Why "clean eating" is a myth

jonnythan

Tagging, just in case something interesting comes up. Hasn't happened yet.

cwsreddy

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.

I'm a proponent of clean eating. I think paleo is awesome. I think vegan is awesome. I think any lifestyle you choose to follow is awesome. What I don't think is awesome is the abundance of IIFYM people who spend their time creating threads and jumping into other threads with the sole purpose of tearing down people who don't eat Pop Tarts and McDonalds.

There's a middle ground of respect that this board is entirely missing. I understand that these IIFYM people THINK they're HELPING others by showing that these "restrictive" diet plans are unnecessary, but why can't you let people decide that for THEMSELVES.

Anyway, back to the point, I'm a proponent of those things, but I also recognize that moderation is important and it goes both ways. Moderation of "bad" foods AND moderation of "good" foods. You'll drive yourself crazy and fall off the wagon unless your dietary lifestyle is sustainable, and I'll say that to anyone - be they Paleo or IIFYM.

cwsreddy

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.

I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.

If you read the content, however...

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.

That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.
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.

HAH ok my bad. Sadly I don't pick up on sarcasm on this board too well as there are PLENTY of people who would have actually believed what you said very deeply :P

cwsreddy

Tagging, just in case something interesting comes up. Hasn't happened yet.

I'm sorry we haven't done enough to entertain you, oh Illustrious One. We'll try harder next time.

gmafb

jonnythan

I understand that these IIFYM people THINK they're HELPING others by showing that these "restrictive" diet plans are unnecessary, but why can't you let people decide that for THEMSELVES.

I regularly get PMs from people thanking me for my contributions to the board which have helped them abandon the ideas of "good food bad food" and "eat clean." I also coach a few people in real life who have tried restrictive diets like clean eating and Atkins only to fail after a couple of months, that now have real long-term loss as a result of IIFYM.

The concepts of good food vs bad food are so ingrained into the public consciousness that it takes real work to undo that. And I know that advocating IIFYM, and learning to eat foods you love in moderation, helps people because they literally tell me it has helped them a great deal (and they have the results to show for it).

I am also a personal example. I don't have the willpower to last long on any sort of "clean eating" diet. If I had tried that from the beginning I would still be fat. I am thankful that people like me, who came before me, opened my eyes to the idea that I could be healthy and in shape while still eating Taco Bell several times a week.

The point of the article is largely that the concept of "bad food" by its nature is harmful because of the effect this has on people's compliance. I think there's a great deal of merit to this.

fast_eddie_72

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.

I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.

If you read the content, however...

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.

That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.
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.

HAH ok my bad. Sadly I don't pick up on sarcasm on this board too well as there are PLENTY of people who would have actually believed what you said very deeply :P

Plenty of people who say those words over and over and over and.... yeah.

It's very interesting to look at their diaries. Most of the "Eat whatever you want" people have loads of broccoli and apples in there and only eat "bad" food in moderation. Weird. But they probably do that because, regardless of what they say on the forums, that's what actually works. Just a lot of trolling.

parkscs

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.

I'd disagree with you a bit there. I have friends that follow paleo (or a "mostly" paleo diet) and friends that follow keto diets and none of them see things as black and white as you're letting on. For that matter, who says a keto diet is "clean" in the first place? Now, if you're trying to stay in a state of ketosis, there is a hard threshold at which point your carb intake will push you out of ketosis. Even in the "keto community", there are people who follow cyclical or targeted ketogenic diets to improve their exercise performance. But now we're talking about carb intake, not "clean" eating, and that's certainly very different than saying these people see absolutely no grey area when it comes to "clean" eating. Personally, I don't even know how you can make such a statement.

I'm not saying there aren't people who are absolutists when it comes to eating paleo/primal/etc. (these are probably the same people that will tell you it's healthy because of cavemen), but I think there are many more people who eat "mostly paleo" or "mostly primal" and come as close as is practical to eating "clean" while staying happy with their diet.

AndyLL180

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

People say a calorie is a calorie... not 9 calories = 4 calories or 1 gram of fat = 1 gram of protein.

stevencloser

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.

I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.

If you read the content, however...

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.

That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.
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

What.
"How is a gram a gram when a liter of water weighs more than a liter of oil?"
That's how you just sounded.

cwsreddy

I understand that these IIFYM people THINK they're HELPING others by showing that these "restrictive" diet plans are unnecessary, but why can't you let people decide that for THEMSELVES.

I regularly get PMs from people thanking me for my contributions to the board which have helped them abandon the ideas of "good food bad food" and "eat clean." I also coach a few people in real life who have tried restrictive diets like clean eating and Atkins only to fail after a couple of months, that now have real long-term loss as a result of IIFYM.

The concepts of good food vs bad food are so ingrained into the public consciousness that it takes real work to undo that. And I know that advocating IIFYM, and learning to eat foods you love in moderation, helps people because they literally tell me it has helped them a great deal (and they have the results to show for it).

I am also a personal example. I don't have the willpower to last long on any sort of "clean eating" diet. If I had tried that from the beginning I would still be fat. I am thankful that people like me, who came before me, opened my eyes to the idea that I could be healthy and in shape while still eating Taco Bell several times a week.

The point of the article is largely that the concept of "bad food" by its nature is harmful because of the effect this has on people's compliance. I think there's a great deal of merit to this.

You and me both. We've done and will continue to do the same things for people coming at it from a different perspective.

Listen if I know that people are having problems sticking to something, I would never suggest they keep trying the same thing. There's absolutely merit to the way you eat and the way you help others eat, but it's simply a first step. That's it. An important one. A titanic one. Man on the moon sized maybe. But it's still just a first step, because as you and I well know there have been plenty of "fit" people to keel over of a heart attack. There are plenty of "fit" people with high blood pressure or other conditions that MAY have been preventable through proper nutrition. This is where we differ in philosophy. You see these things as inevitable and I see them as preventable. You don't believe the science behind what I say and that's fine - you don't have to - but to tell people it's impossible to prevent disease through "clean" eating or "paleo" or whatever is just as irresponsible as what you think about what I do. The truth is that you don't KNOW I'm wrong.

I'm not religious but my Dad once told me that even if there's a 99.999999999% chance there's no God and no heaven, it is STILL in your best interest to be religious in the OFF CHANCE they do exist, because if they don't then I'm no worse off - but if I refuse to acknowledge God's existence and it turns out he's real... welp. I'm ****ed.

Same thing with food.

ImpishVanity

The article was a little over-the-top and biased, but I agree with it overall. I've always felt that you can have anything you want in moderation. I still try to avoid things like fast food in favor of homemade fries and burgers, but then I also think homemade tastes better

jonnythan

I understand that these IIFYM people THINK they're HELPING others by showing that these "restrictive" diet plans are unnecessary, but why can't you let people decide that for THEMSELVES.

I regularly get PMs from people thanking me for my contributions to the board which have helped them abandon the ideas of "good food bad food" and "eat clean." I also coach a few people in real life who have tried restrictive diets like clean eating and Atkins only to fail after a couple of months, that now have real long-term loss as a result of IIFYM.

The concepts of good food vs bad food are so ingrained into the public consciousness that it takes real work to undo that. And I know that advocating IIFYM, and learning to eat foods you love in moderation, helps people because they literally tell me it has helped them a great deal (and they have the results to show for it).

I am also a personal example. I don't have the willpower to last long on any sort of "clean eating" diet. If I had tried that from the beginning I would still be fat. I am thankful that people like me, who came before me, opened my eyes to the idea that I could be healthy and in shape while still eating Taco Bell several times a week.

The point of the article is largely that the concept of "bad food" by its nature is harmful because of the effect this has on people's compliance. I think there's a great deal of merit to this.

You and me both. We've done and will continue to do the same things for people coming at it from a different perspective.

Listen if I know that people are having problems sticking to something, I would never suggest they keep trying the same thing. There's absolutely merit to the way you eat and the way you help others eat, but it's simply a first step. That's it. An important one. A titanic one. Man on the moon sized maybe. But it's still just a first step, because as you and I well know there have been plenty of "fit" people to keel over of a heart attack. There are plenty of "fit" people with high blood pressure or other conditions that MAY have been preventable through proper nutrition. This is where we differ in philosophy. You see these things as inevitable and I see them as preventable. You don't believe the science behind what I say and that's fine - you don't have to - but to tell people it's impossible to prevent disease through "clean" eating or "paleo" or whatever is just as irresponsible as what you think about what I do. The truth is that you don't KNOW I'm wrong.

I'm not religious but my Dad once told me that even if there's a 99.999999999% chance there's no God and no heaven, it is STILL in your best interest to be religious in the OFF CHANCE they do exist, because if they don't then I'm no worse off - but if I refuse to acknowledge God's existence and it turns out he's real... welp. I'm ****ed.

Same thing with food.

That's fine. Different approaches work for different people. I don't reject the idea that clean eating works for people, or that some people do better with that kind of restrictive diet.

I do reject the idea that it's "better" to "eat clean" because you believe there's a 0.00000001% chance it'll prevent you from having cancer or something.

ETA: I accept any nutritional suggestions that have been scientifically shown to have a clinically significant causative difference in my chances of getting some terrible disease or disorder.

cwsreddy

I understand that these IIFYM people THINK they're HELPING others by showing that these "restrictive" diet plans are unnecessary, but why can't you let people decide that for THEMSELVES.

I regularly get PMs from people thanking me for my contributions to the board which have helped them abandon the ideas of "good food bad food" and "eat clean." I also coach a few people in real life who have tried restrictive diets like clean eating and Atkins only to fail after a couple of months, that now have real long-term loss as a result of IIFYM.

The concepts of good food vs bad food are so ingrained into the public consciousness that it takes real work to undo that. And I know that advocating IIFYM, and learning to eat foods you love in moderation, helps people because they literally tell me it has helped them a great deal (and they have the results to show for it).

I am also a personal example. I don't have the willpower to last long on any sort of "clean eating" diet. If I had tried that from the beginning I would still be fat. I am thankful that people like me, who came before me, opened my eyes to the idea that I could be healthy and in shape while still eating Taco Bell several times a week.

The point of the article is largely that the concept of "bad food" by its nature is harmful because of the effect this has on people's compliance. I think there's a great deal of merit to this.

You and me both. We've done and will continue to do the same things for people coming at it from a different perspective.

Listen if I know that people are having problems sticking to something, I would never suggest they keep trying the same thing. There's absolutely merit to the way you eat and the way you help others eat, but it's simply a first step. That's it. An important one. A titanic one. Man on the moon sized maybe. But it's still just a first step, because as you and I well know there have been plenty of "fit" people to keel over of a heart attack. There are plenty of "fit" people with high blood pressure or other conditions that MAY have been preventable through proper nutrition. This is where we differ in philosophy. You see these things as inevitable and I see them as preventable. You don't believe the science behind what I say and that's fine - you don't have to - but to tell people it's impossible to prevent disease through "clean" eating or "paleo" or whatever is just as irresponsible as what you think about what I do. The truth is that you don't KNOW I'm wrong.

I'm not religious but my Dad once told me that even if there's a 99.999999999% chance there's no God and no heaven, it is STILL in your best interest to be religious in the OFF CHANCE they do exist, because if they don't then I'm no worse off - but if I refuse to acknowledge God's existence and it turns out he's real... welp. I'm ****ed.

Same thing with food.

That's fine. Different approaches work for different people. I don't reject the idea that clean eating works for people, or that some people do better with that kind of restrictive diet.

I do reject the idea that it's "better" to "eat clean" because you believe there's a 0.00000001% chance it'll prevent you from having cancer or something.

You realize that was just an arbitrary number of zeroes and an analogy yes? But of course you'd have to take it literally to create an argument with it. lol

fast_eddie_72

The article was a little over-the-top and biased, but I agree with it overall. I've always felt that you can have anything you want in moderation. I still try to avoid things like fast food in favor of homemade fries and burgers, but then I also think homemade tastes better

Exactly. All things in moderation. Seems like that should be conventional wisdom. Oh wait...

cwsreddy

I understand that these IIFYM people THINK they're HELPING others by showing that these "restrictive" diet plans are unnecessary, but why can't you let people decide that for THEMSELVES.

I regularly get PMs from people thanking me for my contributions to the board which have helped them abandon the ideas of "good food bad food" and "eat clean." I also coach a few people in real life who have tried restrictive diets like clean eating and Atkins only to fail after a couple of months, that now have real long-term loss as a result of IIFYM.

The concepts of good food vs bad food are so ingrained into the public consciousness that it takes real work to undo that. And I know that advocating IIFYM, and learning to eat foods you love in moderation, helps people because they literally tell me it has helped them a great deal (and they have the results to show for it).

I am also a personal example. I don't have the willpower to last long on any sort of "clean eating" diet. If I had tried that from the beginning I would still be fat. I am thankful that people like me, who came before me, opened my eyes to the idea that I could be healthy and in shape while still eating Taco Bell several times a week.

The point of the article is largely that the concept of "bad food" by its nature is harmful because of the effect this has on people's compliance. I think there's a great deal of merit to this.

You and me both. We've done and will continue to do the same things for people coming at it from a different perspective.

Listen if I know that people are having problems sticking to something, I would never suggest they keep trying the same thing. There's absolutely merit to the way you eat and the way you help others eat, but it's simply a first step. That's it. An important one. A titanic one. Man on the moon sized maybe. But it's still just a first step, because as you and I well know there have been plenty of "fit" people to keel over of a heart attack. There are plenty of "fit" people with high blood pressure or other conditions that MAY have been preventable through proper nutrition. This is where we differ in philosophy. You see these things as inevitable and I see them as preventable. You don't believe the science behind what I say and that's fine - you don't have to - but to tell people it's impossible to prevent disease through "clean" eating or "paleo" or whatever is just as irresponsible as what you think about what I do. The truth is that you don't KNOW I'm wrong.

I'm not religious but my Dad once told me that even if there's a 99.999999999% chance there's no God and no heaven, it is STILL in your best interest to be religious in the OFF CHANCE they do exist, because if they don't then I'm no worse off - but if I refuse to acknowledge God's existence and it turns out he's real... welp. I'm ****ed.

Same thing with food.

That's fine. Different approaches work for different people. I don't reject the idea that clean eating works for people, or that some people do better with that kind of restrictive diet.

I do reject the idea that it's "better" to "eat clean" because you believe there's a 0.00000001% chance it'll prevent you from having cancer or something.

ETA: I accept any nutritional suggestions that have been scientifically shown to have a clinically significant causative difference in my chances of getting some terrible disease or disorder.

Scientifically shown by whom? Peer reviewed case studies funded by whom? This is the part where it all breaks down. You trust the FDA, USDA, CDC, and the government when it comes to your health, and I think they're decades behind.

We'll never convince each other otherwise.

jonnythan

I understand that these IIFYM people THINK they're HELPING others by showing that these "restrictive" diet plans are unnecessary, but why can't you let people decide that for THEMSELVES.

I regularly get PMs from people thanking me for my contributions to the board which have helped them abandon the ideas of "good food bad food" and "eat clean." I also coach a few people in real life who have tried restrictive diets like clean eating and Atkins only to fail after a couple of months, that now have real long-term loss as a result of IIFYM.

The concepts of good food vs bad food are so ingrained into the public consciousness that it takes real work to undo that. And I know that advocating IIFYM, and learning to eat foods you love in moderation, helps people because they literally tell me it has helped them a great deal (and they have the results to show for it).

I am also a personal example. I don't have the willpower to last long on any sort of "clean eating" diet. If I had tried that from the beginning I would still be fat. I am thankful that people like me, who came before me, opened my eyes to the idea that I could be healthy and in shape while still eating Taco Bell several times a week.

The point of the article is largely that the concept of "bad food" by its nature is harmful because of the effect this has on people's compliance. I think there's a great deal of merit to this.

You and me both. We've done and will continue to do the same things for people coming at it from a different perspective.

Listen if I know that people are having problems sticking to something, I would never suggest they keep trying the same thing. There's absolutely merit to the way you eat and the way you help others eat, but it's simply a first step. That's it. An important one. A titanic one. Man on the moon sized maybe. But it's still just a first step, because as you and I well know there have been plenty of "fit" people to keel over of a heart attack. There are plenty of "fit" people with high blood pressure or other conditions that MAY have been preventable through proper nutrition. This is where we differ in philosophy. You see these things as inevitable and I see them as preventable. You don't believe the science behind what I say and that's fine - you don't have to - but to tell people it's impossible to prevent disease through "clean" eating or "paleo" or whatever is just as irresponsible as what you think about what I do. The truth is that you don't KNOW I'm wrong.

I'm not religious but my Dad once told me that even if there's a 99.999999999% chance there's no God and no heaven, it is STILL in your best interest to be religious in the OFF CHANCE they do exist, because if they don't then I'm no worse off - but if I refuse to acknowledge God's existence and it turns out he's real... welp. I'm ****ed.

Same thing with food.

That's fine. Different approaches work for different people. I don't reject the idea that clean eating works for people, or that some people do better with that kind of restrictive diet.

I do reject the idea that it's "better" to "eat clean" because you believe there's a 0.00000001% chance it'll prevent you from having cancer or something.

You realize that was just an arbitrary number of zeroes and an analogy yes? But of course you'd have to take it literally to create an argument with it. lol

Yes, which is why I rejected it. However figuratively you meant it, I reject it. I just used your number because it was already there, and there was no reason to make up my own since we were already in imaginary territory

cwsreddy

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

What.
"How is a gram a gram when a liter of water weighs more than a liter of oil?"
That's how you just sounded.

This is fair. (See I don't just ignore it when I **** up)

Bad way of saying a calorie simply isn't a calorie. The measurement of how much energy you get from something in NO WAY correlates to the amount of nutrients and micronutrients you receive along with that energy. One calorie of cake has a completely different nutrient profile than one calorie of carrot.

cwsreddy

You realize that was just an arbitrary number of zeroes and an analogy yes? But of course you'd have to take it literally to create an argument with it. lol

Yes, which is why I rejected it. However figuratively you meant it, I reject it. I just used your number because it was already there, and there was no reason to make up my own since we were already in imaginary territory

you're gonna have to do better than that babe. why do you reject it besides being "imaginary"? any actual reason?

jonnythan

Scientifically shown by whom? Peer reviewed case studies funded by whom? This is the part where it all breaks down. You trust the FDA, USDA, CDC, and the government when it comes to your health, and I think they're decades behind.

We'll never convince each other otherwise.

Shown by... science. Consideration of the funding source is part of evaluation of the results of a scientific study.

I don't simply "trust the FDA etc." A single scientific study is compelling, no matter who funded it. A single peer-reviewed published scientific study is worthy of serious consideration. Multiple peer-reviewed published scientific studies and you start getting to the point of "time to start accepting this."

So, yeah. Scientifically shown by a preponderance of the scientific evidence, preferably peer-reviewed and performed more than once in various locations with various sources of funding.

EvanKeel

I'm not religious but my Dad once told me that even if there's a 99.999999999% chance there's no God and no heaven, it is STILL in your best interest to be religious in the OFF CHANCE they do exist, because if they don't then I'm no worse off - but if I refuse to acknowledge God's existence and it turns out he's real... welp. I'm ****ed.

I've never been particularly impressed with Pascal's wager as applied to religion or food. Mostly because it's fallacious.

jonnythan

You realize that was just an arbitrary number of zeroes and an analogy yes? But of course you'd have to take it literally to create an argument with it. lol

Yes, which is why I rejected it. However figuratively you meant it, I reject it. I just used your number because it was already there, and there was no reason to make up my own since we were already in imaginary territory

you're gonna have to do better than that babe. why do you reject it besides being "imaginary"? any actual reason?

Because it's made up. If you can establish that a dietary practice actually causes an increase in chances of some health effect, then that's one thing. But just saying that it's better to eat clean because I imagine there's a chance it'll prevent some health effect is an idea without merit.

It might be fine for you to just say it seems reasonable to expect something might have an effect. It's another to actually scientifically establish that it does.

cwsreddy

Scientifically shown by whom? Peer reviewed case studies funded by whom? This is the part where it all breaks down. You trust the FDA, USDA, CDC, and the government when it comes to your health, and I think they're decades behind.

We'll never convince each other otherwise.

Shown by... science. Consideration of the funding source is part of evaluation of the results of a scientific study.

I don't simply "trust the FDA etc." A single scientific study is compelling, no matter who funded it. A single peer-reviewed published scientific study is worthy of serious consideration. Multiple peer-reviewed published scientific studies and you start getting to the point of "time to start accepting this."

So, yeah. Scientifically shown by a preponderance of the scientific evidence, preferably peer-reviewed and performed more than once in various locations with various sources of funding.

and here-in lies the problem.

in the 1800s it was scientifically shown by a preponderance of evidence that leeching was good for you.

jonnythan

Bad way of saying a calorie simply isn't a calorie. The measurement of how much energy you get from something in NO WAY correlates to the amount of nutrients and micronutrients you receive along with that energy. One calorie of cake has a completely different nutrient profile than one calorie of carrot.

Which is why it's important to track nutrient intake, IMO. Nutrients are what matter.

cwsreddy

You realize that was just an arbitrary number of zeroes and an analogy yes? But of course you'd have to take it literally to create an argument with it. lol

Yes, which is why I rejected it. However figuratively you meant it, I reject it. I just used your number because it was already there, and there was no reason to make up my own since we were already in imaginary territory

you're gonna have to do better than that babe. why do you reject it besides being "imaginary"? any actual reason?

Because it's made up. If you can establish that a dietary practice actually causes an increase in chances of some health effect, then that's one thing. But just saying that it's better to eat clean because I imagine there's a chance it'll prevent some health effect is an idea without merit.

It might be fine for you to just say it seems reasonable to expect something might have an effect. It's another to actually scientifically establish that it does.

is this not science?

http://www.ted.com/talks/william_li.html

fast_eddie_72

I'm not religious but my Dad once told me that even if there's a 99.999999999% chance there's no God and no heaven, it is STILL in your best interest to be religious in the OFF CHANCE they do exist, because if they don't then I'm no worse off - but if I refuse to acknowledge God's existence and it turns out he's real... welp. I'm ****ed.

I've never been particularly impressed with Pascal's wager as applied to religion or food. Mostly because it's fallacious.

I never figured any "God" would be either. "Hummmm I don't think much of your life, but you went to Church. Me damn it! You got me on a technicality. Welcome to paradise."

stevencloser

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

What.
"How is a gram a gram when a liter of water weighs more than a liter of oil?"
That's how you just sounded.

This is fair. (See I don't just ignore it when I **** up)

Bad way of saying a calorie simply isn't a calorie. The measurement of how much energy you get from something in NO WAY correlates to the amount of nutrients and micronutrients you receive along with that energy. One calorie of cake has a completely different nutrient profile than one calorie of carrot.

True that. If you want to keep within your macros you have to think a bit in advance if you can "afford" to eat something. Doesn't mean you can't eat that thing ever, just that it might be in your best interest not to eat it at this point in time.

jonnythan

Scientifically shown by whom? Peer reviewed case studies funded by whom? This is the part where it all breaks down. You trust the FDA, USDA, CDC, and the government when it comes to your health, and I think they're decades behind.

We'll never convince each other otherwise.

Shown by... science. Consideration of the funding source is part of evaluation of the results of a scientific study.

I don't simply "trust the FDA etc." A single scientific study is compelling, no matter who funded it. A single peer-reviewed published scientific study is worthy of serious consideration. Multiple peer-reviewed published scientific studies and you start getting to the point of "time to start accepting this."

So, yeah. Scientifically shown by a preponderance of the scientific evidence, preferably peer-reviewed and performed more than once in various locations with various sources of funding.

and here-in lies the problem.

in the 1800s it was scientifically shown by a preponderance of evidence that leeching was good for you.

I don't think that's a compelling argument, because I'm pretty sure you can't produce a number of scientifically-valid peer-reviewed studies with quality laboratory practices, double blinding, statistical analysis, etc., that shows leeching is "good for you."

That's not how science works anyway, even if such practices did exist in the 19th century (they didn't). Scientific studies can't really establish that anything in particular is "good for you."

jonnythan

You realize that was just an arbitrary number of zeroes and an analogy yes? But of course you'd have to take it literally to create an argument with it. lol

Yes, which is why I rejected it. However figuratively you meant it, I reject it. I just used your number because it was already there, and there was no reason to make up my own since we were already in imaginary territory

you're gonna have to do better than that babe. why do you reject it besides being "imaginary"? any actual reason?

Because it's made up. If you can establish that a dietary practice actually causes an increase in chances of some health effect, then that's one thing. But just saying that it's better to eat clean because I imagine there's a chance it'll prevent some health effect is an idea without merit.

It might be fine for you to just say it seems reasonable to expect something might have an effect. It's another to actually scientifically establish that it does.

is this not science?

http://www.ted.com/talks/william_li.html

A TED talk isn't science, no. He might reference some scientific studies, which I would be interested to read, but I'm not interested in watching a TED talk on this topic to evaluate his scientific sources.

cwsreddy

I'm not religious but my Dad once told me that even if there's a 99.999999999% chance there's no God and no heaven, it is STILL in your best interest to be religious in the OFF CHANCE they do exist, because if they don't then I'm no worse off - but if I refuse to acknowledge God's existence and it turns out he's real... welp. I'm ****ed.

I've never been particularly impressed with Pascal's wager as applied to religion or food. Mostly because it's fallacious.

I never figured any "God" would be either. "Hummmm I don't think much of your life, but you went to Church. Me damn it! You got me on a technicality. Welcome to paradise."

Haha hey some people believe it. Same people who spew hate left and right... but I guess that's the point. They can just say "sorry" towards the end and the pearly gates magically open in a cascade of forgiveness!

convenient.

cwsreddy

You realize that was just an arbitrary number of zeroes and an analogy yes? But of course you'd have to take it literally to create an argument with it. lol

Yes, which is why I rejected it. However figuratively you meant it, I reject it. I just used your number because it was already there, and there was no reason to make up my own since we were already in imaginary territory

you're gonna have to do better than that babe. why do you reject it besides being "imaginary"? any actual reason?

Because it's made up. If you can establish that a dietary practice actually causes an increase in chances of some health effect, then that's one thing. But just saying that it's better to eat clean because I imagine there's a chance it'll prevent some health effect is an idea without merit.

It might be fine for you to just say it seems reasonable to expect something might have an effect. It's another to actually scientifically establish that it does.

is this not science?

http://www.ted.com/talks/william_li.html

A TED talk isn't science, no. He might reference some scientific studies, which I would be interested to read, but I'm not interested in watching a TED talk on this topic to evaluate his scientific sources.

What's the difference between a TEDtalk and the OP's article? Both reference scientific studies, they're just presented in different formats.

The only difference is that the ACTUAL SCIENTIST is the one doing the damn lecture! The article is a second and third hand account. lol