Why "clean eating" is a myth
Replies
-
In the short term it doesn't matter what makes up the content of your calories and macros. I think most of us get that.
In the long term, though, I'm still betting that a decade or more of mostly eating real food versus junk food and foods containing many additives that have not been fully vetted yet could make a huge difference in many ways.
Most of the people on this site are short term oriented and are only looking maybe a year or two out at most. However, once you start getting older, a longer outlook becomes a lot more important.0 -
I try to eat foods that contain ingredients that are for my benefit rather than the benefit of the food seller’s profitability. By that I mean I look for minimally added ingredients or added ingredients that make it better for my consumption, not solely to prolong it's shelf-life. I’m not sure if that is “clean eating” per se, just a general skepticism for and aversion to industrialized food additives and certain processing methods.0
-
I don't want to say "I eat whatever," because I don't. I try to make healthy choices, I pack my lunch so I'm not tempted to eat out, I snack on cashews and fruit instead of potato chips and candy bars but I also don't get so serious about it as others do. I don't knock anyone about it, if you wanna eat clean, be my guest, that's awesome and you have more willpower than I do clearly. I like what I see in the mirror, I lost 20 lbs working my behind off in the gym while still allowing myself "empty calories" here and there.
If I wanna enjoy a piece of cheesecake, I'm going to eat a piece of cheesecake. If I want 4 Miller Lites on a Friday night after work, I'm going to drink those Miller Lites.
But as I said, I commend those that are much more 'clean' and clearly have more willpower than me.0 -
So on a 2000 calorie diet, you believe that 3.5 tablespoons of added sugar is not within boundries of control for a healthy diet? If someone drank 3 cups of coffee a day and added 1.2 tablespoons of sugar for each, that's essentially too much?
That person is drinking some garbage coffee.0 -
Sigh... how someone wants to eat has zero effect on you and what you do with your body. Why do you care what others do?
"As long as the majority of your calories come from whole nutrient dense foods, there’s no evidence you can’t meet your micronutrient needs while still consuming some “empty calories.”14-17 "
Has anyone ever disputed that ever?
At the end of the day people can decide whether they want to believe peer-reviewed science that is supported and funded by big food, big pharma, and the very industries that stand to benefit from the "research" said studies provide, or the information coming to us now from other sources. I - for one - just don't believe that the government, the FDA, the USDA, and the scientists they employ truly have my best interest at heart. It's not their fault, they've got to figure out a way to feed millions of people for the lowest possible cost, and I get that. But for me, personally, I'm going to trust my own body and I'm going to trust the way I feel when I'm eating "clean" and I'm going to trust the research that I feel is valuable to me.
Call it tinfoil hat territory, make fun all you want, but how does my belief about eating affect you? I still eat ice cream, french fries, pizza, soda, etc, but I do so sparingly and I surround that with incredibly high quality foods every day. I personally believe that just hitting your macros isn't enough.
"The CDC also estimates that around 90% of Americans are consuming adequate micronutrients.22"
1) I have a hard time believing that, and
2) If it IS true, the gov't also says that 46g of protein is adequate for a grown person. How many of you IIFYM folks agree?0 -
Bro, that's not bacon.
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
I'll give you that. Real bacon over processed turkey bacon any day. (no nitrate and uncured of course)0 -
People who live in Asia do this by making recipes for just about every part of an animal. Be here in the US, many think it's gross.:bigsmile: :laugh: :bigsmile:
Actually I personally think if you are going to eat an animal eat the whole thing (tail to snout) and be willing to kill it (or at the very least acknowledge where it is and what the process was - personally i'd like to take a butchery course
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
yep not just asia actually, In europe (particularly france italy spain and portugal) you see the same. Some of the best dishes i've had traveling are ones where i would have trouble even finding the ingredients here (That being said Organ meats etc aren't too hard to find in Toronto as we have big immigrant populations that they are traditional dishes for) mostly the european way will involve long slow cooking0 -
This post very nicely represents my view of clean eating.I can't open it.
Clean eating isn't a myth. It's just a way of eating the most of us follow in some way shape or form. It's not unhealthy or bad to eat an apple. The argument lies in what sort of apple is best for our bodies to consume (organic/versus natural/versus gmo)
It's not unhealthy or bad to eat a candy bar, although eating and entire box would be another issue. Some of us eat a candy bar here and there and other choose to forgo the candy bar in favor of something better for them.
I also do not trust the government, which is why a lot of the studies posted do not hold water with me. I absolutely believe they will sell out the citizens to make a buck. You don't have to agree with me, that's the beauty of it.
It seems to be a way to justify uneducated choices that aren't backed up by good evidence.
As there's no good consistent definition, I'd suggest it also isn't a useful thing to use to describe the way you approach diet.0 -
So on a 2000 calorie diet, you believe that 3.5 tablespoons of added sugar is not within boundries of control for a healthy diet? If someone drank 3 cups of coffee a day and added 1.2 tablespoons of sugar for each, that's essentially too much?
Define too much junk food. And I wouldn't disagree if the junk food was so nutrient deficient so that macros and micros aren't met.No doubt that IIFYM's works great short term. But what do you think about recent long term data that suggests too much junk food causes earlier onset of disease even when you control for weight and lifestyle?
If you can link study(ies) on the long term data. I'd like to read up on it.
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
Too much would be consuming over 10% of your daily calories from "added sugar." It might sound like a lot to you, but over 70% of the US population is getting more than that.
Here is the study
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573
Of course there are tons of possible confounders and it's specifically only addressing added sugar instead of the larger issue of nutrient dense food versus empty calories. But it's the best data I've seen.
EDIT: Thanks for the study.
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
In all likelihood, a few cups of coffee with 200 calories of "added sugar" is a lot more benign than cupcakes and cinnamon buns that have 200 calories of "added sugar." That's because the cupcakes (etc.) will also automatically have another several hundred calories of more simple carbs with few nutrients.
Unfortunately the study is quite limited, but it's the best data we have available. Fortunately for me I switched to drinking black coffee years ago and now think coffee sweetened with sugar is gross.0 -
Then many like myself have been kidding ourselves for years. I guess medical check ups and health assessments don't mean anything.Seems obvious that if the stuff in drugs, alcohol, vitamins, and protein shakes affects your body, then pesticides, msg, and aspartame might too. I don't see why it gets some people so upset when others choose to minimize that stuff.
Pretty much this. IMO if you feel that all of the crap found in our modern food has absolutely zero health consequences I think you're kidding yourself. But to each their own...I don't tell others how they should eat.
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
They don't mean a whole lot either.. ..
My dad got a clean bill of health, then a week later had a heart attack and died. I was given a clean bill of health, while dizzy, slurring my speech and unable to stand up with my own strength. The doctor looked at me and said there's nothing wrong with you in the middle of all that going on.
So there's that...0 -
Sorry but that's a terrible article. The author continually repeats something to the effect of "getting too high a percent of your calories from junk food is bad for x and y and z reasons. . . . but that's not relevant to health nuts like you." Yeah, it's not relevant to me b/c I minimize junk food and eat plenty of whole foods.
Exactly what I thought. Whole idea of the article is "No such thing as clean eating" and "There are no good foods and no bad foods." Then a million references to moderation. Why do you have to moderate if there's no bad food?
"People who eat tons of sugar are generally malnourished.20,21 However, most people who are serious about their health aren’t eating anywhere close to 20% of their daily calories from sugar."
Um, yeah, but some people do get 20% of their calories from sugar. What's the point of that observation? Clean eating isn't a problem for people who... eat pretty clean! lol
"If your diet has enough satiating power to keep you satisfied and happy, then there’s nothing wrong with also consuming some less-filling indulgences."
If there's no such thing as good food and bad food, why is anything an "indulgence"? Why the qualifier "some"?
The whole thing is just the opposite extreme. Fighting misinformation with half-truths isn't helpful. I use the example all the time- I know people who drink a ton of soda every day. 140 calories in a 12 oz. Coke. Drink 10 of those a day and you're at 1,400 calories and almost no nutrition. That would make it very difficult to hit your macros and calorie goal. Just switching to diet soda would make a massive improvement.
No, most folks here aren't drinking 10 Cokes a day - at least not anymore. But I bet there are some who have in the past. And there are people who do. And even if you have half as many, the effect is the same, just less extreme.
The whole point is moderation. Some things make it harder to meet your goals. Doesn't mean you can't have them, but you have to have them in moderation. I see zero harm in calling those "bad foods". And as the article says: "The reason many people consider these “clean foods” is because they tend to be harder to overeat than things like cookies or ice cream." Um. That sounds like "good food" to me.
As I've observed several times, this is a semantic argument. It's fine to explain to people that they don't have to give up the foods they love. But you have to enjoy the "bad" ones in moderation. Which is exactly what this article says. It just gets all hung up on the language. For most people trying to get or stay healthy, the label "bad" helps keep things straight. As long as you understand that you don't have to eliminate the "bad" things entirely, it's a fine thing to call some foods.0 -
This post very nicely represents my view of clean eating.I can't open it.
Clean eating isn't a myth. It's just a way of eating the most of us follow in some way shape or form. It's not unhealthy or bad to eat an apple. The argument lies in what sort of apple is best for our bodies to consume (organic/versus natural/versus gmo)
It's not unhealthy or bad to eat a candy bar, although eating and entire box would be another issue. Some of us eat a candy bar here and there and other choose to forgo the candy bar in favor of something better for them.
I also do not trust the government, which is why a lot of the studies posted do not hold water with me. I absolutely believe they will sell out the citizens to make a buck. You don't have to agree with me, that's the beauty of it.
It seems to be a way to justify uneducated choices that aren't backed up by good evidence.
As there's no good consistent definition, I'd suggest it also isn't a useful thing to use to describe the way you approach diet.
Which is why I just say "I eat right and exercise" when people ask me about how I lost weight. And if they probe I just say. I buy whole raw foods that I cook myself and stay away from processed food and those with a lot of sugar and additives. Works for me.
They can do what they want with that. There's nothing wrong with it. There' no bad advice there.
I never even labeled my food choices as clean or iifym or whatever until I joined this site. I just eat what makes me feel good and what my body likes the best. Which is not ice cream or cookies or sugary foods. If that works for you, great.
And.. just to be clear.. I do not think the peer-reviewed "independent" studies that are back by government or pharmaceutical companies are all that reliable or should be deemed good evidence for anything. If you want to trust them, that's on you.0 -
This post very nicely represents my view of clean eating.I can't open it.
Clean eating isn't a myth. It's just a way of eating the most of us follow in some way shape or form. It's not unhealthy or bad to eat an apple. The argument lies in what sort of apple is best for our bodies to consume (organic/versus natural/versus gmo)
It's not unhealthy or bad to eat a candy bar, although eating and entire box would be another issue. Some of us eat a candy bar here and there and other choose to forgo the candy bar in favor of something better for them.
I also do not trust the government, which is why a lot of the studies posted do not hold water with me. I absolutely believe they will sell out the citizens to make a buck. You don't have to agree with me, that's the beauty of it.
It seems to be a way to justify uneducated choices that aren't backed up by good evidence.
As there's no good consistent definition, I'd suggest it also isn't a useful thing to use to describe the way you approach diet.
Which is why I just say "I eat right and exercise" when people ask me about how I lost weight. And if they probe I just say. I buy whole raw foods that I cook myself and stay away from processed food and those with a lot of sugar and additives. Works for me.
They can do what they want with that. There's nothing wrong with it. There' no bad advice there.
I never even labeled my food choices as clean or iifym or whatever until I joined this site. I just eat what makes me feel good and what my body likes the best. Which is not ice cream or cookies or sugary foods. If that works for you, great.
And.. just to be clear.. I do not think the peer-reviewed "independent" studies that are back by government or pharmaceutical companies are all that reliable or should be deemed good evidence for anything. If you want to trust them, that's on you.
Well said.0 -
Short version - two headlines from the article:
"Why There are No Good or Bad Foods"
"How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You"
Clear as mud.
But it does ultimately state the RIGHT answer:
"Should you eat it, and how much can you have?
It depends…"
It depends is awesome. THAT should be the answer posted on here for every question of that kind.0 -
Sorry but that's a terrible article. The author continually repeats something to the effect of "getting too high a percent of your calories from junk food is bad for x and y and z reasons. . . . but that's not relevant to health nuts like you." Yeah, it's not relevant to me b/c I minimize junk food and eat plenty of whole foods.
Exactly what I thought. Whole idea of the article is "No such thing as clean eating" and "There are no good foods and no bad foods." Then a million references to moderation. Why do you have to moderate if there's no bad food?
"People who eat tons of sugar are generally malnourished.20,21 However, most people who are serious about their health aren’t eating anywhere close to 20% of their daily calories from sugar."
Um, yeah, but some people do get 20% of their calories from sugar. What's the point of that observation? Clean eating isn't a problem for people who... eat pretty clean! lol
"If your diet has enough satiating power to keep you satisfied and happy, then there’s nothing wrong with also consuming some less-filling indulgences."
If there's no such thing as good food and bad food, why is anything an "indulgence"? Why the qualifier "some"?
The whole thing is just the opposite extreme. Fighting misinformation with half-truths isn't helpful. I use the example all the time- I know people who drink a ton of soda every day. 140 calories in a 12 oz. Coke. Drink 10 of those a day and you're at 1,400 calories and almost no nutrition. That would make it very difficult to hit your macros and calorie goal. Just switching to diet soda would make a massive improvement.
No, most folks here aren't drinking 10 Cokes a day - at least not anymore. But I bet there are some who have in the past. And there are people who do. And even if you have half as many, the effect is the same, just less extreme.
The whole point is moderation. Some things make it harder to meet your goals. Doesn't mean you can't have them, but you have to have them in moderation. I see zero harm in calling those "bad foods". And as the article says: "The reason many people consider these “clean foods” is because they tend to be harder to overeat than things like cookies or ice cream." Um. That sounds like "good food" to me.
As I've observed several times, this is a semantic argument. It's fine to explain to people that they don't have to give up the foods they love. But you have to enjoy the "bad" ones in moderation. Which is exactly what this article says. It just gets all hung up on the language. For most people trying to get or stay healthy, the label "bad" helps keep things straight. As long as you understand that you don't have to eliminate the "bad" things entirely, it's a fine thing to call some foods.
The issue is worse than that a lot of people are drinking huge quantities of pop and then eating sugar laden foods. You just need to walk into a 7/11 store to see what the volume drivers and profit drivers are. they carry little beyond junk food and pop but are very profitable. Look at the movie theater "snack" Large popcorn and soda - 2400 calories with loads of sodium and it doesn't even include the candy that is part of the combo . All foods require moderation but some foods are just about enriching a snack food companies wallet.
There is a reason as a populace we have gotten so huge in North America and its entirely due to over-consumption (mostly of empty calories) - the only thing i will give the clean food idea is it gets people to think about eating something healthier than sugar laden foods - the idea that organic is better for you than another though is a joke - provided you wash the food before eating - like i said earlier there are other rteasons for eating non gmo and local though that have little to do with nutrition0 -
Then many like myself have been kidding ourselves for years. I guess medical check ups and health assessments don't mean anything.Seems obvious that if the stuff in drugs, alcohol, vitamins, and protein shakes affects your body, then pesticides, msg, and aspartame might too. I don't see why it gets some people so upset when others choose to minimize that stuff.
Pretty much this. IMO if you feel that all of the crap found in our modern food has absolutely zero health consequences I think you're kidding yourself. But to each their own...I don't tell others how they should eat.
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
I wouldn't know. Your diary isn't public.0 -
Great article.
Armi is one of the best currently doing it. Site is full of great information.0 -
i didn't see any facts in there. just cause someone says it's a fact doesn't mean it is. where is the scientific proof? there is none. where are the scholarly resources that back up what you have to say?? there isn't any!! just cause it's on the internet doesn't mean its true LOL. i can see why your body looks like *kitten* if you follow that. not attractive at all LOL.
Are you talking about the original article posted?
It includes over 100 "scholarly resources" if so.0 -
Lots of info.0
-
i didn't see any facts in there. just cause someone says it's a fact doesn't mean it is. where is the scientific proof? there is none. where are the scholarly resources that back up what you have to say?? there isn't any!! just cause it's on the internet doesn't mean its true LOL. i can see why your body looks like *kitten* if you follow that. not attractive at all LOL.
Those would be called footnotes. Look at the bottom.0 -
i didn't see any facts in there. just cause someone says it's a fact doesn't mean it is. where is the scientific proof? there is none. where are the scholarly resources that back up what you have to say?? there isn't any!! just cause it's on the internet doesn't mean its true LOL. i can see why your body looks like *kitten* if you follow that. not attractive at all LOL.
Wut?
Who's body?0 -
I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.Short version - two headlines from the article:
"Why There are No Good or Bad Foods"
"How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You"
Clear as mud.
If you read the content, however...
That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends on who is eating it, and how much they eat.
A healthy highly trained endurance athlete or bodybuilder exercising several hours per day is going to have very different needs and tolerances than a sedentary diabetic overweight office worker.
The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet. They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”
The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable foods to avoid over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense foods since they’re eating fewer calories.
In reality for some people eating a load of processed lard is good for them.
For others, mostly salads might be a better idea.0 -
I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.Short version - two headlines from the article:
"Why There are No Good or Bad Foods"
"How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You"
Clear as mud.
If you read the content, however...
That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends on who is eating it, and how much they eat.
A healthy highly trained endurance athlete or bodybuilder exercising several hours per day is going to have very different needs and tolerances than a sedentary diabetic overweight office worker.
The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet. They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”
The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable foods to avoid over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense foods since they’re eating fewer calories.
In reality for some people eating a load of processed lard is good for them.
For others, mostly salads might be a better idea.
So now there ARE special snowflakes? Which is it?0 -
I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.Short version - two headlines from the article:
"Why There are No Good or Bad Foods"
"How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You"
Clear as mud.
If you read the content, however...
That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends on who is eating it, and how much they eat.
A healthy highly trained endurance athlete or bodybuilder exercising several hours per day is going to have very different needs and tolerances than a sedentary diabetic overweight office worker.
The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet. They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”
The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable foods to avoid over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense foods since they’re eating fewer calories.
In reality for some people eating a load of processed lard is good for them.
For others, mostly salads might be a better idea.
Exactly. It depends. Which is why I went on to say:
"But it does ultimately state the RIGHT answer:
"Should you eat it, and how much can you have?
It depends…"
It depends is awesome. THAT should be the answer posted on here for every question of that kind."
BTW, who would benefit from a "load of processed lard"?0 -
I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.Short version - two headlines from the article:
"Why There are No Good or Bad Foods"
"How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You"
Clear as mud.
If you read the content, however...
That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends on who is eating it, and how much they eat.
A healthy highly trained endurance athlete or bodybuilder exercising several hours per day is going to have very different needs and tolerances than a sedentary diabetic overweight office worker.
The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet. They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”
The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable foods to avoid over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense foods since they’re eating fewer calories.
In reality for some people eating a load of processed lard is good for them.
For others, mostly salads might be a better idea.
So now there ARE special snowflakes? Which is it?
A calorie is a calorie. All food is the same. But you're not getting enough protein. Watch your macros! lol Yeah. Semantics. Fighting one misleading idea with another. Definition of counterproductive.0 -
Interesting perspective... I'd be willing to concede that there is no such thing as a universal definition for clean eating, but rather it is largely dependent on the individual in question. Personally I am someone who traditionally had a lot of sugar in my diet, so the following part of the article did catch my eye:Consuming moderate amounts of sugar does not decrease insulin sensitivity or impair your ability to process glucose, as long as you maintain your weight and don’t over-eat.
Despite the references, there are other studies out there which do indicate sugar consumption does impact insulin sensitivity and the ability to maintain one's weight (see http://jn.nutrition.org/content/137/6/1447.full for example). The lack of a definition of "moderate" is likely where our perspective comes to a cross. I personally know that when I eat sugary foods, my appetite spikes and as a result, I consume far more calories that I would have eating other nutritious foods... can you tell I drink the Paleo Kool-Aid? :laugh:0 -
I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.Short version - two headlines from the article:
"Why There are No Good or Bad Foods"
"How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You"
Clear as mud.
If you read the content, however...
That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends on who is eating it, and how much they eat.
A healthy highly trained endurance athlete or bodybuilder exercising several hours per day is going to have very different needs and tolerances than a sedentary diabetic overweight office worker.
The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet. They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”
The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable foods to avoid over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense foods since they’re eating fewer calories.
In reality for some people eating a load of processed lard is good for them.
For others, mostly salads might be a better idea.
So now there ARE special snowflakes? Which is it?
A calorie is a calorie. All food is the same. But you're not getting enough protein. Watch your macros! lol Yeah. Semantics. Fighting one misleading idea with another. Definition of counterproductive.
How is a calorie a calorie when it take 9 calories to make up a gram of fat but only 4 in a gram of protein?
Flawed concept is flawed. Ironic that you used a misleading idea yourself. lol0 -
Sigh... how someone wants to eat has zero effect on you and what you do with your body. Why do you care what others do?
"As long as the majority of your calories come from whole nutrient dense foods, there’s no evidence you can’t meet your micronutrient needs while still consuming some “empty calories.”14-17 "
Has anyone ever disputed that ever?
Yes.
Read the forums for awhile. Read any hippy blog. Talk to some Keto people. Talk to some paleo people.
That's the problem. So many people fall into a false dichotomy when it comes to clean eating. You either eat clean or you eat dirty. There is no grey area. If you have never seen that fallacy, then you haven't been following the fitness community or fitness information very long/thoroughly.
Fast Eddie may not think Armi making a point about moderation is important - but that doesn't make Armi's post any less important to the MULTITUDES of people who don't understand the concept of moderation, and believe in the clean eating false dichotomy.0 -
I really wish we would stop with this crap. Just eat the goddamn food, stay within your calories, hit your macros, and be ****ing happy. Jesus Christ with this *kitten*.
pretty much this lol0 -
I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.Short version - two headlines from the article:
"Why There are No Good or Bad Foods"
"How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You"
Clear as mud.
If you read the content, however...
That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends on who is eating it, and how much they eat.
A healthy highly trained endurance athlete or bodybuilder exercising several hours per day is going to have very different needs and tolerances than a sedentary diabetic overweight office worker.
The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet. They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”
The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable foods to avoid over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense foods since they’re eating fewer calories.
In reality for some people eating a load of processed lard is good for them.
For others, mostly salads might be a better idea.
So now there ARE special snowflakes? Which is it?
A calorie is a calorie. All food is the same. But you're not getting enough protein. Watch your macros! lol Yeah. Semantics. Fighting one misleading idea with another. Definition of counterproductive.
How is a calorie a calorie when it take 9 calories to make up a gram of fat but only 4 in a gram of protein?
Flawed concept is flawed. Ironic that you used a misleading idea yourself. lol
Sorry, you missed the satire in my musings. We're saying the same thing. "A calorie is a calorie" is something of a battle cry around here to try (badly) to explain that you can eat the foods you want in moderation. The gross oversimplification is only sometimes followed by "in moderation" or "IIFYM". Those are BIG qualifiers that seem to say exactly the opposite of "a calorie is a calorie". The irony is, the people who use that huge, misleading oversimplification are quick to trounce on anyone who says "too much added sugar is bad". Then we get the post about the one guy who lost weight eating nothing but Twinkies. Which, of course, has nothing to do with moderation or IIFYM.
Just loads, and loads of half-truths, over simplifications, anecdotes, misleading lines, and bickering over semantics. Tends to obscure the good information sometimes.0
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
- 427 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