"Clean" vs. "unclean" eating studies?

MityMax96

"Clean" eating helps me hit my macro targets.. it would be difficult to hit them eating fast food. Although I eat ice cream every day. And McDonalds quite a bit.

This gets into the fact that "clean" eating is completely vague and "processed" as usually used by "clean" eaters is incoherent.

I don't like fast food, so almost never eat it, but also I don't eat "clean" because I don't believe in the concept (calling foods dirty, acting as if nutrition is about not eating foods vs seeking out a nutritionally balanced diet). Another reason I think it would be silly for me to give up processed foods is that they are extremely helpful for me in meeting my macros. Greek yogurt, for example.

Oh, and I also like to have ice cream when I have the calories. I don't see why this is bad if I don't skimp on my nutrition to do it.

A study that compared "clean" eating with sensible eating of the sort that seems to be the usual alternative recommended around here would be interesting, but I doubt it's been done. Lots of difficulties. There are efforts to compare vegetarians and not, but causation is always a problem.

This is the part that stuck with me. The study would be impossible to conduct because of the randomness and vagueness of "clean eating." Studies need to be done with concrete terms and conditions. Clean eating as it is so loosely defined makes that impossible.

To study a diet without processed foods we first have to define what a processed food is. People who say they eat clean think that's simple. But many vegetables are processed in some form before being sold. Should those be eliminated? Of course every clean eater would say no, that's not what they meant.

Science would also assume given the conditions laid out that things like yogurt, cheese, butter, seasonings, milk, etc. would need to be eliminated. Show me one self proclaimed clean eater who avoids these foods and I'll mail you cookies. Clean cookies.

Every clean eater sets their own standards for what is considered "clean." And hey, that's fine. More power to ya, best of luck in all your endeavors. But there's no way for science to deal with that, much less test it.

It is a made up concept with no definition or clear guidelines. May as well try to study what color unicorns are.

The only way you could get close to being "clean" is if you were to grow and raise all your own food. :laugh: :laugh:

lemurcat12

Have you ever read "It Starts With Food"? That is the book that launched the "Whole 30" lifestyle change. I haven't done a study, but I can say from my own experience that switching from a lot of processed (boxed/canned) food to eating natural foods had a tremendous impact on my health -- I was able to get off my blood pressure medicine, lost 10% of my body weight, have so much more energy, my skin has been eczema free for over a year, I sleep at night rather than toss and turn, no more joint pain, allergies reduced (except when I am petting my dogs!) and bonus - no hot flashes anymore! What I found to be most enlightening is that I did not know how bad I felt on a daily basis, until I didn't feel that way anymore.

What I liked about the Whole 30 book is that it has realistic expectations - not everyone can afford all natural, organic, grass fed, etc foods, so it gives advice on which things are most important. The information is presented in a sensible way, and the idea of 85/15 was more realistic to me (because who is really able to give up everything forever? No chocolate for 30 days, sure, but forever?)

I think people who improve their diets often feel better, especially if they happen to find a way of eating that works for their bodies and personalities particularly well. This is especially true if they were eating badly in some way before--without adequate nutrition, in a non satiating way, too many carbs for their lifestyle, not especially tasty food (which is what I think about most packaged items), etc. Add to this that being obese may come with weird reactions to carbs, etc (though not for everyone), and that might make the effect even greater.

What is a mistake, though, and why the "clean eating" stuff is so obnoxious, is that you can't assume from all this that everyone, or even most, feel better eliminating all non nutrient dense foods (ie, no ice cream, no pie on a special occasion) or that "processing" which is never defined has anything to do with anything.

No one is saying that the way you eat doesn't matter. The point is that CICO is what is needed for weight loss (saying someone can't lose eating McDs is just a lie), and while eating healthily is good for other reasons, sensible people may not agree that "clean" eating is the most healthy. If I were to do what I think "clean eating" requires, to be at all consistent--eat what I can grow or is grown or hunted around me--I'd have a far worse diet.

Docbanana2002

Our bodies were made to eat real food; so it makes sense that anything that is not "real" would wreak havoc eventually. To me, real food, clean food, is anything that has not been altered. Of course, that does not mean cooking.

So, no study then? Thank you for once again posting a conclusion with no support.

To be fair, you failed to give credit to the imminent authority "Itmakes Sense". "They Say" and "Mygrandma Who" are also important researchers in this area.

Laura732

Studies or not, this is something that's easy enough to experiment with yourself. Personally, I found it easier to lose weight as I incorporated more organic, natural, and unprocessed food. In my case, I dropped 40 lbs between 2008 and 2011. My results spoke for themselves, and continue to.

neanderthin

RCT's for any length of time with enough participants is prohibitive....never going to happen. You also can't control calorie intake simply because everyone requires different amounts. Genetics, lifestyle, family, culture etc all contribute to someones overall health, food actually isn't that important in the big scheme of things if someone isn't overweight or obese.

I am not a scientist so I know nothing about control groups and studies, but is there perhaps a study out there that measures the effects of eating whole vs. processed foods on a group that is within normal weight ranges (so that the obesity issue doesn't play in)?

Of course food is just a small part of our overall health, but I have a hard time believing that a lifetime of eating processed foods full of various lab-made chemicals is not going to have some detrimental effects when compared to eating natural whole foods (preferably not treated with pesticides). At least that is what my gut tells me...

Lifestyle trumps food preferences. I doubt you'll find a group that only eats highly processed foods where whole foods are non existent.....packaged meat like beef or chicken is processed but is considered a whole food imo, so studies for processed or whole foods don't exist. Epidemiology studies do show the group/quartile that consumes the most processed foods to be in worse health than the group that consumes less but it will also show that their lifestyle is mostly in conflict with each other.

lemurcat12

Im amazed at just how hung up people are about this subject. I hadnt really heard about clean food till a few months ago.
Some food is more nutritious and healthier for a person than other foods. No sure why that would be controversial. The ratio ive seen is an 80/20 between clean and unclean is perfectly fine. One day Ill get there consistently.

All this arguing about it all seems a bit of a waste. Everyone can pick their own diet. For me part of the diet will be to eat better balanced and healthier food than I have been as part of a lifestyle change.

You are not comprehending that "clean eating" is not simply eating a balanced nutritious diet overall. That's what the non clean eaters here tend to recommend. A food can be not nutrient dense but still a good part of an overall healthy diet, if you focus on meeting nutritional needs, macros, etc. Yet "clean" eaters would ban it or call it "toxic" or "unclean" or say it's a cheat or something to feel guilty about. I think that's a bad way to look at food.

Similarly, there is more to eating a good diet than banning "unclean" foods (even apart from the stupid ways these are often defined, slandering the poor potato, for example). I've seen tons of self proclaimed clean eaters who eat way more highly processed stuff than me and --more significantly--few veggies, all the time while patting themselves on the back for being so "clean" and ant processed. It's weird. It usually suggests an unwillingness to really learn about nutrition or even what the word processed means.

erickirb

Studies or not, this is something that's easy enough to experiment with yourself. Personally, I found it easier to lose weight as I incorporated more organic, natural, and unprocessed food. In my case, I dropped 40 lbs between 2008 and 2011. My results spoke for themselves, and continue to.

This may be true, but did you try getting the exact same macros and micros trying it both ways? If not just 'cause your results are correlated does not man causation.

leggup

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23599238
People who eat more fruits and vegetables live longer. "Inverse associations were stronger for raw than for cooked vegetable consumption." So, raw veg is better than cooked veg? Hard to say. They weren't that much stronger and it's hard to account for other variables, like volume of raw vs cooked veg consumed, which veg (some have to be cooked, really), and so forth. Also, some foods need to be cooked for maximum nutritional benefit/digestibility. This study could be seen as pro-clean (vegan, raw) eating.

There is a book called "Healthy at 100" about the eating/lifestyle/cultural habits of people who have lived to be 100 years old. One of his topic points is that the people of Okinawa eat 7 servings of whole grains per day. They, as a people, have some of the longest lifespans in the world.

Forbes posted a good rundown on a few studies on mortality and diet, especially with large (population-based) samples: http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/06/centenarians-exercise-diet-personal-finance-retirement-live-to-100.html

Helpful quotes:
"A 2005 study followed 75,000 older Europeans and rated them on a nine-point Mediterranean diet scale. One point each was given for high consumption of vegetables, fruits, beans, whole grains, fish and unsaturated fats; one point each for low meat and dairy consumption; one point for moderate alcohol use. Those who scored six or higher had a 17% lower risk of dying in the period looked at than those who scored a zero to three, after adjusting for differences in weight, exercise habits and smoking, according to a report in the British Medical Journal. An additional one-third pound of vegetables daily reduced the mortality rate by 6%, while eating 13 grams more of saturated fat daily boosted the death risk by 7%."

"In California, Seventh-Day Adventists who are vegetarians live about a year and a half longer than those who eat meat, according to a 2001 study of 34,000 Adventists published in the Archives of Internal Medicine."

"A 2009 study in Archives of Internal Medicine that followed 547,000 older Americans found those who ate the most red meat had a 31% to 36% higher risk of dying over 10 years."

Honestly, I can't find a single study about how an entire population eats just processed food or just easy mac or just raw til 4 or just.. blah blah blah. One thing that is a jab on "Clean Eating" (which I take to be raw vegan) or Paleo (often brought up in the same discussion) is that fiber is a large part of most Centenarian diets. Seventh-day Adventists eat whole grain bread. Okinawans eat sweet potatoes and rice.

Tl;dr: Lots of vegetables and fruits. Lots of whole grains. Go easy on the meat, especially red.

glasshalffull713

The only way you could get close to being "clean" is if you were to grow and raise all your own food. :laugh: :laugh:

A good argument for trying to buy locally raised/grown food, where you can actually see the conditions, ask the farmer what they use, etc. I try to do this as much as possible, but it is really hard.

SunofaBeach14

There is a book called "Healthy at 100" about the eating/lifestyle/cultural habits of people who have lived to be 100 years old. One of his topic points is that the people of Okinawa eat 7 servings of whole grains per day. They, as a people, have some of the longest lifespans in the world.

Horse ****. Have you ever been to Okinawa? They eat white rice and pork and fish.

earlnabby

You will find the studies as soon as someone definitively comes up with an explanation of what "clean eating" really is. Paleo, low carbers, low fatters, vegans, vegetarians, etc all fall into the "clean eating" category but what they allow and don't allow are as different from each other as night and day.

glasshalffull713

RCT's for any length of time with enough participants is prohibitive....never going to happen. You also can't control calorie intake simply because everyone requires different amounts. Genetics, lifestyle, family, culture etc all contribute to someones overall health, food actually isn't that important in the big scheme of things if someone isn't overweight or obese.

I am not a scientist so I know nothing about control groups and studies, but is there perhaps a study out there that measures the effects of eating whole vs. processed foods on a group that is within normal weight ranges (so that the obesity issue doesn't play in)?

Of course food is just a small part of our overall health, but I have a hard time believing that a lifetime of eating processed foods full of various lab-made chemicals is not going to have some detrimental effects when compared to eating natural whole foods (preferably not treated with pesticides). At least that is what my gut tells me...

Lifestyle trumps food preferences. I doubt you'll find a group that only eats highly processed foods where whole foods are non existent.....packaged meat like beef or chicken is processed but is considered a whole food imo, so studies for processed or whole foods don't exist. Epidemiology studies do show the group/quartile that consumes the most processed foods to be in worse health than the group that consumes less but it will also show that their lifestyle is mostly in conflict with each other.

Good point, lifestyle and eating choices are often correlated. I do wonder though if there is any evidence that supports the anecdotal results people report of reduction of symptoms when removing additives and preservatives from their diets? Like for example, eczema, headaches, stomach upset, allergy symptoms, etc? Surely there have been studies on additives and side effects. I have mostly seen that there is conflicting research on these types of things though, and lots of tests on animals rather than humans...

Alluminati

Our bodies were made to eat real food; so it makes sense that anything that is not "real" would wreak havoc eventually. To me, real food, clean food, is anything that has not been altered. Of course, that does not mean cooking.

So, no study then? Thank you for once again posting a conclusion with no support.

To be fair, you failed to give credit to the imminent authority "Itmakes Sense". "They Say" and "Mygrandma Who" are also important researchers in this area.

:laugh: ^^ word.

neanderthin

RCT's for any length of time with enough participants is prohibitive....never going to happen. You also can't control calorie intake simply because everyone requires different amounts. Genetics, lifestyle, family, culture etc all contribute to someones overall health, food actually isn't that important in the big scheme of things if someone isn't overweight or obese.

I am not a scientist so I know nothing about control groups and studies, but is there perhaps a study out there that measures the effects of eating whole vs. processed foods on a group that is within normal weight ranges (so that the obesity issue doesn't play in)?

Of course food is just a small part of our overall health, but I have a hard time believing that a lifetime of eating processed foods full of various lab-made chemicals is not going to have some detrimental effects when compared to eating natural whole foods (preferably not treated with pesticides). At least that is what my gut tells me...

Lifestyle trumps food preferences. I doubt you'll find a group that only eats highly processed foods where whole foods are non existent.....packaged meat like beef or chicken is processed but is considered a whole food imo, so studies for processed or whole foods don't exist. Epidemiology studies do show the group/quartile that consumes the most processed foods to be in worse health than the group that consumes less but it will also show that their lifestyle is mostly in conflict with each other.

Good point, lifestyle and eating choices are often correlated. I do wonder though if there is any evidence that supports the anecdotal results people report of reduction of symptoms when removing additives and preservatives from their diets? Like for example, eczema, headaches, stomach upset, allergy symptoms, etc? Surely there have been studies on additives and side effects. I have mostly seen that there is conflicting research on these types of things though, and lots of tests on animals rather than humans...

No Idea. I don't think that the absence of such symptoms are exempt from what would be considered a whole food diet.....I'm sure all centenarians have experienced those health issues. Saying that, I agree that the fewer man made additives, preservatives etc we inhale/consume/apply the better.

Alluminati

"In California, Seventh-Day Adventists who are vegetarians live about a year and a half longer than those who eat meat, according to a 2001 study of 34,000 Adventists published in the Archives of Internal Medicine."

Seventh-Day Adventists who are that devout, aside from not eating meat, also don't believe in smoking,drinking, wearing make-up, going to the club etc etc (it all leads to bad health and high risk behavior a.k.a. SINNING). So it would make sense that they live longer because they don't do anything except go to church an pray and eat eggs:laugh:

Seriously though, I went to SDA schools until 7th grade. They wouldn't let you do ANYTHING! It sucked major b*lls and I was happy when the parentals wizened up and sent me to Catholic school :smokin:

independant2406

If you look at "clean" foods they are typically lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. They also have more fiber, healthy fats/oils, natural sugars and nutritional value.

Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422440800229X

I think almost any diet anywhere puts these clean foods on their "please eat more of these" list. For this reason scientists may find it a bit redundant to study clean foods vs processed food. Kind of a no-brainer that they're healthier. BUT this doesn't stop people from believing processed foods are just as healthy for them.

If you google "scientific studies processed food" on google scholar you'll find a surprisingly low number of studies about the affects of processed food on the human body in regards to health. What you will find is a volume of studies about artificial stuff and how it makes food texture, taste and color more appealing... (aka engineered to be addictive and harder to stop eating.)

I encourage you to watch the documentary "Food Inc." and you'll probably come to some additional conclusions as to why whole food vs processed food isn't something anyone has studied. The documentary is free if you have Netflix. Then I encourage you to do some homework and to see if what is presented in the documentary is fact or fiction. Its really worth the time to do so.

Here's some facts supported by scientific study and history:

The creation of processed foods began as a government project during the great depression and the world wars, when it became necessary to have cheap food fast. (MRE's etc). After World War 2 more women began working full time and needed easy foods like Jello, Cheerios and TV dinners to feed their families.

Now take a look at some facts about american's weight during this timeframe and the introduction of these processed foods:
http://authoritynutrition.com/11-graphs-that-show-what-is-wrong-with-modern-diet/
Notice a trend?

If you look at the % of Americans who are overweight, they are usually found in the lower income bracket and eat more processed foods (because its cheaper to eat off the $1 menu than to buy healthy foods.) Wealthier Americans eat more clean foods (because they can afford it) and tend to weigh less.

Sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589839
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19298418

There have been studies showing the marked increase in weight gain in America and comparing it to rise in the price of healthy food.

"In the past 30 years, the price of fruit and vegetables rose much faster than the prices of all other consumer goods in the U.S. At the same time, the price of sugar, sweets, and carbonated drinks declined relative to other products, (64)"
Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/food-environment-and-obesity/

A few scientists are talking openly about clean foods though. If you Google Dr. David Katz, the director of Yale's Prevention Research Center he has done several interviews promoting clean foods vs processed foods.

I also encourage you to research the eating habits in European countries vs. America. Google "slow food Europe." Having traveled overseas I can tell you Europeans have cracked down hard on things like trans fats that are a result of super processed foods.There's a trend towards "slow food" rather than "fast food". This means they still eat Pasta and bread but likely it was made at a local bakery, or that same day at the restaurant and not in a huge factory and loaded full of chemicals to give it a long shelf life. Due to strict regulations on the meat industry they can also track exactly which cow and which farm your slab of beef came from.

Can you lose weight while eating processed foods? Yep.
Is it healthier to eat clean foods? Yep.

What foods leave you fuller longer?

Potatoes
Fish
Oatmeal
Oranges
Apples
Brown pasta
Beef
Beans
Grapes
Whole meal/Grain bread
Popcorn
Eggs
Cheese
White rice
Lentils
Brown Rice
Source: S.H.A. Holt, J.C. Brand Miller, P. Petocz, and E. Farmakalidis,
"A Satiety Index of Common Foods," European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, September 1995, pages 675-690.

Vegetables, fruits, and lean meats, do a better job of satisfying your hunger.
"Chicken, beef, fish, beans, or other high-protein foods slow the movement of food from the stomach to the intestine. Slower stomach emptying means you feel full for longer and get hungrier later. Second, protein’s gentle, steady effect on blood sugar avoids the quick, steep rise in blood sugar and just as quick hunger-bell-ringing fall that occurs after eating a rapidly digested carbohydrate, like white bread or baked potato. Third, the body uses more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbohydrate. (14)"
Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein-full-story/

Additionally. I encourage you to educate yourself on what many processed foods contain.

Propylene glycol - commonly found on pre-packaged salads as a preservative - is also found in antifreeze and sexual lubricants.

Tertiary butylhydroquinone - chicken product preservative - a form of butane (aka Lighter Fluid)

Dimethylpolysiloxane - soft drinks, instant coffees, chewing gum, vinegars, cooking oils, confectionary snacks, syrups and chocolates. Dimethylpolysiloxane is used in the manufacturing of skimmed milk and wine fermentation. It can also be found energy or electrolyte drinks. - Also used as an anti-foaming agent for silly putty, cosmetics, shampoos, creation of heat-resistant tiles, caulking, and industrial oils.

E451 — Potassium and sodium triphosphates - processed meats - found in flame retardants, rubber and anti-freeze.

Are these bad for us? Probably. No serious long or short term studies have been done. But boy are they wonderfully chemically engineered to look, feel and taste yummy

RGv2

Our bodies were made to eat real food; so it makes sense that anything that is not "real" would wreak havoc eventually. To me, real food, clean food, is anything that has not been altered. Of course, that does not mean cooking.

So I can't eat the veggies from my garden or the apples off my tree? I mean, the zestar apple has only been around about 15 years and was born in a lab.