I would suggest everyone to read Alan Aragon's latest blog h

joejccva71

It's a long blog, but Alan once again NAILS it. Favorite it, or bump it for later reading.


"The Dirt on Clean Eating" - by Alan Aragon

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/#

Some notables quoted below. Also note the references at the bottom of the site.

Attempts at Objectively Defining Clean

Scientific investigations of the nutritional status of bodybuilders have shown some interesting results, and here are some of the highlights. Kleiner and colleagues examined the pre-contest dietary habits of male & female junior national & national-level competitors,15-40% of whom admitted to using various drugs [1]. Despite consuming adequate total calories, women were “remarkably deficient” in calcium intake, which is not surprising given the widespread milk-phobia among bodybuilders. In subsequent work led by Kleiner on female & male competitors at the first drug-tested USA Championship, men consumed only 46% of the RDA for vitamin D. Women consumed 0% of the RDA for vitamin D, and 52% of the RDA for calcium [2]. Zinc, copper, and chromium were also underconsumed by the women. Despite dietary magnesium intakes above the RDA, serum magnesium levels in females were low. Serum zinc levels were high in men and women. It’s notable that not all research on bodybuilders has found nutrient deficiencies. Intakes in significant excess of the RDA in both offseason and pre-contest conditions have also been seen [3,4]. Still, the potential for nutrient deficiencies in this population is strong due to the elimination of food groups combined with a high training volume and lowered caloric intake overall.

The two most commonly cited characteristics of foods considered clean are a lack of processing and a high nutrient density. Let’s look at processing first. Foods in their whole, naturally occurring state are often deemed clean. In contrast, foods that are altered or removed from their original state are stripped of the clean stamp. Is this demerit warranted? As we’ll see, this is not a reliable method of judgment for all foods. By this definition, most supplements are dirty, since they often undergo extensive processing and are far-removed from their original source.

To use a common example, whey is doubly processed in the sense that it’s not only a powdered form of milk protein, but it’s a separated fraction of milk protein. Yet, when combining the results of standard ranking methods (biological value, protein efficiency ratio, net protein utilization, and protein digestibility corrected amino acid score), whey has a higher total than all other proteins tested, including beef, egg, milk, and soy [5]. Furthermore, research has shown not only its benefits for training applications [6], but whey has a surprisingly wide range of potential for clinical applications as well [7-10]. Therefore, despite whey being a refined/processed food, it has multiple benefits and minimal downsides.

The next commonly proposed qualifier for a food to be considered clean is its nutrient density. A little-known fact is that there is no scientific consensus on what nutrient density actually means. To quote Miller and colleagues [11],

“There is currently no science-based definition for either nutrient density or nutrient-dense foods. Without a definition that has been developed using an objective, scientific approach, the concept of what is a “nutritious” food is subjective and, therefore, inconsistent.”

The existence of multiple methods of measuring diet quality illustrates the point expressed in the quote above. Nutrient profiling systems include the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), Diet Quality Index, and Alternative HEI. The most recent profiling method is the Nutrient Rich Foods Index (NRFI). The NRFI attempts to consolidate principles from previous methods to establish a more comprehensive definition of nutrient density. It judges individual foods based on the presence of selected important nutrients and absence of problematic ones [12]. Still, the NRFI has its bugs and biases, particularly against saturated fat (& fat in general).

Dirty Fat Loss

Clean diets are commonly touted to produce more favorable body composition changes than unclean diets. In fact, some even claim that dirty dieting will not allow fat loss to occur. For weight or fat loss, concerns of a dirty diet used to be centered on fat intake. That’s no longer the case; carbohydrate has been receiving the brunt of the contempt lately. In light of the current sugar-phobic climate with an emphasis on fructose, the following studies deserve special attention.

First up, Surwit and colleagues compared the 6-week effects of 2 hypocaloric diets - one with 43% of the total calories as sucrose (table sugar), and one with 4% of the total calories as sucrose [15]. No significant differences were seen in the loss of bodyweight or bodyfat between the high and low-sucrose groups. Strengthening these results was the use of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to measure body composition. Furthermore, no differences in blood lipids or metabolism were seen between the groups. It looks like a more sugary intake still cannot override a calorie deficit.

Next up is a recent study by Madero and colleagues, comparing the 6-week effects of a low-fructose diet (less than 20 g/day) or a moderate-fructose diet (50-70 g/day) mostly from whole fruit [16]. The moderate-fructose group lost significantly more weight than the low-fructose group (4.19 kg versus 2.83 kg, respectively). Notably, the moderate-fructose group lost slightly more fat, but not to a statistically significant degree. Unfortunately, body composition was measured with bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) instead of something more reliable like DXA. Nevertheless, bodybuilders afraid of fruit would have to admit that the dirtier diet prevailed in this case.

Trans fatty acids (TFA) have earned a lot of bad press for their adverse effects on biomarkers of cardiovascular health [17,18]. However, some research indicates that not all TFA are harmful. A distinction should be made between industrially produced TFA via hydrogenation of vegetable oils, and naturally occurring TFA in dairy and meat [19]. Vaccenic acid, the main form of TFA in ruminant fats, might actually lower the risk for coronary heart disease [20]. Currently, there’s no controlled human research specifically comparing the effects of TFA with other types of fats on body composition. In any case, the fitness-conscious population has nothing to worry about unless they start indiscriminately gorging on fast food, cooking with vegetable shortening, and pounding loads of processed/packaged pastries and desserts.

Sublog

1st on epic thread. LOL

TK421NotAtPost

BUMP!!!!!!!!!

alleyag

Excellent post

joejccva71

BUMP!!!!!!!!!

My monitor appreciates the water and spit now. Thanks bud! *shakes fist* LOL

_gwen

Food dogma, gotta love it!

Thanks for the link to the main article.

I agree with his point about the pitfalls of all-or-nothing diets of any kind. It also explains the origins of the phrase 'clean eating', given no one can quite agree what 'clean' means.

KeriA

good article, liked the historical perspective.

NiciS72

Bump

AnnaPixie

love any article that debunks the carb myth!! :bigsmile:

nicshaw95

Bump

ChappyEight

It's a year old, but it's important to revisit.

Sidesteal

It's a year old, but it's important to revisit.

Yep, you can pretty much guarantee that anything Alan Aragon has to say about nutrition will be worth listening to.

meechi53

love any article that debunks the carb myth!! :bigsmile:

ME TOO!!

Bread Eaters-UNITE!

Still_Fluffy

Bumb for later

Sarauk2sf

Bumping cause Aragon is da bomb!

ciobair

love any article that debunks the carb myth!! :bigsmile:

ME TOO!!

Bread Eaters-UNITE!

mmmmmmmmmm bread

JackShow70

I have been looking for EXACTLY this sort of posting. Thanks!

IronPlayground

That article never gets old. Thanks for reposting.

tobnrn

Bumping to read after work.

tammys_changing

Great information and makes complete sense. Thanks for posting!!!!

WendyTerry420

love any article that debunks the carb myth!! :bigsmile:

Same here!

brismom070897

bump

hypallage

Bump - far too long to read on my phone!!

AnvilHead

Yep, you can pretty much guarantee that anything Alan Aragon has to say about nutrition will be worth listening to.

+1. Aragon is one of the few people I pay any attention to. He cuts through the broscience and tells it like it is.

ipag

I actually like this article, it has most of the same principles that I follow on a Paleo diet (which some see as a low carb diet), particularly the Applying Moderation: The 10-20% Guideline section. I can also guarantee the group that consumed 43% of the total calories as sucrose (table sugar) felt awful in doing so, but numbers and math never lie. I also don't see where bread was mentioned though as a source of carbohydrate, only fruit, unless that is categorized under the sucrose label. Can someone enlighten me?

ChrisGoldn

tagging

theartichoke

Saving. Thanks!

happythermia

bump for later!

YoYo1951

bump for later

Shock_Wave

There ya go a balanced diet rules. :drinker:

rlv2680

bump