"Clean" vs. "unclean" eating studies?
Options
Replies
-
I think Lyle McDonald did some commentary on a study comparing the hormonal effects between a fast food meal and a home cooked one but other than that I can't think of one of relevance.
However Dr David Katz and Stephanie Meller reviewed many of the common diets out there including low carb, Paleo, low GI, Mediterranean and came to these earth shattering conclusions:
"There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding. For many reasons, such studies are unlikely."
and
"A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention."
as while they concluded no one diet was the "best" there were common elements across all eating patterns associated with good health outcomes. Shocking news, I know. Try and stay on your chair.
Personally, I find most people on either side of the clean eating v dirty eating debate to be insufferable.0 -
I agree. Why is it that people eat things like morning star. They are so processed its ridiculous. Just because they are veggies. They are considered healthy. It's completely weird to me. I love cereal crackers etc. They are highly processed. I don't eat them all day every day. I eat them in addition to my other items. Try to eat fresh but sometimes I just can't. Today I ate grapes 2 corn tortillas and a salad from taco cabana. Minus the shell. Not clean not low in carbs not unhealthy. But it was so yummy. I am full and don't regret eating it. I will go to the gym for one hour today. Because it's good for me. I am diabetic so I have to be careful with my food. I need to lose 50 more pounds. All I know is it isn't good for me to eat all junk. I think balance is the key. I wish there was a study that really did address this. Maybe eat junk for 6 months and then healthy for 6 months. Then let a Dr. Determine the results. All I can think about is super size me. However there is a guy who eats mcds every day and he's fit as a fiddle. Not sure what the answer is but I want to research it.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.
Thanks! That one hasn't been posted yet. And it is interesting...no nutrient-related difference in health markers between eating organic and non-organic foods. Makes you wonder why it costs 2-3 times as much.0 -
This was one of the more interesting studies I've read here. Though it's not so much about overall health as about metabolism. But it did make me think twice about choosing processed foods.
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755
Conclusion: Ingestion of the particular PF meal tested in this study decreases postprandial energy expenditure by nearly 50% compared with the isoenergetic WF meal.
(PF: processed food, WF: whole food)0 -
I think Lyle McDonald did some commentary on a study comparing the hormonal effects between a fast food meal and a home cooked one but other than that I can't think of one of relevance.
However Dr David Katz and Stephanie Meller reviewed many of the common diets out there including low carb, Paleo, low GI, Mediterranean and came to these earth shattering conclusions:
"There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding. For many reasons, such studies are unlikely."
and
"A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention."
as while they concluded no one diet was the "best" there were common elements across all eating patterns associated with good health outcomes. Shocking news, I know. Try and stay on your chair.
Personally, I find most people on either side of the clean eating v dirty eating debate to be insufferable.
Thanks! Dr. Katz is on my list for further research, and I'll add Meller.
0 -
This was one of the more interesting studies I've read here. Though it's not so much about overall health as about metabolism. But it did make me think twice about choosing processed foods.
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755
Conclusion: Ingestion of the particular PF meal tested in this study decreases postprandial energy expenditure by nearly 50% compared with the isoenergetic WF meal.
(PF: processed food, WF: whole food)
Yeah, we looked at that study on another site. While very small, it's still really interesting. It basically addresses whole grains specifically, but I hadn't looked at them from quite that angle before, so it was really good information!0 -
For me personally I think of clean as whole foods that I have prepared that nutritionally dense but necessarily calorie dense. This would include: fresh/frozen vegetables, fresh fruit, lean meat, potatoes, sweet potatoes, milk, nuts, legumes, whole oats.
Canned foods, pre-prepared meals, whole foods that have been processed (added chemicals and or cooked at a factory - out of my control) would be considered unclean I guess.
Its kind of hard to get fat eating the "clean foods", because they are typically lower in calories and I they do not induce cravings in me so I don't tend to overeat.
If I eat foods on the unclean list, they tend not to be very satisfying so I end up eating more.
This is purely anecdotal of course.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.)
Pretty much any meat most people eat is processed, unless you hunt and process it yourself or we are talking about fish you caught. Like I said above, I get my meat from a local farm, but I don't "process" it. I buy it processed for me.
But I just wish people would get over the stupid term "clean" and the general objection to "processing," as if that weren't an enormously broad category and be specific about what they object to. The reason they don't is (A) the real intent is to preen about how what they eat is "cleaner" than what others eat (however irrational that is usually, especially if you compare diaries); and (B) we are grouping together a whole bunch of different things--the benefits of a balanced diet, the benefits of not eating too much low nutrition/high calorie foods, and the ideological objection to certain additives, as well as some hippy-dippy anti corporation stuff, and depending on the particular "clean" eater some ideas about the badness of meat or modern life or whatever (depending on if one is paleo or vegan, etc.). I share in some of the knee jerk sentiments--there are reasons I prefer to get as much of my food as possible from local farms--but I try to be honest about the fact that this is more sentimental on my part than really an evidence-based health choice.
If you want to define "clean" as "not processed," you are excluding lots of foods that I happen to eat (like yogurt, smoked salmon, etc.) but which I also think aren't bad for any of the reasons usually alleged generally about "processed" or "unclean" foods. I include them in my diet not merely because they taste good, despite health considerations, but also BECAUSE OF health considerations. If someone told me I should cut them out (as clean eaters claim), I would ask why, and I've yet to get a good answer. (No, me not being a baby cow is not a good answer.)
Similarly, in that lots of "clean" types have a paleo POV, I hardly think eating "clean" protects you from sat fat. (I'm not worried about sat fat, but just noticed that above.)
And if I can get the ingredients for a pie from the green market (which I mostly can, but for the dreaded sugar), why could that not be "clean"? I am a good cook, I like making pie for holidays, it's kind of icky IMO that my pie is supposed to be "unclean" or a piece or two is supposed to be inconsistent with health. I can promise you that I didn't get fat because I occasionally bake pie for my friends and family.0 -
For me personally I think of clean as whole foods that I have prepared that nutritionally dense but necessarily calorie dense. This would include: fresh/frozen vegetables, fresh fruit, lean meat, potatoes, sweet potatoes, milk, nuts, legumes, whole oats.
Canned foods, pre-prepared meals, whole foods that have been processed (added chemicals and or cooked at a factory - out of my control) would be considered unclean I guess.
Its kind of hard to get fat eating the "clean foods", because they are typically lower in calories and I they do not induce cravings in me so I don't tend to overeat.
If I eat foods on the unclean list, they tend not to be very satisfying so I end up eating more.
This is purely anecdotal of course.
But why canned foods? You can easily find canned vegetables in which the only ingredients are the vegetable and salt...and you can usually find low sodium or no salt added varieties. So what is it about canning that makes a food unclean?
And you include milk...do you include other diary? I can assure you that it's quite easy to get fat eating potatoes and cheese if you eat them in even moderately large quantities. And does preparation matter? If I take some really lean, wild-caught, environmentally conscious fish and fry it, is it still clean? Does it make a difference if I use peanut oil or coconut oil?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.)
Pretty much any meat most people eat is processed, unless you hunt and process it yourself or we are talking about fish you caught. Like I said above, I get my meat from a local farm, but I don't "process" it. I buy it processed for me.
But I just wish people would get over the stupid term "clean" and the general objection to "processing," as if that weren't an enormously broad category and be specific about what they object to. The reason they don't is (A) the real intent is to preen about how what they eat is "cleaner" than what others eat (however irrational that is usually, especially if you compare diaries); and (B) we are grouping together a whole bunch of different things--the benefits of a balanced diet, the benefits of not eating too much low nutrition/high calorie foods, and the ideological objection to certain additives, as well as some hippy-dippy anti corporation stuff, and depending on the particular "clean" eater some ideas about the badness of meat or modern life or whatever (depending on if one is paleo or vegan, etc.). I share in some of the knee jerk sentiments--there are reasons I prefer to get as much of my food as possible from local farms--but I try to be honest about the fact that this is more sentimental on my part than really an evidence-based health choice.
If you want to define "clean" as "not processed," you are excluding lots of foods that I happen to eat (like yogurt, smoked salmon, etc.) but which I also think aren't bad for any of the reasons usually alleged generally about "processed" or "unclean" foods. I include them in my diet not merely because they taste good, despite health considerations, but also BECAUSE OF health considerations. If someone told me I should cut them out (as clean eaters claim), I would ask why, and I've yet to get a good answer. (No, me not being a baby cow is not a good answer.)
Similarly, in that lots of "clean" types have a paleo POV, I hardly think eating "clean" protects you from sat fat. (I'm not worried about sat fat, but just noticed that above.)
And if I can get the ingredients for a pie from the green market (which I mostly can, but for the dreaded sugar), why could that not be "clean"? I am a good cook, I like making pie for holidays, it's kind of icky IMO that my pie is supposed to be "unclean" or a piece or two is supposed to be inconsistent with health. I can promise you that I didn't get fat because I occasionally bake pie for my friends and family.
Exactly. Cashews are deadly if they're not processed. You literally cannot eat raw cashews without dying. Are they unclean?
And what if you make a fruit pie sweetened with honey? Does that make it clean?0 -
For me personally I think of clean as whole foods that I have prepared that nutritionally dense but necessarily calorie dense. This would include: fresh/frozen vegetables, fresh fruit, lean meat, potatoes, sweet potatoes, milk, nuts, legumes, whole oats.
I don't quite understand this. Clearly frozen veggies, oats, most dairy products, dried or canned legumes, and some lean meat (think ground beef) is processed even beyond the standard processing that anything you buy undergoes (especially meat and anything in a carton, like milk).
So are you saying you have a different definition of "clean" entirely--nutritionally dense but not calorie dense? Even lean meats and whole milk and potatoes and legumes/grains are calorie dense in some sense. But I think this is a more sensible way to look at nutrition than what is normally talked about as "clean", although again I think it makes much more sense to talk about a diet than specific foods. That's because eating 100% oats or broccoli or lean meat isn't any good either--the goal is to get a nice balance, and if you get a balance and have leftover calories or a need for added energy, what's unhealthy about including some non nutrient dense items in moderation?
Also, what does the "leanness" of a meat have to do with its "cleanliness"? Like I've mentioned, I get meat from a local farm, and those cuts tend often to be less lean than commercially available meat. Pork, for example, comes from less lean breeds. But beyond that, why would the fattier cuts of the animal be "unclean"? Seems to me that it's more "natural" to eat as much of the animal as possible, after all.Canned foods, pre-prepared meals, whole foods that have been processed (added chemicals and or cooked at a factory - out of my control) would be considered unclean I guess.
Well, as discussed above, the food items listed as "clean" are often processed.Its kind of hard to get fat eating the "clean foods", because they are typically lower in calories and I they do not induce cravings in me so I don't tend to overeat.
Well, if you introduce personal definitions like beef short ribs are unclean and skinless, boneless chicken breast (speaking of processed) is clean, then that might be true, but I don't think the claim about lower in calories is really true.
As for cravings, it depends on the person. I don't really get cravings, but I am hungrier if I eat lots of carbs on their own than if I eat carbs with protein and fat. I haven't found that whole wheat/brown rice vs. white makes much difference here, but I generally try not to eat carbs on their own. I did experiment with steel cut oats instead of my usual eggs for breakfast and found that for me, due to the higher carbs/lower fat, it was less satisfying by lunch. I'll still eat it on occasion to switch it up, but it's the macros, not the "cleanliness" that seems to matter for me.
I note that you acknowledged that your points were anecdotal ones, and I totally agree that people should see what works for them and go with it. I just dislike the rather arbitrary and unnecessary use of the term "clean" as part of this process. Especially since it tends to mean "foods that I approve of." I mean, I could just declare that the foods I find helpful are clean too, but that seems confusing and obnoxious and kind of hypocritical, so I don't (and keep getting into these discussions).0 -
I'm still baffled as to what inherent quality canned food possesses that makes it automatically unclean? For example, I recently bought a can of pumpkin puree. The ingredient list: Pumpkin. That's all. They didn't even add salt. How, exactly, is this different than buying a pumpkin and pureeing it myself?0
-
I'm still baffled as to what inherent quality canned food possesses that makes it automatically unclean? For example, I recently bought a can of pumpkin puree. The ingredient list: Pumpkin. That's all. They didn't even add salt. How, exactly, is this different than buying a pumpkin and pureeing it myself?
Time0 -
I'm still baffled as to what inherent quality canned food possesses that makes it automatically unclean? For example, I recently bought a can of pumpkin puree. The ingredient list: Pumpkin. That's all. They didn't even add salt. How, exactly, is this different than buying a pumpkin and pureeing it myself?
Time
LOL! Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I thought the context made the question clear...How, exactly, is a can of pumpkin puree more or less "clean" than a fresh pureed pumpkin? How does the process of canning it make it less clean, and what specific health metric is impacted by eating canned as opposed to fresh pumpkin?0 -
Again. clean has no clear definition and therefore, no right answer. I just finished canning 48 litre jars of tomatoes with basil from my garden and if you include processing as a disqualification of clean, then my tomatoes don't meet that criteria, do they? Ask yourself does that makes sense and does anything processed disqualify itself automatically?I'm still baffled as to what inherent quality canned food possesses that makes it automatically unclean? For example, I recently bought a can of pumpkin puree. The ingredient list: Pumpkin. That's all. They didn't even add salt. How, exactly, is this different than buying a pumpkin and pureeing it myself?
Time
LOL! Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I thought the context made the question clear...How, exactly, is a can of pumpkin puree more or less "clean" than a fresh pureed pumpkin? How does the process of canning it make it less clean, and what specific health metric is impacted by eating canned as opposed to fresh pumpkin?0 -
Again. clean has no clear definition and therefore, no right answer. I just finished canning 48 litre jars of tomatoes with basil from my garden and if you include processing as a disqualification of clean, then my tomatoes don't meet that criteria, do they? Ask yourself does that makes sense and does anything processed disqualify itself automatically?I'm still baffled as to what inherent quality canned food possesses that makes it automatically unclean? For example, I recently bought a can of pumpkin puree. The ingredient list: Pumpkin. That's all. They didn't even add salt. How, exactly, is this different than buying a pumpkin and pureeing it myself?
Time
LOL! Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I thought the context made the question clear...How, exactly, is a can of pumpkin puree more or less "clean" than a fresh pureed pumpkin? How does the process of canning it make it less clean, and what specific health metric is impacted by eating canned as opposed to fresh pumpkin?
Indeed...which is why I keep questioning it when previous posters list "canned" as a disqualifier. I'd like to know what intrinsic property canned food has that makes it automatically unclean, regardless of its contents.0 -
Well because there is no clear definition of what clean is.......people that put food into categories like that generally are fairly new to nutrition and are easily influenced by rhetoric that sounds awfully close to authoritative. Barnum & Bailey took that show on the road and made lots of money.
Again. clean has no clear definition and therefore, no right answer. I just finished canning 48 litre jars of tomatoes with basil from my garden and if you include processing as a disqualification of clean, then my tomatoes don't meet that criteria, do they? Ask yourself does that makes sense and does anything processed disqualify itself automatically?I'm still baffled as to what inherent quality canned food possesses that makes it automatically unclean? For example, I recently bought a can of pumpkin puree. The ingredient list: Pumpkin. That's all. They didn't even add salt. How, exactly, is this different than buying a pumpkin and pureeing it myself?
Time
LOL! Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I thought the context made the question clear...How, exactly, is a can of pumpkin puree more or less "clean" than a fresh pureed pumpkin? How does the process of canning it make it less clean, and what specific health metric is impacted by eating canned as opposed to fresh pumpkin?
Indeed...which is why I keep questioning it when previous posters list "canned" as a disqualifier. I'd like to know what intrinsic property canned food has that makes it automatically unclean, regardless of its contents.0 -
I'll read this thread when I get home tonight...but I can give personal data supporting clean.
I took part in a BB comp on 30 Aug, came in at 184 lbs, BF 5.4%
Yesterday, same person doing BF % measurement btw, I weighed 184, BF 7.9%
So in 20 days of my off season, where I've gone from eatting very high protein ie egg whites, chicken and fish to last 3 weeks of higher carbs/fat i.e pesto, sausage and beer..I've gained 2.5% BF. Again, same weight.
Possibly some of that is additional fluids...but for me..it's pretty obvious.0 -
Calories the same. Weight training the same? Did you remove most carbs leading up to your contest? Seems kinda obvious to me too.I'll read this thread when I get home tonight...but I can give personal data supporting clean.
I took part in a BB comp on 30 Aug, came in at 184 lbs, BF 5.4%
Yesterday, same person doing BF % measurement btw, I weighed 184, BF 7.9%
So in 20 days of my off season, where I've gone from eatting very high protein ie egg whites, chicken and fish to last 3 weeks of higher carbs/fat i.e pesto, sausage and beer..I've gained 2.5% BF. Again, same weight.
Possibly some of that is additional fluids...but for me..it's pretty obvious.0 -
Calories the same. Weight training the same? Did you remove most carbs leading up to your contest? Seems kinda obvious to me too.I'll read this thread when I get home tonight...but I can give personal data supporting clean.
I took part in a BB comp on 30 Aug, came in at 184 lbs, BF 5.4%
Yesterday, same person doing BF % measurement btw, I weighed 184, BF 7.9%
So in 20 days of my off season, where I've gone from eatting very high protein ie egg whites, chicken and fish to last 3 weeks of higher carbs/fat i.e pesto, sausage and beer..I've gained 2.5% BF. Again, same weight.
Possibly some of that is additional fluids...but for me..it's pretty obvious.
That last week was doing various days of loading/deloading, but prior to that week, very low carbs always under 100 g but most days below 50.
Training wise have gone from two adays training session leading up to comp, reps 8-12 to once a day traiing, higher weight, reps 5-6, same number of sets per body part0
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