I am pretty damn sure that non-processed foods are healthier than processed foods, simply because many of the ingredients in processed foods do not exist naturally.

Also, this article is kind of betting on the fact that a person is already health conscience, and based on the obesity rates in the U.S., most people are not.

Further, although poor eating habits might not be the direct cause of a health problem, you bet your *kitten* that it exacerbates the symptoms.

There are medicines in this country that cure disease that are 100% unnatural. There are also tons of plants/animals that are toxic yet they are 100% natural.

jonnythan

You will live a lot longer eating Pop-tarts than you will eating cauliflower.

as your sole source of calories I could not agree more with this statement. Fortified cereal would be one of the better "sole calorie source" foods in the world today in the same vein of thinking.

Especially if you added milk.

A bowl of modern fortified cereal and milk is pretty darn close to a complete diet in terms of sustaining life long-term.

parkscs

Ask an Olympic athlete. If you're going the the approach that clean eating only along with great education will improve performance, then an Olympic athlete eating only clean, but needing 8,000 to 10,000 calories a day probably wouldn't perform well because to intake that much in just clean foods, they'd have to probably be eating on the hour, every hour on a good amount of calories and probably end up with a full stomach all the time. You wouldn't be able to convince any athlete that they perform better on a full stomach with high intensity training.
Which is why many Olympians do eat calorie dense junk foods. Not for the nutrition (which they supplant with other whole foods), but for the caloric value they need to train.

What applies to an Olympic athlete like Michael Phelps who is active for hours each day doesn't really apply to average Joe who maybe lifts 3-5 times per week and eats a slight surplus of 200-500 calories or even a caloric deficit. If you go to average Joe and tell him to eat like he's Michael Phelps, he'll very quickly turn into fat Joe (make it rain!) because he simply isn't active enough to support that sort of diet. While reasons such as having to eat hourly, staying full, etc. are very practical for an athlete needing to consume that many calories for his sport (not his health), it's very possible for average Joe to eat clean at his deficit or even his surplus while eating "clean". And as a final point, since there's a lot of health talk in this thread, let's talk about NFL linemen who have to eat absurd amounts of calories to maintain their weight, but they're also twice as likely to die before age 50 compared to NFL players of other positions. Just because their sport requires a lot of "junk food" in order to stay competitive doesn't mean it's a great idea for their health; sometimes it's exactly the opposite.

Not that I really have a dog in this fight, but just playing a bit of devil's advocate.

jonnythan

Although I understand the point of this article.... I don't think that anyone would dispute that not eating yellow number 5 is better than eating it... Although there may not be any acute health issues directly related to these types of food, I am pretty damn sure that non-processed foods are healthier than processed foods, simply because many of the ingredients in processed foods do not exist naturally.

Also, this article is kind of betting on the fact that a person is already health conscience, and based on the obesity rates in the U.S., most people are not.

Further, although poor eating habits might not be the direct cause of a health problem, you bet your *kitten* that it exacerbates the symptoms.

How do you define "poor eating habits"?

Yes, poor eating habits cause health problems. The argument is over the definition of poor vs good eating habits.

_John_

You will live a lot longer eating Pop-tarts than you will eating cauliflower.

as your sole source of calories I could not agree more with this statement. Fortified cereal would be one of the better "sole calorie source" foods in the world today in the same vein of thinking.

Especially if you added milk.

A bowl of modern fortified cereal and milk is pretty darn close to a complete diet in terms of sustaining life long-term.

one of the main reasons that in the modern world of processed foods total calories are far and away the most important thing in someone's diet (affecting health).

It also helps that in the civilized world 99.9+% of our food is safe to eat. The food supply of most of the world's poplulation has never been as safe as it is today.

mccindy72

And no matter what you eat, or how much of it, or how much you work out, guess what's going to happen to you anyway?

cwsreddy

And no matter what you eat, or how much of it, or how much you work out, guess what's going to happen to you anyway?

lies.

ninerbuff

http://evidencemag.com/clean-eating/

If you're really interested in the info, then read the article. If you want to debate the info, read the article first then debate the information you disagree with, BUT be sure to have a reference to support your stance.
From what I've read and discovered from my time in the fitness industry, I find this article to be quite accurate when it comes to "clean eating" and it being a myth, especially when lots of information on eating is taken out of context.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Although I understand the point of this article.... I don't think that anyone would dispute that not eating yellow number 5 is better than eating it... Although there may not be any acute health issues directly related to these types of food, I am pretty damn sure that non-processed foods are healthier than processed foods, simply because many of the ingredients in processed foods do not exist naturally.

Lots of medicines and drugs don't exist naturally and in health we utilize them to help people get better or avoid getting sick. The argument that something doesn't exist naturally, is man made and gets introduced into the body thereby being "unhealthy" shouldn't be just a blanket statement.
There isn't "refined sugar" grown naturally, but whether you got it from refined sugar or from a sugar cane, the body breaks it down the same.

Also, this article is kind of betting on the fact that a person is already health conscience, and based on the obesity rates in the U.S., most people are not.

Where does it say that? Or is that your perception?

Further, although poor eating habits might not be the direct cause of a health problem, you bet your *kitten* that it exacerbates the symptoms.

Well if one was malnutritioned and kept eating that way, of course it would continue. But the article isn't discussing poor eating habits. It's discussing the subjectivity of food being "clean" and healthy and "dirty" and unhealthy.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

sullus

You will live a lot longer eating Pop-tarts than you will eating cauliflower.

as your sole source of calories I could not agree more with this statement. Fortified cereal would be one of the better "sole calorie source" foods in the world today in the same vein of thinking.

Especially if you added milk.

A bowl of modern fortified cereal and milk is pretty darn close to a complete diet in terms of sustaining life long-term.

'twould be toxic for me to try to sustain life on fortified cereal. It would result in Diabetes, Arthritis, Cirrhosis, cardiomyopathy, testicular failure ....

All because of one stupid little mutation ...

jonnythan

You will live a lot longer eating Pop-tarts than you will eating cauliflower.

as your sole source of calories I could not agree more with this statement. Fortified cereal would be one of the better "sole calorie source" foods in the world today in the same vein of thinking.

Especially if you added milk.

A bowl of modern fortified cereal and milk is pretty darn close to a complete diet in terms of sustaining life long-term.

'twould be toxic for me to try to sustain life on fortified cereal. It would result in Diabetes, Arthritis, Cirrhosis, cardiomyopathy, testicular failure ....

All because of one stupid little mutation ...

What mutation is that?

ninerbuff

Ask an Olympic athlete. If you're going the the approach that clean eating only along with great education will improve performance, then an Olympic athlete eating only clean, but needing 8,000 to 10,000 calories a day probably wouldn't perform well because to intake that much in just clean foods, they'd have to probably be eating on the hour, every hour on a good amount of calories and probably end up with a full stomach all the time. You wouldn't be able to convince any athlete that they perform better on a full stomach with high intensity training.
Which is why many Olympians do eat calorie dense junk foods. Not for the nutrition (which they supplant with other whole foods), but for the caloric value they need to train.

What applies to an Olympic athlete like Michael Phelps who is active for hours each day doesn't really apply to average Joe who maybe lifts 3-5 times per week and eats a slight surplus of 200-500 calories or even a caloric deficit. If you go to average Joe and tell him to eat like he's Michael Phelps, he'll very quickly turn into fat Joe (make it rain!) because he simply isn't active enough to support that sort of diet. While reasons such as having to eat hourly, staying full, etc. are very practical for an athlete needing to consume that many calories for his sport (not his health), it's very possible for average Joe to eat clean at his deficit or even his surplus while eating "clean". And as a final point, since there's a lot of health talk in this thread, let's talk about NFL linemen who have to eat absurd amounts of calories to maintain their weight, but they're also twice as likely to die before age 50 compared to NFL players of other positions. Just because their sport requires a lot of "junk food" in order to stay competitive doesn't mean it's a great idea for their health; sometimes it's exactly the opposite.

Not that I really have a dog in this fight, but just playing a bit of devil's advocate.

If then you're going to compare NFL linemen, then let's cover the real facts. Real facts are they die earlier because they balloon up 50 or more pounds after retiring. With little to no physical activity YET still gulping down high calories, they are going to get very overweight (if they weren't already) then get obese. And we still know that WEIGHT is the number 1 risk indicator for health issues. But it's been noticed. And now the NFL is instituting programs to help educate linemen about it. Watch the NFL network now, and former linemen are trimming down. Warren Sapp, Jeff Saturday, Antoine Davis, Matt Birk just to name a few.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Chain_Ring

Do whatever works for you.