"Clean" vs. "unclean" eating studies?
Options
Replies
-
What does science have to do with what I said???
I am not making the case that you have to eat certain foods and not eat other foods to lose weight and be healthy, or whatever your goals are.
And I agree with you that companies do stuff w/ their food products to make it taste better so you eat more....again, it doesn't take me looking for a science paper to prove or disprove, I can look at the ingredients label for that.
No be curious, I am as well. Just don't blame the producers of said products for your weight loss or gain....seeing as how we agree on the above about them making their products more desirable.
Really good article that was posted:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html/
It is very wrong....cause those companies cannot force you to buy their products.
Plain and simple
You choose to go to the store
You choose to purchase said products
You choose to put said products in your mouth, over and over.....
not the company's fault.
Whose definition of "clean"?
So if I prepare the food at home, it is "clean"??
And you are picking out one choice I listed....there are multiple choices you can choose from for why a person (who has no medical issues) is overweight.....and they all come down to choice.
And how much you stick in your mouth.
The link you sent to the article is on topic. It was a very small test but it does talk about what we're discussing. I wish there was a study to this effect on a large scale with long term research results. I don't think its conclusive proof of anything but it is the kind of research we're looking for. Maybe there will be one in the future that can end this debate forever.
Not sure that the definition of clean foods is necessary to my point. All I'm saying is making and planning clean meals (however you want to define that) is not lazy. Its obviously more work than grabbing fast food. That's all I'm saying.
Correct. I did not dispute your other points because I agree with them.
Junk food isn't shoved down our throats no. But it is constantly put in our faces through advertising, a lot of advertising is and has been targeted at children. That makes me angry. I can still be angry at them and its not hurting anyone or impeding their progress by pointing out what they're doing.
I respect the fact that you have passionate feelings about helping people lose weight. I appreciate that.
Please don't misunderstand my long posts as whining. If they annoy you please don't read them. I have a Bachelor's in English with a minor in technical writing. I love to read and dissect complicated information from multiple sources and analyze it and assemble it into new writing. I love reading scientific journals in particular. Knowing more about the world around me keeps me inspired to keep going. My posts are simply sharing all the information I've gathered in my journey with others...not making excuses. I think its a little weird you'd assume that about me anyway... but whatever.0 -
Not likely to find anything that fits the bill entirely but these may be of interest.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897733/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18267998 (<--- dont have the full text but I assume the MRP is a processed shake of sorts)
EDIT:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/69/2/198.long (<--- again probably doesn't fit your criteria but they replace a portion of calories with an MRP in one group)
Sorry, you got lost in the shuffle...and that first article is also exactly the sort of thing I was looking for! Thanks! Although this study is also extremely small in scale, it brings up an interesting point that I hadn't thought of: the whole foods (whole grains specifically, in this case) took more energy to digest than the processed foods (made with refined grains) and this had a statistically significant impact on metabolic rate hours after the food was eaten. Again, extremely small study, but if this held true over the course of time in larger populations, then it could significantly impact weight, and hence other health markers.
So, that's at least a potential point in favor of whole grains vs. refined....I knew that already, but hadn't thought about specifics as to why, in relation to the energy expended in digesting them.0 -
You can't address "total health" with just diet - it's going to require exercise as well. Probably a lot of it.
This is true. The benefits of exercise are just beginning to be appreciated. As an example, High Intensity Interval Training has been shown to increase human growth hormone by up to 700%. Since those supplies diminish with every decade, as we age, we need to incorporate HIIT as part of our fitness routine. As with exercise, we are just beginning to appreciate the micro-nutrients that are available in various natural foods and refined out in many processed foods. There are hundreds of health-building compounds in foods that we know about, and probably thousands that we don't know about. As an example, mushrooms provide a bonanza of health-building compounds: polysaccharides, like beta glucan for building immunity; triterpenes, which are steroid-like molecules that inhibit histamine release and have anti-inflammatory properties; all mushrooms harbor large amounts of a powerful antioxidant called L-ergothioneine and that may be responsible for the cancer prevention properties that mushrooms are believed to have. The scientific thinking is that this humble collection of fungi, are the only foods that contain this compound (for the moment at least--"more research needed").
0 -
I know this is going to sound silly but today is the first time I have heard macro. Can you explain what they are to me?
All the answers you need can be found here:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=macronutrients0 -
watch super size me on Netflix. that will answer your questions. i would explain further but i dont want to get into a food war.0
-
So, if a person is 50 lbs over weigh because of eating too much of foods that are considered " clean" ( as in my case, never really ate junk or processed foods, fast foods, etc just serving sizes too big of what I was eating) vs. being 50 lbs overweight from eating too much " unclean" food is the risk of health problems the same? is it the excess body weight that is the health issue or what you ate to have the excess weight the issue?
Always wondered? I know of many people who are of " normal weight" who eating habits are awful but somehow these people are perceived by some as "healthy" because their weight is normal.
I wonder about this too. As an overweight person who does not have diabetes or HBP, and has great cholesterol levels, I consider myself to be healthy, just overweight. I do have Hypothyroidism and am an emotional eater, so I eat too much and don't metabolize normally, but I don't eat entire cakes or 17 Big Macs. I know people who are in a 'normal' weight range, who eat fast food daily, consume tons of soda, and eat a lot of junk food snacks. Most of them have high cholesterol or HBP, so how are they considered healthy?0 -
You can't address "total health" with just diet - it's going to require exercise as well. Probably a lot of it.
This is true. The benefits of exercise are just beginning to be appreciated. As an example, High Intensity Interval Training has been shown to increase human growth hormone by up to 700%. Since those supplies diminish with every decade, as we age, we need to incorporate HIIT as part of our fitness routine. As with exercise, we are just beginning to appreciate the micro-nutrients that are available in various natural foods and refined out in many processed foods. There are hundreds of health-building compounds in foods that we know about, and probably thousands that we don't know about. As an example, mushrooms provide a bonanza of health-building compounds: polysaccharides, like beta glucan for building immunity; triterpenes, which are steroid-like molecules that inhibit histamine release and have anti-inflammatory properties; all mushrooms harbor large amounts of a powerful antioxidant called L-ergothioneine and that may be responsible for the cancer prevention properties that mushrooms are believed to have. The scientific thinking is that this humble collection of fungi, are the only foods that contain this compound (for the moment at least--"more research needed").
I wish I liked mushrooms. *sigh*
Yes, there is a wealth of information that we just don't know yet, and it's frustrating that studies haven't been done on things like the clean/unclean foods question, when such questions seem so obvious to ask.
I'm extremely interested as well in the recent study on artificial sweeteners...I drink a lot of aspartame in the form of diet soda. I'm very interested in the potential impact on gut flora, as I firmly believe that the potentially biggest impacts on our health that are yet undiscovered will be gut flora and fiber intake. I'd like to maintain a healthy intestinal colony, since I believe it's vital for good health, and it does concern me that my diet soda might negatively impact that.0 -
Ha! I know all about the Twinkie diet, as I'm usually the one who posts it. But that doesn't really address the question, as there's no control group and tests to compare. And I'm not interested necessarily in just weight loss, but also in general health markers.
I'm really curious as to whether this clean eating rage makes a real difference, as most of those who tout it claim that while CICO works for weight loss, clean eating also addresses total health. I'd like to see proof of that. Does it exist?
Take it for what its worth. I can find you some more if you like these are the preliminaries of coming studies in the work at Harvard and John Hopkins
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eKGvGksKdloC&oi=fnd&pg=PT1&dq=Clean+Eating+vs+BAd+eating&ots=2jqsjP8F_x&sig=BQO5bB_PFPtGdpcruDtDaB-jTF4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666313003942
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666312005077
Thanks! The book was super interesting to skim through, but didn't really address clean/unclean. It still had a lot of valuable information, though.
The studies were about peer pressure relating to healthy/unhealthy food choices, and modern portion sizes as barriers to weight loss (which corresponds with what I was saying earlier.) Good try, though!!
Sorry you don't get it. But I do have a doctor in Computer science and research is the synapses of research papers. So you skimmed through something without having the knowledge or the willing to open up to something that could prove or disprove a hypothesis. Research is like eating healthy and unhealthy you can make bad synopsis on things without pulling 100's of research papers into the equation. There is no one stop shop in research that will tell you the person the right and wrong with both. This will come however with other researchers that will follow to answer that question when people don't learn how to eat correctly and eating basic food groups. That means good fats and bad fats will play a big part of this.
Next time I will get a connect the dots form for you to really understand what Clean Eating and Un-Clean eating really is. I will make a point to pull hundred of papers together and zip them up for you to read.
Thanks
Really? You're going to throw a sarcastic little tantrum because your links didn't provide relevant information? Perhaps, as has been stated repeatedly, the problem is in our definitions of "clean" eating.
The confusion, as clearly evidenced in previous posts, is that this not only involves the types of foods, but also in how they are prepared and with what other ingredients...ie. canned, frozen, read-made meals, etc. with or without additives or preservatives and possibly fortified with extra nutrients. Is sugar clean? Is ice cream from the store clean? Is it cleaner if I make it myself? Is Bryers clean, with it's tiny list of understandable ingredients, as opposed to some other brand with preservatives and solidifiers?
So the question has never been about whether veggies are good for you, which is what you seem to be trying to answer...it's whether processed veggies have a different health impact than fresh veggies. I'm afraid your response did not address that.
Well I guess you took it as throwing a tantrum. That is what people think sometimes but its a reflected objective discussion where the question was not relatively precise (New Form New Question). Since we are taking about fresh veggies and canned ones OR processed and unprocessed lets say this.
The question as stated is does fresh vegetables have the same nutrients and health impact as canned ones?
Since this is a two part and one one part was answered in the study you provided here is the Nutrients one.
The impact on health was undetermined with the subset of data predictors. Now however since the questions was direct this time and not general like clean or unclean.Many ultra-processed food products are accurately
termed ‘fast’ foods or ‘convenience’ foods. Many have
long or very long shelf-lives, often because they are
relatively devoid of perishable nutrients, or are even
practically imperishable, in contrast to all fresh foods.
I will state this research which provides little more information for you in comparison on health impact.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224499000230Preservation methods are generally believed to be responsible for a depletion of naturally occurring antioxidants in food. Processed fruit and vegetables are expected to have a lower health protecting capacity than fresh ones.
So don't get your red hair ruffled on this when someone disagrees or does not understand the full perspective when it comes to two forums (I am not reading the other) and this one which asks a generalized question. IN MFP please be more direct and we can determine the objective together and find the solution so people that are new or don't have internet or know what they are looking for can find informed discussions here so they can make better choices.0 -
watch super size me on Netflix. that will answer your questions. i would explain further but i dont want to get into a food war.
No, as has already been addressed, Supersize Me is about caloric intake, and has nothing to do with food quality. The man overate, he gained weight, and his health markers deteriorated accordingly. Now if that same man made a follow-up in which he ate the same number of calories, with the same macro percentages, only with clean foods instead of McDonald's, then we would see if the health outcome was the same, and he might be able to make his point. Until then, the message is simply don't overeat.0 -
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.
I don't find it that hard in part of the year, and it's how I get my meat all year (except for fish). It's basically impossible where I live in another part of the year, though, unless one wants a really restrictive diet, which would be a lot less healthy in ways that are important to me.
Again, this is why I think the blanket claims about "natural" or "unprocessed" being more healthy aren't really thought through.0 -
Certainly, when I hit about 75 I'm going to take up cigar smoking. I love the smell but don't want to die of cancer just yet.
Not to derail, but if you smoke cigars the way most people smoke cigars (1-2 per week, or even 1 per day, and don't inhale), your health is unlikely to be affected.
The government "study" that gets passed around to show that CIGAR SMOKING IS JUST AS BAD AS CIGARETTES!!!1!! only looked at people who smoked multiple cigars per day every single day and inhaled.
I smoke cigars and have a lot of cigar-smoking friends, and I don't know anyone who does either of those things.
Like all things, moderation is key.
Yes, I don't know anyone who inhales cigar smoke either. I also don't know anyone who eats peas with a butter knife.
Oh, and you don't need to inhale cigar smoke to get any of the various oral cancers (e.g. lip and tongue). Sure, you can smoke cigars for years and not succumb to anything more serious than bad odor (just as many cigarette smokers do), but don't go preaching about how "safe" they are.
But just so I know the official MFP party line: Are cigars now promoted in "moderation?"0 -
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.
Impossible assertion to make when there's no agreement on what's clean and what's not.
I love roast chicken and potatoes (and assume they should count as clean), but they have more calories than, say, some Fage 0%, which clearly is "unclean" under the usual definition. Neither has all that much fiber.0 -
So, if a person is 50 lbs over weigh because of eating too much of foods that are considered " clean" ( as in my case, never really ate junk or processed foods, fast foods, etc just serving sizes too big of what I was eating) vs. being 50 lbs overweight from eating too much " unclean" food is the risk of health problems the same? is it the excess body weight that is the health issue or what you ate to have the excess weight the issue?
Always wondered? I know of many people who are of " normal weight" who eating habits are awful but somehow these people are perceived by some as "healthy" because their weight is normal.
I wonder about this too. As an overweight person who does not have diabetes or HBP, and has great cholesterol levels, I consider myself to be healthy, just overweight. I do have Hypothyroidism and am an emotional eater, so I eat too much and don't metabolize normally, but I don't eat entire cakes or 17 Big Macs. I know people who are in a 'normal' weight range, who eat fast food daily, consume tons of soda, and eat a lot of junk food snacks. Most of them have high cholesterol or HBP, so how are they considered healthy?
Interesting theory and research is starting to look at the possibility that it is not so much obesity that is the health threat (not morbid obesity which, of course, is life-threatening) as much as it is the poor nutritional status of many who are overweight. They already know that "central obesity" with much visceral fat, is more of a health liability than is "distributed obesity" that is more concentrated in the thighs and buttocks (what many women have). Body fat will store many toxins and taking in a lot of toxins as the fat is being added, may be more of a health liability than fat that is more "pure". When fat is pulled from storage and burned in the body, it likely could make a difference in the health status of the body of such a person. We already know that from the animal world. I remember reading once that dolphins will die when metabolizing their fat, if they have absorbed many toxins while adding the fat.0 -
So, if a person is 50 lbs over weigh because of eating too much of foods that are considered " clean" ( as in my case, never really ate junk or processed foods, fast foods, etc just serving sizes too big of what I was eating) vs. being 50 lbs overweight from eating too much " unclean" food is the risk of health problems the same? is it the excess body weight that is the health issue or what you ate to have the excess weight the issue?
Always wondered? I know of many people who are of " normal weight" who eating habits are awful but somehow these people are perceived by some as "healthy" because their weight is normal.
I wonder about this too. As an overweight person who does not have diabetes or HBP, and has great cholesterol levels, I consider myself to be healthy, just overweight. I do have Hypothyroidism and am an emotional eater, so I eat too much and don't metabolize normally, but I don't eat entire cakes or 17 Big Macs. I know people who are in a 'normal' weight range, who eat fast food daily, consume tons of soda, and eat a lot of junk food snacks. Most of them have high cholesterol or HBP, so how are they considered healthy?
I think you make some great points here. I've been curious about this as well. There was an interesting study (a pretty big one) that looked into health and people who were overweight and their risk of mortality. Also an interesting discussion about BMI calculations and what should be considered "normal" Here's a link to the article. I haven't managed to find a copy of the full scientific study but I'll post it if I do find it:
http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/02/being-overweight-is-linked-to-lower-risk-of-mortality/0 -
Sorry you don't get it. But I do have a doctor in Computer science and research is the synapses of research papers. So you skimmed through something without having the knowledge or the willing to open up to something that could prove or disprove a hypothesis. Research is like eating healthy and unhealthy you can make bad synopsis on things without pulling 100's of research papers into the equation. There is no one stop shop in research that will tell you the person the right and wrong with both. This will come however with other researchers that will follow to answer that question when people don't learn how to eat correctly and eating basic food groups. That means good fats and bad fats will play a big part of this.
Next time I will get a connect the dots form for you to really understand what Clean Eating and Un-Clean eating really is. I will make a point to pull hundred of papers together and zip them up for you to read.
Thanks
Nope, the bold parts are the parts where it appears you threw a tantrum because your answers didn't address the question, which was indeed clearly stated in previous posts that you apparently didn't read. This is what "ruffled" my red hair.
But to answer your most recent reply, again, the book was nice and gave some good info, but didn't address clean vs. unclean, unless you only count types of food as a determining factor...and it listed zero studies to address effects of, for example, processed veggies as opposed to fresh.
The two studies you posted only listed the abstracts, and the information you quoted were not in those abstracts, and I'm not paying $39.95 to read them Do you have another link which actually shows the full study? 0 -
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.
Impossible assertion to make when there's no agreement on what's clean and what's not.
I love roast chicken and potatoes (and assume they should count as clean), but they have more calories than, say, some Fage 0%, which clearly is "unclean" under the usual definition. Neither has all that much fiber.
Although it would depend on the definition of clean certainly (that is still up for debate)
I'd think if you averaged out a list of fruit, veggies and meat (non processed meats) anything traditionally considered "clean" or unprocessed and lined it up with a list of the foods traditionally considered "processed" foods. On average they would be much lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. Yes some foods like potatoes have lots of carbs. But there's no sodium in them or chemicals like you'd find in a box of instant potatoes. Yes roast chicken has calories. But not like KFC.)0 -
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.
Impossible assertion to make when there's no agreement on what's clean and what's not.
I love roast chicken and potatoes (and assume they should count as clean), but they have more calories than, say, some Fage 0%, which clearly is "unclean" under the usual definition. Neither has all that much fiber.
Although it would depend on the definition of clean certainly (that is still up for debate)
I'd think if you averaged out a list of fruit, veggies and meat (non processed meats) anything traditionally considered "clean" or unprocessed and lined it up with a list of the foods traditionally considered "processed" foods. On average they would be much lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. Yes some foods like potatoes have lots of carbs. But there's no sodium in them or chemicals like you'd find in a box of instant potatoes. Yes roast chicken has calories. But not like KFC.)
This is true, but I think dividing it that way already has a different name: whole foods. And I agree wholeheartedly that whole foods are preferable to processed foods for a variety of reasons...but my understanding of "clean" involves more than just the type of food you're eating. It also involves how it's prepared (ie. canned, frozen, fried, etc.) and whether there are additional ingredients like sweeteners, additives and preservatives. Does that make sense?
So, chicken can be clean if it's organic, free range, with no hormones or antibiotics, and if it's prepared with fresh herbs and spices and little added "bad" fats. Or it can be dirty if it's full of hormones and drugs, and it's breaded in white flour and deep fried.
ETA: So, for the purposes of this thread, if we we prepared these two chickens in ways which gave them a similar calorie and macro content, then would they have a different effect on our health? (The chicken is a bit of an extreme example, because arguably the hormones/drugs could have an adverse effect regardless of the rest of the variables)0 -
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.
Impossible assertion to make when there's no agreement on what's clean and what's not.
I love roast chicken and potatoes (and assume they should count as clean), but they have more calories than, say, some Fage 0%, which clearly is "unclean" under the usual definition. Neither has all that much fiber.
Although it would depend on the definition of clean certainly (that is still up for debate)
I'd think if you averaged out a list of fruit, veggies and meat (non processed meats) anything traditionally considered "clean" or unprocessed and lined it up with a list of the foods traditionally considered "processed" foods. On average they would be much lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. Yes some foods like potatoes have lots of carbs. But there's no sodium in them or chemicals like you'd find in a box of instant potatoes. Yes roast chicken has calories. But not like KFC.)
This is true, but I think dividing it that way already has a different name: whole foods. And I agree wholeheartedly that whole foods are preferable to processed foods for a variety of reasons...but my understanding of "clean" involves more than just the type of food you're eating. It also involves how it's prepared (ie. canned, frozen, fried, etc.) and whether there are additional ingredients like sweeteners, additives and preservatives. Does that make sense?
So, chicken can be clean if it's organic, free range, with no hormones or antibiotics, and if it's prepared with fresh herbs and spices and little added "bad" fats. Or it can be dirty if it's full of hormones and drugs, and it's breaded in white flour and deep fried.
So what does it make it if it is organic, free range and stuff but deep fried or full of hormones and prepared with herbs and spices?0 -
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.
Impossible assertion to make when there's no agreement on what's clean and what's not.
I love roast chicken and potatoes (and assume they should count as clean), but they have more calories than, say, some Fage 0%, which clearly is "unclean" under the usual definition. Neither has all that much fiber.
Although it would depend on the definition of clean certainly (that is still up for debate)
I'd think if you averaged out a list of fruit, veggies and meat (non processed meats) anything traditionally considered "clean" or unprocessed and lined it up with a list of the foods traditionally considered "processed" foods. On average they would be much lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. Yes some foods like potatoes have lots of carbs. But there's no sodium in them or chemicals like you'd find in a box of instant potatoes. Yes roast chicken has calories. But not like KFC.)
This is true, but I think dividing it that way already has a different name: whole foods. And I agree wholeheartedly that whole foods are preferable to processed foods for a variety of reasons...but my understanding of "clean" involves more than just the type of food you're eating. It also involves how it's prepared (ie. canned, frozen, fried, etc.) and whether there are additional ingredients like sweeteners, additives and preservatives. Does that make sense?
So, chicken can be clean if it's organic, free range, with no hormones or antibiotics, and if it's prepared with fresh herbs and spices and little added "bad" fats. Or it can be dirty if it's full of hormones and drugs, and it's breaded in white flour and deep fried.
So what does it make it if it is organic, free range and stuff but deep fried or full of hormones and prepared with herbs and spices?
That's the question, right? Where is the line between clean and unclean, and why? What impact does it have on health metrics? As I was asking before about tomatoes...does picking fresh tomatoes from my backyard have a different effect on my health than buying cans of tomato sauce? Even if they have a preservative, but one that has been proven non-toxic and unharmful?0 -
Not sure if this has been linked but http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/1/203.full this is a review of all the studies (1958-10 March 2010) regarding Organic vs conventionally produced foodstuffs.Conclusion: From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 995 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions