Paleo vs. Clean eating?

hafdis

Hi OP here

so I did not know how HOT TOPIC this was.. sorry!

Ok I don't have any health issues, I am finally at a healthy weight.. I'm 5'2 and weigh around 122-125 lbs.. so keeping it that way is my challenge... I'd like to thank everyone for their advice or sharing their info...

I have to admit it is kind of ironic how this thread went since I have a BA in Anthropology and my Thesis was on Neanderthals - Hunter Gatherers or scavengers LOL

Got to look at the funny side of life cause if we don't then whats the point

FlaxMilk

I think the idea you're missing is that some degree of variability does not equal no definition. I've explained many of the variables for Primal, and so long as you're within those variables, you'd be considered Primal. Though what that is going to look like for each individual will vary (within said variables). The definition is flexible, not fixed, in that regard, but there still is definition.

When degree of variability = no one can question anyone who announces that they are Paleo no matter what, because rude, then yes, it becomes meaningless.

To Tennisdude, I already said in this thread that I'm not questioning your or Lindsey.

geebusuk

My (off road) ultramarathon yesterday went fine as far as energy levels go.
I suspect the 800g of carbs the day before DID make a reasonable difference - I never found myself feeling significantly down on energy.

By 20 miles I was definitely slowing a good bit from muscle soreness etc - but then the furthest I've ever run was 11 miles on flat road (vs 32 miles with 4400ft of climbs!) - and at that point I still had more than the furthest I'd run to go!

Plenty more carbs when I got back (I didn't record what I ate, but I had a calorie target of 6500 for yesterday) and I can actually move today, while I was a tad stiff/sore yesterday.

Drawing a 'point' from this bit of boasting (for many it's nothing special, but I was quite pleased with myself ). There is no one "healthy" food, diet or way of life. "Healthy" is related to the indivdual and their current needs at the time.

tennisdude2004

My (off road) ultramarathon yesterday went fine as far as energy levels go.
I suspect the 800g of carbs the day before DID make a reasonable difference - I never found myself feeling significantly down on energy.

By 20 miles I was definitely slowing a good bit from muscle soreness etc - but then the furthest I've ever run was 11 miles on flat road (vs 32 miles with 4400ft of climbs!) - and at that point I still had more than the furthest I'd run to go!

Plenty more carbs when I got back (I didn't record what I ate, but I had a calorie target of 6500 for yesterday) and I can actually move today, while I was a tad stiff/sore yesterday.

Drawing a 'point' from all this bit of boasting. There is no one "healthy" food, diet or way of life. "Healthy" is related to the indivdual and their current needs at the time.

Well done on the ultramarathon.

I suspect the 800 carbs for that level of activity were essential. lol

mockchoc

Paleo is stupid, uneccessary, potentially unhealthy and as an idea it is utterly fallicious.
Clean eating is on the same boat, but the level of negatives is dependant on how obsessive you are about what specific foods you're eating or not.

I don't understand why people can't accept that fact that the healthiest way to diet is to track your calories, track your macros, hit your goals, get in sufficient micronutrients and phytonutrients and be sane. Processed foods and whole foods.
Chemicals in foods =/= always bad for you
Natural =/= always good for you
Processed =/= always bad for you

I've never once seed a justified response to someone avoiding "processed foods", as if all processed foods are processed in one way, at one level.

I think I love you. It is just food! Bangs head on desk.

tennisdude2004

Paleo is stupid, uneccessary, potentially unhealthy and as an idea it is utterly fallicious.
Clean eating is on the same boat, but the level of negatives is dependant on how obsessive you are about what specific foods you're eating or not.

I don't understand why people can't accept that fact that the healthiest way to diet is to track your calories, track your macros, hit your goals, get in sufficient micronutrients and phytonutrients and be sane. Processed foods and whole foods.
Chemicals in foods =/= always bad for you
Natural =/= always good for you
Processed =/= always bad for you

I've never once seed a justified response to someone avoiding "processed foods", as if all processed foods are processed in one way, at one level.

That comment is stupid!!



The diet has restrictions - yes (but what diet doesn't), plus not everyone will view those restrictions the same level of fear preserved lack of loss from their diet.
The diet has a lame name - sure, but there are plenty of marketed products and ideas out there that have lame names.
The diet claims to eat what our ancestors ate and how we evolved to eat - that one will always be debatable.
The diet claims the help people with certain diet related issues - a lot of people carrying out there own study of one will agree with statement (others won't - that's the way of the world) - Also unlike some certain members would like to believe - they do not claim to cure everything.

The diet does not exclude any essential micro-nutrients or Macro nutrients so how can anyone (sane or otherwise) claim, or suggest the diet is UNHEALTHY!!!!!!!

Proof on this would be nice.

neanderthin

Paleo is stupid, uneccessary, potentially unhealthy and as an idea it is utterly fallicious.
Clean eating is on the same boat, but the level of negatives is dependant on how obsessive you are about what specific foods you're eating or not.

I don't understand why people can't accept that fact that the healthiest way to diet is to track your calories, track your macros, hit your goals, get in sufficient micronutrients and phytonutrients and be sane. Processed foods and whole foods.
Chemicals in foods =/= always bad for you
Natural =/= always good for you
Processed =/= always bad for you

I've never once seed a justified response to someone avoiding "processed foods", as if all processed foods are processed in one way, at one level.

That comment is stupid!!



The diet has restrictions - yes (but what diet doesn't), plus not everyone will view those restrictions the same level of fear preserved lack of loss from their diet.
The diet has a lame name - sure, but there are plenty of marketed products and ideas out there that have lame names.
The diet claims to eat what our ancestors ate and how we evolved to eat - that one will always be debatable.
The diet claims the help people with certain diet related issues - a lot of people carrying out there own study of one will agree with statement (others won't - that's the way of the world) - Also unlike some certain members would like to believe - they do not claim to cure everything.

The diet does not exclude any essential micro-nutrients or Macro nutrients so how can anyone (sane or otherwise) claim, or suggest the diet is UNHEALTHY!!!!!!!

Proof on this would be nice.

Have to agree with you on the health part, not so much on the validity part.

tennisdude2004

Paleo is stupid, uneccessary, potentially unhealthy and as an idea it is utterly fallicious.
Clean eating is on the same boat, but the level of negatives is dependant on how obsessive you are about what specific foods you're eating or not.

I don't understand why people can't accept that fact that the healthiest way to diet is to track your calories, track your macros, hit your goals, get in sufficient micronutrients and phytonutrients and be sane. Processed foods and whole foods.
Chemicals in foods =/= always bad for you
Natural =/= always good for you
Processed =/= always bad for you

I've never once seed a justified response to someone avoiding "processed foods", as if all processed foods are processed in one way, at one level.

That comment is stupid!!



The diet has restrictions - yes (but what diet doesn't), plus not everyone will view those restrictions with the same level of fear and preserved lack of loss from their diet.
The diet has a lame name - sure, but there are plenty of marketed products and ideas out there that have lame names.
The diet claims to eat what our ancestors ate and how we evolved to eat - that one will always be debatable.
The diet claims the help people with certain diet related issues - a lot of people carrying out there own study of one will agree with statement (others won't - that's the way of the world) - Also unlike some certain members would like to believe - they do not claim to cure everything.

The diet does not exclude any essential micro-nutrients or Macro nutrients so how can anyone (sane or otherwise) claim, or suggest the diet is UNHEALTHY!!!!!!!

Proof on this would be nice.

Have to agree with you on the health part, not so much on the validity part.

I think we probably agree on that front as well (in moderation of course)

geebusuk

The diet does not exclude any essential micro-nutrients or Macro nutrients so how can anyone (sane or otherwise) claim, or suggest the diet is UNHEALTHY!!!!!!!

Same could be said for the twinky diet bloke, I suspect (he took vitamin etc supplements, I believe.)

neanderthin

The diet does not exclude any essential micro-nutrients or Macro nutrients so how can anyone (sane or otherwise) claim, or suggest the diet is UNHEALTHY!!!!!!!

Same could be said for the twinky diet bloke, I suspect (he took vitamin etc supplements, I believe.)

Then your in agreement.

tennisdude2004

The diet does not exclude any essential micro-nutrients or Macro nutrients so how can anyone (sane or otherwise) claim, or suggest the diet is UNHEALTHY!!!!!!!

Same could be said for the twinky diet bloke, I suspect (he took vitamin etc supplements, I believe.)

I don't know this twinky guy (did he only eat twinkies or something). If he was having to take supplements because he was not getting everything he needed through his diet then I doubt it is the same. - Strange comparison?

geebusuk

Bloke lost weight and tests showed more healthy by eating primarily twinkies and similar snack foods along with some very light exercise (walking for an hour a day, or something.)
The point is that his diet (including vitamin pills) "does not exclude any essential micro-nutrients or Macro nutrients ". If that is justification for " how can anyone (sane or otherwise) claim, or suggest the diet is UNHEALTHY!!!!!!! " for one diet, then it should be for another.
He himself certainly advised against such a diet.

tennisdude2004

I'm not surprised if he had to take supplements and vitamin's just to get his diet into the healthy range - I'm sure if a majority of his dietary intake was primarily carbs (sugar in particular) then if he was to eat on that basis he would soon be insulin resistant.

I must say though I still do not see your point. A paleo diet - ideally gets all of its micro and macro nutrients from the food you eat.??

neandermagnon

all the various health markers improved as a result of the twinkie diet. He had protein powder, not just vitamin pills, and his macro intake was balanced. The diet was twinkies, protein powder, vitamin pills. Balanced macros. His health improved. He wouldn't have become insulin resistant as the amount of twinkies was controlled to keep him in calorie deficit and to prevent him from eating too much carbohydrate.

The main disadvantage with the twinkie diet is that it's not remotely filling or sustainable. The guy must have been constantly starving hungry. The amount of twinkies needed to meet his carb and fat macros wasn't many. He probably got utterly sick to death of twinkies too. And it's a competely unsustainable approach to eating. And relying on a multivitamin/mineral supplement for *all* your micronutrient needs IMO is putting too much faith in the vitamin manufacturers ability to create a pill that can meet all your micronutrient needs.

The take home message should be that it's not individual foods that cause obesity and other food related health problems, it's an unbalanced diet, i.e. too much of some things, not enough of others. the standard American diet has too much fat and carbs and not enough vitamins minerals and fibre, and the result is high levels of obesity and blood sugar issues. Go to some really poor and deprived parts of the world and you'll find diets lacking in protein, carbohydrate, vitamins and minerals and people suffering from kwashiorkor, rickets and similar.

IIFYM does not mean just eat whatever, it means focusing on giving your body the nutrients it needs, without giving up any foods that you want to eat. It's not a free-for-all to eat whatever you want and just stop when you hit your calorie goal. It takes a lot of planning to fit stuff like pizza into your macros. It usually means eating high protein low fat low carb for the rest of the day, but what you have at the end of the day is balance, i.e. everything your body needs and not too much of anything. People need to learn that in most cases, the poison is in the dose. Too much pizza will make you obese, but careful portion control with pizza means you can enjoy it and still be healthy and not become obese. Ditto any other food (food intolerances/allergies excepted... in those cases then yes total avoidance is usually the best course of action).

tennisdude2004

all the various health markers improved as a result of the twinkie diet. He had protein powder, not just vitamin pills, and his macro intake was balanced. The diet was twinkies, protein powder, vitamin pills. Balanced macros. His health improved. He wouldn't have become insulin resistant as the amount of twinkies was controlled to keep him in calorie deficit and to prevent him from eating too much carbohydrate.

The main disadvantage with the twinkie diet is that it's not remotely filling or sustainable. The guy must have been constantly starving hungry. The amount of twinkies needed to meet his carb and fat macros wasn't many. He probably got utterly sick to death of twinkies too. And it's a competely unsustainable approach to eating. And relying on a multivitamin/mineral supplement for *all* your micronutrient needs IMO is putting too much faith in the vitamin manufacturers ability to create a pill that can meet all your micronutrient needs.

The take home message should be that it's not individual foods that cause obesity and other food related health problems, it's an unbalanced diet, i.e. too much of some things, not enough of others. the standard American diet has too much fat and carbs and not enough vitamins minerals and fibre, and the result is high levels of obesity and blood sugar issues. Go to some really poor and deprived parts of the world and you'll find diets lacking in protein, carbohydrate, vitamins and minerals and people suffering from kwashiorkor, rickets and similar.

IIFYM does not mean just eat whatever, it means focusing on giving your body the nutrients it needs, without giving up any foods that you want to eat. It's not a free-for-all to eat whatever you want and just stop when you hit your calorie goal. It takes a lot of planning to fit stuff like pizza into your macros. It usually means eating high protein low fat low carb for the rest of the day, but what you have at the end of the day is balance, i.e. everything your body needs and not too much of anything. People need to learn that in most cases, the poison is in the dose. Too much pizza will make you obese, but careful portion control with pizza means you can enjoy it and still be healthy and not become obese. Ditto any other food (food intolerances/allergies excepted... in those cases then yes total avoidance is usually the best course of action).

Thanks for the background on the twinky diet - so obviously not a comparison to Paleo (sorry Geeb, don't really no where you were coming from on that one).

I would suggest that as meat, veggies and fruit (nuts) are the staple diet for Paleo that there are literally millions of food combinations that a Paleo meal can consist of. So a few more choices than just twinkies an whey. lol

But I still do not understand how the Paleo diet is considered unhealthy?

neandermagnon

all the various health markers improved as a result of the twinkie diet. He had protein powder, not just vitamin pills, and his macro intake was balanced. The diet was twinkies, protein powder, vitamin pills. Balanced macros. His health improved. He wouldn't have become insulin resistant as the amount of twinkies was controlled to keep him in calorie deficit and to prevent him from eating too much carbohydrate.

The main disadvantage with the twinkie diet is that it's not remotely filling or sustainable. The guy must have been constantly starving hungry. The amount of twinkies needed to meet his carb and fat macros wasn't many. He probably got utterly sick to death of twinkies too. And it's a competely unsustainable approach to eating. And relying on a multivitamin/mineral supplement for *all* your micronutrient needs IMO is putting too much faith in the vitamin manufacturers ability to create a pill that can meet all your micronutrient needs.

The take home message should be that it's not individual foods that cause obesity and other food related health problems, it's an unbalanced diet, i.e. too much of some things, not enough of others. the standard American diet has too much fat and carbs and not enough vitamins minerals and fibre, and the result is high levels of obesity and blood sugar issues. Go to some really poor and deprived parts of the world and you'll find diets lacking in protein, carbohydrate, vitamins and minerals and people suffering from kwashiorkor, rickets and similar.

IIFYM does not mean just eat whatever, it means focusing on giving your body the nutrients it needs, without giving up any foods that you want to eat. It's not a free-for-all to eat whatever you want and just stop when you hit your calorie goal. It takes a lot of planning to fit stuff like pizza into your macros. It usually means eating high protein low fat low carb for the rest of the day, but what you have at the end of the day is balance, i.e. everything your body needs and not too much of anything. People need to learn that in most cases, the poison is in the dose. Too much pizza will make you obese, but careful portion control with pizza means you can enjoy it and still be healthy and not become obese. Ditto any other food (food intolerances/allergies excepted... in those cases then yes total avoidance is usually the best course of action).

Thanks for the background on the twinky diet - so obviously not a comparison to Paleo (sorry Geeb, don't really no where you were coming from on that one).

I would suggest that as meat, veggies and fruit (nuts) are the staple diet for Paleo that there are literally millions of food combinations that a Paleo meal can consist of. So a few more choices than just twinkies an whey. lol

But I still do not understand how the Paleo diet is considered unhealthy?

What are the health benefits in people avoiding foods that are not making them ill? If something's difficult to do, and there's no benefit from doing it, then why bother with it? That's the issue. And for people who have a tendency towards anxiety, convincing them that certain foods are making them ill when they're not, resulting in them anxiously avoiding those foods when there's no actual benefit to it, is bad for their mental health.

It's more that the whole approach to paleo eating is utterly pointless and potentially anxiety inducing/worsening, for anyone who isn't actually intolerant to all the foods on the "don't eat" list, than whether the diet provides people with all the nutrients they need. There's more to health than good nutrition. Just like the twinkie diet is inadequate because living off twinkies, protein powder and vitamin pills is inherently unsatisfying and unsustainable... diets that tell people to avoid foods for no reason other than pseudoscience, are also inherently unsatisfying and unsustainable for many people, and potentially anxiety inducing for some. So really, it's at best pointless, for many it's unsustainable, and for some it's bad for mental health.

For people who have actual health issues that are made better by this diet, then there's a benefit for them which outweighs the difficulty that comes from avoiding specific foods. But for everyone else.... not so.

tennisdude2004

all the various health markers improved as a result of the twinkie diet. He had protein powder, not just vitamin pills, and his macro intake was balanced. The diet was twinkies, protein powder, vitamin pills. Balanced macros. His health improved. He wouldn't have become insulin resistant as the amount of twinkies was controlled to keep him in calorie deficit and to prevent him from eating too much carbohydrate.

The main disadvantage with the twinkie diet is that it's not remotely filling or sustainable. The guy must have been constantly starving hungry. The amount of twinkies needed to meet his carb and fat macros wasn't many. He probably got utterly sick to death of twinkies too. And it's a competely unsustainable approach to eating. And relying on a multivitamin/mineral supplement for *all* your micronutrient needs IMO is putting too much faith in the vitamin manufacturers ability to create a pill that can meet all your micronutrient needs.

The take home message should be that it's not individual foods that cause obesity and other food related health problems, it's an unbalanced diet, i.e. too much of some things, not enough of others. the standard American diet has too much fat and carbs and not enough vitamins minerals and fibre, and the result is high levels of obesity and blood sugar issues. Go to some really poor and deprived parts of the world and you'll find diets lacking in protein, carbohydrate, vitamins and minerals and people suffering from kwashiorkor, rickets and similar.

IIFYM does not mean just eat whatever, it means focusing on giving your body the nutrients it needs, without giving up any foods that you want to eat. It's not a free-for-all to eat whatever you want and just stop when you hit your calorie goal. It takes a lot of planning to fit stuff like pizza into your macros. It usually means eating high protein low fat low carb for the rest of the day, but what you have at the end of the day is balance, i.e. everything your body needs and not too much of anything. People need to learn that in most cases, the poison is in the dose. Too much pizza will make you obese, but careful portion control with pizza means you can enjoy it and still be healthy and not become obese. Ditto any other food (food intolerances/allergies excepted... in those cases then yes total avoidance is usually the best course of action).

Thanks for the background on the twinky diet - so obviously not a comparison to Paleo (sorry Geeb, don't really no where you were coming from on that one).

I would suggest that as meat, veggies and fruit (nuts) are the staple diet for Paleo that there are literally millions of food combinations that a Paleo meal can consist of. So a few more choices than just twinkies an whey. lol

But I still do not understand how the Paleo diet is considered unhealthy?

What are the health benefits in people avoiding foods that are not making them ill? If something's difficult to do, and there's no benefit from doing it, then why bother with it? That's the issue. And for people who have a tendency towards anxiety, convincing them that certain foods are making them ill when they're not, resulting in them anxiously avoiding those foods when there's no actual benefit to it, is bad for their mental health.

It's more that the whole approach to paleo eating is utterly pointless and potentially anxiety inducing/worsening, for anyone who isn't actually intolerant to all the foods on the "don't eat" list, than whether the diet provides people with all the nutrients they need. There's more to health than good nutrition. Just like the twinkie diet is inadequate because living off twinkies, protein powder and vitamin pills is inherently unsatisfying and unsustainable... diets that tell people to avoid foods for no reason other than pseudoscience, are also inherently unsatisfying and unsustainable for many people, and potentially anxiety inducing for some. So really, it's at best pointless, for many it's unsustainable, and for some it's bad for mental health.

For people who have actual health issues that are made better by this diet, then there's a benefit for them which outweighs the difficulty that comes from avoiding specific foods. But for everyone else.... not so.

Yes but that's just your opinion - not fact.

In my opinion the benefits are - I don't have the anxiety of worrying about what I eat or the hassle of having to log everything I consume or the worry that I am eating too much of one type of macro nutrient compared to another.

Also I'm not having to control carving to eat food, which whilst taste good when I eat them I normally feel regretful afterwards.

I have a constant stream of energy and do not normally need to eat until gone noon. I now tend not to snack and don't get insulin spikes when I eat too much or have sugar crashes afterwards.

I did have digestion problems because of all the insoluble fiber I was eating (and was always feeling bloated - now gone). I eat a lot of soluble fiber and my heartburn I used to get on an off has not appeared in the last couple of months.

So I think the take away from this is we are all different - just because you would struggle with cutting out food which may or may not add to possible health issues - doesn't mean it isn't the case for others (it certainly isn't for me or other people eating paleo or primal or other versions of LCHF and believe me there are millions of them).

snowflake954

Hi OP here

so I did not know how HOT TOPIC this was.. sorry!

Ok I don't have any health issues, I am finally at a healthy weight.. I'm 5'2 and weigh around 122-125 lbs.. so keeping it that way is my challenge... I'd like to thank everyone for their advice or sharing their info...

I have to admit it is kind of ironic how this thread went since I have a BA in Anthropology and my Thesis was on Neanderthals - Hunter Gatherers or scavengers LOL

Got to look at the funny side of life cause if we don't then whats the point

OP--don't worry, this topic always turns into a slug out between paleo and the rest of the world. In the end they just all exhaust themselves until the next go-round. However paleo doesn't convince me--not sustainable long-term. Give me someone who's been on it 10 years or more and we'll see. Until then it's just a fad, except for those who do it for health reasons--a minority.

QuietBloom

all the various health markers improved as a result of the twinkie diet. He had protein powder, not just vitamin pills, and his macro intake was balanced. The diet was twinkies, protein powder, vitamin pills. Balanced macros. His health improved. He wouldn't have become insulin resistant as the amount of twinkies was controlled to keep him in calorie deficit and to prevent him from eating too much carbohydrate.

The main disadvantage with the twinkie diet is that it's not remotely filling or sustainable. The guy must have been constantly starving hungry. The amount of twinkies needed to meet his carb and fat macros wasn't many. He probably got utterly sick to death of twinkies too. And it's a competely unsustainable approach to eating. And relying on a multivitamin/mineral supplement for *all* your micronutrient needs IMO is putting too much faith in the vitamin manufacturers ability to create a pill that can meet all your micronutrient needs.

The take home message should be that it's not individual foods that cause obesity and other food related health problems, it's an unbalanced diet, i.e. too much of some things, not enough of others. the standard American diet has too much fat and carbs and not enough vitamins minerals and fibre, and the result is high levels of obesity and blood sugar issues. Go to some really poor and deprived parts of the world and you'll find diets lacking in protein, carbohydrate, vitamins and minerals and people suffering from kwashiorkor, rickets and similar.

IIFYM does not mean just eat whatever, it means focusing on giving your body the nutrients it needs, without giving up any foods that you want to eat. It's not a free-for-all to eat whatever you want and just stop when you hit your calorie goal. It takes a lot of planning to fit stuff like pizza into your macros. It usually means eating high protein low fat low carb for the rest of the day, but what you have at the end of the day is balance, i.e. everything your body needs and not too much of anything. People need to learn that in most cases, the poison is in the dose. Too much pizza will make you obese, but careful portion control with pizza means you can enjoy it and still be healthy and not become obese. Ditto any other food (food intolerances/allergies excepted... in those cases then yes total avoidance is usually the best course of action).

Thanks for the background on the twinky diet - so obviously not a comparison to Paleo (sorry Geeb, don't really no where you were coming from on that one).

I would suggest that as meat, veggies and fruit (nuts) are the staple diet for Paleo that there are literally millions of food combinations that a Paleo meal can consist of. So a few more choices than just twinkies an whey. lol

But I still do not understand how the Paleo diet is considered unhealthy?

What are the health benefits in people avoiding foods that are not making them ill? If something's difficult to do, and there's no benefit from doing it, then why bother with it? That's the issue. And for people who have a tendency towards anxiety, convincing them that certain foods are making them ill when they're not, resulting in them anxiously avoiding those foods when there's no actual benefit to it, is bad for their mental health.

It's more that the whole approach to paleo eating is utterly pointless and potentially anxiety inducing/worsening, for anyone who isn't actually intolerant to all the foods on the "don't eat" list, than whether the diet provides people with all the nutrients they need. There's more to health than good nutrition. Just like the twinkie diet is inadequate because living off twinkies, protein powder and vitamin pills is inherently unsatisfying and unsustainable... diets that tell people to avoid foods for no reason other than pseudoscience, are also inherently unsatisfying and unsustainable for many people, and potentially anxiety inducing for some. So really, it's at best pointless, for many it's unsustainable, and for some it's bad for mental health.

For people who have actual health issues that are made better by this diet, then there's a benefit for them which outweighs the difficulty that comes from avoiding specific foods. But for everyone else.... not so.

Excellent post!

jmv7117

Paleo is stupid, uneccessary, potentially unhealthy and as an idea it is utterly fallicious.
Clean eating is on the same boat, but the level of negatives is dependant on how obsessive you are about what specific foods you're eating or not.

I don't understand why people can't accept that fact that the healthiest way to diet is to track your calories, track your macros, hit your goals, get in sufficient micronutrients and phytonutrients and be sane. Processed foods and whole foods.
Chemicals in foods =/= always bad for you
Natural =/= always good for you
Processed =/= always bad for you

I've never once seed a justified response to someone avoiding "processed foods", as if all processed foods are processed in one way, at one level.

We have eaten what is considered clean since newlyweds well over 30 years ago and even growing up. We don't call it clean eating just simply eating. I certainly don't consider it stupid in any way, shape or form. We don't buy: canned soups, ready meals, boxed foods, frozen meals, ready snacks, most dry cereals, mass produced baked foods, lunch meat, processed cheese products and mass produced canned foods so that is about as close to avoiding processed foods as you can get. Very little of our food dollar is spent at a grocery store. I can't say we don't eat processed foods as we dry, freeze and can our foods ourselves and yes, the produce is either home grown or purchased from local organic growers and our meats are both local, and hormone free. Most of the fish we eat is locally caught. Stupid? No! Healthy? Yes! Frugal? Yes!

BTW, you don't need to eat Paleo, vegan, clean, upside down or right side up to lose weight. All you need is a calorie deficit.