Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?

CoachReddy

I actually do not like most fast food and basically do not eat it as I do not think it tastes good and also, not eating meat leaves me limited anyway - but you are using a bit of a strawman here - yours sounds boring..who eats just rice (maybe you do)? Do you not season it or put a sauce on it? Legit question.

I cook it in a bit of homemade bone broth. That's it.

The bone broth is gross chicken bits, bones, veggies and salt.

See...that makes me gag.... I get that there is nothing wrong with it..but...never been much of a fan of rice anyway.

haha that's fine, everyone has different tastes. I don't do rice all that often either these days. but bone broth actually tastes awesome :happy:

jonnythan

BTW, the number .02% comes from applying a 100-fold safety factor above the "lowest dose shown to have any effect whatsoever" as tested on dogs, which are recognized as an especially sensitive species.

DatMurse

This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full

From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).

In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."

In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

is associated with progressive renal disease in humans.

You have to already have it

That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months

If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.

as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage

Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)

no
you are obnoxious
you are creating a straw man arguement and showing studies of over 30 years of age

you are talking about the effects of fructose on rates who have an enzyme that humans do not have.

Even when they talked about humans and the intake of fructose and the amount that is "unsafe"
they talked about 135g of fructose.
thats 5-6 non diet soft drinks




btw new research is against it. this is from a year ago
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22723585

Isocaloric exchange of fructose for other carbohydrate improves long-term glycemic control, as assessed by glycated blood proteins, without affecting insulin in people with diabetes. Generalizability may be limited because most of the trials were <12 weeks and had relatively low MQS (<8). To confirm these findings, larger and longer fructose feeding trials assessing both possible glycemic benefit and adverse metabolic effects are required.

did not affect insulin vs other carbohydrates

Hyperuricemia is linked to gout and features of metabolic syndrome. There is concern that dietary fructose may increase uric acid concentrations. To assess the effects of fructose on serum uric acid concentrations in people with and without diabetes, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for relevant trials (through August 19, 2011). Analyses included all controlled feeding trials ≥ 7 d investigating the effect of fructose feeding on uric acid under isocaloric conditions, where fructose was isocalorically exchanged with other carbohydrate, or hypercaloric conditions, and where a control diet was supplemented with excess energy from fructose. Data were aggregated by the generic inverse variance method using random effects models and expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Q statistic and quantified by I(2). A total of 21 trials in 425 participants met the eligibility criteria. Isocaloric exchange of fructose for other carbohydrate did not affect serum uric acid in diabetic and nondiabetic participants [MD = 0.56 μmol/L (95% CI: -6.62, 7.74)], with no evidence of inter-study heterogeneity. Hypercaloric supplementation of control diets with fructose (+35% excess energy) at extreme doses (213-219 g/d) significantly increased serum uric acid compared with the control diets alone in nondiabetic participants [MD = 31.0 mmol/L (95% CI: 15.4, 46.5)] with no evidence of heterogeneity. Confounding from excess energy cannot be ruled out in the hypercaloric trials. These analyses do not support a uric acid-increasing effect of isocaloric fructose intake in nondiabetic and diabetic participants. Hypercaloric fructose intake may, however, increase uric acid concentrations. The effect of the interaction of energy and fructose remains unclear. Larger, well-designed trials of fructose feeding at "real world" doses are needed.

in regards to diabetes. that means that for isocaloric diets it did not affect the uric acid level vs other diets. in extreme doses it did.
but who would even have 213g of fructose?
as i said. if you took in that much you deserve diabetes or renal problems

you are still spamming blasphemy. please stop cause you are wrong

jonnythan

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

CoachReddy

BTW, the number .02% comes from applying a 100-fold safety factor above the "lowest dose shown to have any effect whatsoever" as tested on dogs, which are recognized as an especially sensitive species.

hey man, when it comes to potential carcinogens, I treat myself as an especially sensitive species because frankly, I'm the only species I give a damn about.

CoachReddy

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

jonnythan

you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

This is a statement 100% unsupported by any evidence at all.

That's the simple truth. I know you will never accept that, but other people need to realize that.

CoachReddy

you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

This is a statement 100% unsupported by any evidence at all.

That's the simple truth. I know you will never accept that, but other people need to realize that.

yeah... there's support. plenty of it.

Unless.......... unless all the doctors in the world, the FDA, the USDA, Weston Price, Dr. Mercola and Andrew Weil are actually all in cahoots? Say it ain't so!

DatMurse

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

lol lean cuisine

jonnythan

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

And here's the real kicker: the vast majority of people who are overweight from poor food decisions, who try to get healthy by eating better and exercising, are better served by my advice than yours.

Why? Because when people think they need to switch to 100% "clean" eating or whatever because people like you convince them that McDonald's and Taco Bell and Subway and whatever are so incredibly unhealthy, they cannot sustain that. They may do it for a while, but in most cases they just give up.

When people like you convince these others that they need to give up stuff they love in order to get healthy, they rarely do for any length of time. They end up going back to McDonald's one day and then the whole enterprise falls apart.

It's important that people understand how to make good, healthy choices instead of automatically demonizing entire brands for no good reason at all. The vast, vast majority of people will be much better equipped for sustained progress if they understand that, yes, they can eat ice cream and pop tarts and tacos sometimes. Your vitriol scares the bejesus out of them.

jonnythan

you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

This is a statement 100% unsupported by any evidence at all.

That's the simple truth. I know you will never accept that, but other people need to realize that.

yeah... there's support. plenty of it.

Unless.......... unless all the doctors in the world, the FDA, the USDA, Weston Price, Dr. Mercola and Andrew Weil are actually all in cahoots? Say it ain't so!

All the doctors in the world?

Careful there. I know a lot of doctors. Not that doctors are really that knowledgeable about nutrition anyway. Most of them know much less than people like Sara and Taso. But, that said, none of the doctors I know advocate anything like what you suggest. Their ideas are much more in line with mine.

shosho420

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/07/healthiest-foods-nutrition-lifestyle-health-healthiest-foods.html

http://www.foodandhealing.com/articles/article-wholefoods.htm

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=faq&dbid=3

http://www.steadyhealth.com/Fast_Food_Facts___the_good__the_bad_and_the_ugly__t66348.html


http://primaltoad.com/taco-bell-least-healthiest-fast-food/

http://www.livestrong.com/article/374345-why-fast-foods-are-bad-for-you/

http://www.charlespoliquin.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/919/Seven_Reasons_to_Eliminate_Processed_Foods_from_Yo.aspx

CoachReddy

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

And here's the real kicker: the vast majority of people who are overweight from poor food decisions, who try to get healthy by eating better and exercising, are better served by my advice than yours.

Why? Because when people think they need to switch to 100% "clean" eating or whatever because people like you convince them that McDonald's and Taco Bell and Subway and whatever are so incredibly unhealthy, they cannot sustain that. They may do it for a while, but in most cases they just give up.

When people like you convince these others that they need to give up stuff they love in order to get healthy, they rarely do for any length of time. They end up going back to McDonald's one day and then the whole enterprise falls apart.

It's important that people understand how to make good, healthy choices instead of automatically demonizing entire brands for no good reason at all. The vast, vast majority of people will be much better equipped for sustained progress if they understand that, yes, they can eat ice cream and pop tarts and tacos sometimes. Your vitriol scares the bejesus out of them.

Don't belittle their intelligence. people just starting out have the choice to listen to me or you if they want, along with any of the other self-proclaimed experts on this site. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can make up their own mind. They don't need your help to show them the way. They're not idiots.

Whatever method WORKS is the one they should do. And that's different for every single person. There's no one-size-fits all. I advocate for more self control and taking a more meticulous interest in your own health and longevity. You're more concerned with convenience. Two different methods to achieve a similar - though hardly identical - goal.

Point is, people can make up their own damn minds without you or me telling them what's "right" or what's "easy" or what they "should" do.

jonnythan

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

And here's the real kicker: the vast majority of people who are overweight from poor food decisions, who try to get healthy by eating better and exercising, are better served by my advice than yours.

Why? Because when people think they need to switch to 100% "clean" eating or whatever because people like you convince them that McDonald's and Taco Bell and Subway and whatever are so incredibly unhealthy, they cannot sustain that. They may do it for a while, but in most cases they just give up.

When people like you convince these others that they need to give up stuff they love in order to get healthy, they rarely do for any length of time. They end up going back to McDonald's one day and then the whole enterprise falls apart.

It's important that people understand how to make good, healthy choices instead of automatically demonizing entire brands for no good reason at all. The vast, vast majority of people will be much better equipped for sustained progress if they understand that, yes, they can eat ice cream and pop tarts and tacos sometimes. Your vitriol scares the bejesus out of them.

Don't belittle their intelligence. people just starting out have the choice to listen to me or you if they want, along with any of the other self-proclaimed experts on this site. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can make up their own mind. They don't need your help to show them the way. They're not idiots.

Whatever method WORKS is the one they should do. And that's different for every single person. There's no one-size-fits all. I advocate for more self control and taking a more meticulous interest in your own health and longevity. You're more concerned with convenience. Two different methods to achieve a similar - though hardly identical - goal.

Point is, people can make up their own damn minds without you or me telling them what's "right" or what's "easy" or what they "should" do.

Well it's easier when you don't lie to them and tell them they "will" look and feel better by eating "clean" foods as opposed to whatever the alternative is.

CoachReddy

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

And here's the real kicker: the vast majority of people who are overweight from poor food decisions, who try to get healthy by eating better and exercising, are better served by my advice than yours.

Why? Because when people think they need to switch to 100% "clean" eating or whatever because people like you convince them that McDonald's and Taco Bell and Subway and whatever are so incredibly unhealthy, they cannot sustain that. They may do it for a while, but in most cases they just give up.

When people like you convince these others that they need to give up stuff they love in order to get healthy, they rarely do for any length of time. They end up going back to McDonald's one day and then the whole enterprise falls apart.

It's important that people understand how to make good, healthy choices instead of automatically demonizing entire brands for no good reason at all. The vast, vast majority of people will be much better equipped for sustained progress if they understand that, yes, they can eat ice cream and pop tarts and tacos sometimes. Your vitriol scares the bejesus out of them.

Don't belittle their intelligence. people just starting out have the choice to listen to me or you if they want, along with any of the other self-proclaimed experts on this site. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can make up their own mind. They don't need your help to show them the way. They're not idiots.

Whatever method WORKS is the one they should do. And that's different for every single person. There's no one-size-fits all. I advocate for more self control and taking a more meticulous interest in your own health and longevity. You're more concerned with convenience. Two different methods to achieve a similar - though hardly identical - goal.

Point is, people can make up their own damn minds without you or me telling them what's "right" or what's "easy" or what they "should" do.

Well it's easier when you don't lie to them and tell them they "will" look and feel better by eating "clean" foods as opposed to whatever the alternative is.

you are the alternative.

tell me, have you ever gone a significant period of time eating "clean"?

2FatToRun

I eat clean because it affords me more food to shovel in my face lol And in the right combos is very filling and ends all cravings from the junk I used to live on daily.

jonnythan

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

And here's the real kicker: the vast majority of people who are overweight from poor food decisions, who try to get healthy by eating better and exercising, are better served by my advice than yours.

Why? Because when people think they need to switch to 100% "clean" eating or whatever because people like you convince them that McDonald's and Taco Bell and Subway and whatever are so incredibly unhealthy, they cannot sustain that. They may do it for a while, but in most cases they just give up.

When people like you convince these others that they need to give up stuff they love in order to get healthy, they rarely do for any length of time. They end up going back to McDonald's one day and then the whole enterprise falls apart.

It's important that people understand how to make good, healthy choices instead of automatically demonizing entire brands for no good reason at all. The vast, vast majority of people will be much better equipped for sustained progress if they understand that, yes, they can eat ice cream and pop tarts and tacos sometimes. Your vitriol scares the bejesus out of them.

Don't belittle their intelligence. people just starting out have the choice to listen to me or you if they want, along with any of the other self-proclaimed experts on this site. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can make up their own mind. They don't need your help to show them the way. They're not idiots.

Whatever method WORKS is the one they should do. And that's different for every single person. There's no one-size-fits all. I advocate for more self control and taking a more meticulous interest in your own health and longevity. You're more concerned with convenience. Two different methods to achieve a similar - though hardly identical - goal.

Point is, people can make up their own damn minds without you or me telling them what's "right" or what's "easy" or what they "should" do.

Well it's easier when you don't lie to them and tell them they "will" look and feel better by eating "clean" foods as opposed to whatever the alternative is.

you are the alternative.

tell me, have you ever gone a significant period of time eating "clean"?

If I'm the alternative, then.. well, that's probably pretty good. In the past month I've lost about 4 lbs of body fat and not a single ounce of lean mass, if I can believe the scale and calipers. I am in excellent health, and during my tough singles tennis match on Saturday my (very in-shape) opponent, towards the end of the match, asked me "you're a runner, right? Marathons maybe? You're in incredible shape, you hardly look like you're breaking a sweat." My blood test levels are all excellent, my blood pressure is excellent, etc.

So if my way is the alternative, then I think most people would be pretty happy with that.

Oh, and after the match I went to Red Lobster and ate 1400 calories.

DatMurse

i just want to put this out there
chik fil a and chipotle are not in the category of fast food
they are between awesome and super awesome

CoachReddy

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

And here's the real kicker: the vast majority of people who are overweight from poor food decisions, who try to get healthy by eating better and exercising, are better served by my advice than yours.

Why? Because when people think they need to switch to 100% "clean" eating or whatever because people like you convince them that McDonald's and Taco Bell and Subway and whatever are so incredibly unhealthy, they cannot sustain that. They may do it for a while, but in most cases they just give up.

When people like you convince these others that they need to give up stuff they love in order to get healthy, they rarely do for any length of time. They end up going back to McDonald's one day and then the whole enterprise falls apart.

It's important that people understand how to make good, healthy choices instead of automatically demonizing entire brands for no good reason at all. The vast, vast majority of people will be much better equipped for sustained progress if they understand that, yes, they can eat ice cream and pop tarts and tacos sometimes. Your vitriol scares the bejesus out of them.

Don't belittle their intelligence. people just starting out have the choice to listen to me or you if they want, along with any of the other self-proclaimed experts on this site. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can make up their own mind. They don't need your help to show them the way. They're not idiots.

Whatever method WORKS is the one they should do. And that's different for every single person. There's no one-size-fits all. I advocate for more self control and taking a more meticulous interest in your own health and longevity. You're more concerned with convenience. Two different methods to achieve a similar - though hardly identical - goal.

Point is, people can make up their own damn minds without you or me telling them what's "right" or what's "easy" or what they "should" do.

Well it's easier when you don't lie to them and tell them they "will" look and feel better by eating "clean" foods as opposed to whatever the alternative is.

you are the alternative.

tell me, have you ever gone a significant period of time eating "clean"?

If I'm the alternative, then.. well, that's probably pretty good. In the past month I've lost about 4 lbs of body fat and not a single ounce of lean mass, if I can believe the scale and calipers. I am in excellent health, and during my tough singles tennis match on Saturday my (very in-shape) opponent, towards the end of the match, asked me "you're a runner, right? Marathons maybe? You're in incredible shape, you hardly look like you're breaking a sweat." My blood test levels are all excellent, my blood pressure is excellent, etc.

So if my way is the alternative, then I think most people would be pretty happy with that.

Oh, and after the match I went to Red Lobster and ate 1400 calories.

answer my question plz

CoachReddy

also:

jonnythan

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

And here's the real kicker: the vast majority of people who are overweight from poor food decisions, who try to get healthy by eating better and exercising, are better served by my advice than yours.

Why? Because when people think they need to switch to 100% "clean" eating or whatever because people like you convince them that McDonald's and Taco Bell and Subway and whatever are so incredibly unhealthy, they cannot sustain that. They may do it for a while, but in most cases they just give up.

When people like you convince these others that they need to give up stuff they love in order to get healthy, they rarely do for any length of time. They end up going back to McDonald's one day and then the whole enterprise falls apart.

It's important that people understand how to make good, healthy choices instead of automatically demonizing entire brands for no good reason at all. The vast, vast majority of people will be much better equipped for sustained progress if they understand that, yes, they can eat ice cream and pop tarts and tacos sometimes. Your vitriol scares the bejesus out of them.

Don't belittle their intelligence. people just starting out have the choice to listen to me or you if they want, along with any of the other self-proclaimed experts on this site. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can make up their own mind. They don't need your help to show them the way. They're not idiots.

Whatever method WORKS is the one they should do. And that's different for every single person. There's no one-size-fits all. I advocate for more self control and taking a more meticulous interest in your own health and longevity. You're more concerned with convenience. Two different methods to achieve a similar - though hardly identical - goal.

Point is, people can make up their own damn minds without you or me telling them what's "right" or what's "easy" or what they "should" do.

Well it's easier when you don't lie to them and tell them they "will" look and feel better by eating "clean" foods as opposed to whatever the alternative is.

you are the alternative.

tell me, have you ever gone a significant period of time eating "clean"?

If I'm the alternative, then.. well, that's probably pretty good. In the past month I've lost about 4 lbs of body fat and not a single ounce of lean mass, if I can believe the scale and calipers. I am in excellent health, and during my tough singles tennis match on Saturday my (very in-shape) opponent, towards the end of the match, asked me "you're a runner, right? Marathons maybe? You're in incredible shape, you hardly look like you're breaking a sweat." My blood test levels are all excellent, my blood pressure is excellent, etc.

So if my way is the alternative, then I think most people would be pretty happy with that.

Oh, and after the match I went to Red Lobster and ate 1400 calories.

answer my question plz

Not by your definition of clean, no.

I wonder how much time you've spent eating fast food four times a week while hitting your macros

CoachReddy

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

And here's the real kicker: the vast majority of people who are overweight from poor food decisions, who try to get healthy by eating better and exercising, are better served by my advice than yours.

Why? Because when people think they need to switch to 100% "clean" eating or whatever because people like you convince them that McDonald's and Taco Bell and Subway and whatever are so incredibly unhealthy, they cannot sustain that. They may do it for a while, but in most cases they just give up.

When people like you convince these others that they need to give up stuff they love in order to get healthy, they rarely do for any length of time. They end up going back to McDonald's one day and then the whole enterprise falls apart.

It's important that people understand how to make good, healthy choices instead of automatically demonizing entire brands for no good reason at all. The vast, vast majority of people will be much better equipped for sustained progress if they understand that, yes, they can eat ice cream and pop tarts and tacos sometimes. Your vitriol scares the bejesus out of them.

Don't belittle their intelligence. people just starting out have the choice to listen to me or you if they want, along with any of the other self-proclaimed experts on this site. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can make up their own mind. They don't need your help to show them the way. They're not idiots.

Whatever method WORKS is the one they should do. And that's different for every single person. There's no one-size-fits all. I advocate for more self control and taking a more meticulous interest in your own health and longevity. You're more concerned with convenience. Two different methods to achieve a similar - though hardly identical - goal.

Point is, people can make up their own damn minds without you or me telling them what's "right" or what's "easy" or what they "should" do.

Well it's easier when you don't lie to them and tell them they "will" look and feel better by eating "clean" foods as opposed to whatever the alternative is.

you are the alternative.

tell me, have you ever gone a significant period of time eating "clean"?

If I'm the alternative, then.. well, that's probably pretty good. In the past month I've lost about 4 lbs of body fat and not a single ounce of lean mass, if I can believe the scale and calipers. I am in excellent health, and during my tough singles tennis match on Saturday my (very in-shape) opponent, towards the end of the match, asked me "you're a runner, right? Marathons maybe? You're in incredible shape, you hardly look like you're breaking a sweat." My blood test levels are all excellent, my blood pressure is excellent, etc.

So if my way is the alternative, then I think most people would be pretty happy with that.

Oh, and after the match I went to Red Lobster and ate 1400 calories.

answer my question plz

Not by your definition of clean, no.

I wonder how much time you've spent eating fast food four times a week while hitting your macros

um... plenty? before I started eating well I ate fast food all the time.

but point being, if you've never eaten "clean" for any period of time, then how do you know you wouldn't feel/perform better?

jonnythan

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

And here's the real kicker: the vast majority of people who are overweight from poor food decisions, who try to get healthy by eating better and exercising, are better served by my advice than yours.

Why? Because when people think they need to switch to 100% "clean" eating or whatever because people like you convince them that McDonald's and Taco Bell and Subway and whatever are so incredibly unhealthy, they cannot sustain that. They may do it for a while, but in most cases they just give up.

When people like you convince these others that they need to give up stuff they love in order to get healthy, they rarely do for any length of time. They end up going back to McDonald's one day and then the whole enterprise falls apart.

It's important that people understand how to make good, healthy choices instead of automatically demonizing entire brands for no good reason at all. The vast, vast majority of people will be much better equipped for sustained progress if they understand that, yes, they can eat ice cream and pop tarts and tacos sometimes. Your vitriol scares the bejesus out of them.

Don't belittle their intelligence. people just starting out have the choice to listen to me or you if they want, along with any of the other self-proclaimed experts on this site. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can make up their own mind. They don't need your help to show them the way. They're not idiots.

Whatever method WORKS is the one they should do. And that's different for every single person. There's no one-size-fits all. I advocate for more self control and taking a more meticulous interest in your own health and longevity. You're more concerned with convenience. Two different methods to achieve a similar - though hardly identical - goal.

Point is, people can make up their own damn minds without you or me telling them what's "right" or what's "easy" or what they "should" do.

Well it's easier when you don't lie to them and tell them they "will" look and feel better by eating "clean" foods as opposed to whatever the alternative is.

you are the alternative.

tell me, have you ever gone a significant period of time eating "clean"?

If I'm the alternative, then.. well, that's probably pretty good. In the past month I've lost about 4 lbs of body fat and not a single ounce of lean mass, if I can believe the scale and calipers. I am in excellent health, and during my tough singles tennis match on Saturday my (very in-shape) opponent, towards the end of the match, asked me "you're a runner, right? Marathons maybe? You're in incredible shape, you hardly look like you're breaking a sweat." My blood test levels are all excellent, my blood pressure is excellent, etc.

So if my way is the alternative, then I think most people would be pretty happy with that.

Oh, and after the match I went to Red Lobster and ate 1400 calories.

answer my question plz

Not by your definition of clean, no.

I wonder how much time you've spent eating fast food four times a week while hitting your macros

um... plenty? before I started eating well I ate fast food all the time.

but point being, if you've never eaten "clean" for any period of time, then how do you know you wouldn't feel/perform better?

Yeah? I don't see those days in your food log.

CoachReddy

Again, the point is that none of this stuff will kill you, none of it is making your skin or hair look worse, none of it is sapping your energy levels, and none of it is making your body hold onto fat or mass or anything like that.

but we also don't KNOW it doesn't have negative effects when ingested daily for 50 years.

however we do know that large quantities of the chemicals found in fast food can do horrible things to your body, so why risk it?

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying "well we just DON't KNOW."

That's very different from the claims you and others normally make when these discussions start, which amount to "you will look better, feel better, and have better results if you avoid these things."

NO - you will look better, feel better and have better results if you eat "clean" whole foods.

If you skip the taco bell for a lean cuisine, you're doing yourself zero favors.

And here's the real kicker: the vast majority of people who are overweight from poor food decisions, who try to get healthy by eating better and exercising, are better served by my advice than yours.

Why? Because when people think they need to switch to 100% "clean" eating or whatever because people like you convince them that McDonald's and Taco Bell and Subway and whatever are so incredibly unhealthy, they cannot sustain that. They may do it for a while, but in most cases they just give up.

When people like you convince these others that they need to give up stuff they love in order to get healthy, they rarely do for any length of time. They end up going back to McDonald's one day and then the whole enterprise falls apart.

It's important that people understand how to make good, healthy choices instead of automatically demonizing entire brands for no good reason at all. The vast, vast majority of people will be much better equipped for sustained progress if they understand that, yes, they can eat ice cream and pop tarts and tacos sometimes. Your vitriol scares the bejesus out of them.

Don't belittle their intelligence. people just starting out have the choice to listen to me or you if they want, along with any of the other self-proclaimed experts on this site. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can make up their own mind. They don't need your help to show them the way. They're not idiots.

Whatever method WORKS is the one they should do. And that's different for every single person. There's no one-size-fits all. I advocate for more self control and taking a more meticulous interest in your own health and longevity. You're more concerned with convenience. Two different methods to achieve a similar - though hardly identical - goal.

Point is, people can make up their own damn minds without you or me telling them what's "right" or what's "easy" or what they "should" do.

Well it's easier when you don't lie to them and tell them they "will" look and feel better by eating "clean" foods as opposed to whatever the alternative is.

you are the alternative.

tell me, have you ever gone a significant period of time eating "clean"?

If I'm the alternative, then.. well, that's probably pretty good. In the past month I've lost about 4 lbs of body fat and not a single ounce of lean mass, if I can believe the scale and calipers. I am in excellent health, and during my tough singles tennis match on Saturday my (very in-shape) opponent, towards the end of the match, asked me "you're a runner, right? Marathons maybe? You're in incredible shape, you hardly look like you're breaking a sweat." My blood test levels are all excellent, my blood pressure is excellent, etc.

So if my way is the alternative, then I think most people would be pretty happy with that.

Oh, and after the match I went to Red Lobster and ate 1400 calories.

answer my question plz

Not by your definition of clean, no.

I wonder how much time you've spent eating fast food four times a week while hitting your macros

um... plenty? before I started eating well I ate fast food all the time.

but point being, if you've never eaten "clean" for any period of time, then how do you know you wouldn't feel/perform better?

Yeah? I don't see those days in your food log.

what point are you trying to make? and answer my question again. you like dodging.

CoachReddy

"Clean eaters" have a superiority complex and it is repulsive. Almost as bad as liberals.

see now here I am finding this post repulsive.

isn't it cool how we all have opinions?

jonnythan

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

DatMurse

"Clean eaters" have a superiority complex and it is repulsive. Almost as bad as liberals.

clean eaters, vegas, and raw vegas

CoachReddy

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

there is plenty of evidence. mountains of it. so much that i'm not going to waste my time finding it for you.

as for people who don't eat "clean" in outstanding health... what like professional athletes? how many professional athletes make it past 80? I don't personally consider athletes to be a paragon of health. Fitness? Yeah... some... but health? Nah, not so much. It's really not healthy to train as hard as elite athletes do over a long period of time.

2FatToRun

"Clean eaters" have a superiority complex and it is repulsive. Almost as bad as liberals.

I have had so much taco bell in the past 6-7 years I should own stock in it lol But now I am going back to how I used to eat pre fat *kitten* and a week in I feel better than I have since I cant remember lol I totally agree to each their own though just because you eat clean doesnt mean you are better than anyone else or should judge them or shun them I always stress do what works but make sure to add my little dig my way is healthier. The proof is in the diaries. I see alot of ppl eating foods that could be healthier cleaner options and skimping on other meals or barely eating at all because that one bad choice takes up too much of their RDI. I happen to love to eat alot so not eating clean means fat *kitten* lol I accomplished that very easily too lol I do from time to time eat out I believe there is a personal pan pepp pizza on my diary within past week and I had an orange for dinner lol I was so not happy that day lol No one way is right but could be considered healthier if you actually factor in the nutrients, and amounts of food you could consume compared between the 2. Take out food is always higher in sodium as is processed pre packaged foods for the most part. So if you are willing to skimp and chance being hungry through out your weight loss thats a personal choice. I will never understand why anyone would want to put things in their body though when there are better options. Call it a complex or whatever you want but if I am sitting by you and we are eating lunch and I have the yummy homemade chicken salad with oranges pecans cheese etc and I look over and you are eating a cardboard container of taco bell rice (that will be gone in 3 bites lol) and maybe a burrito.....I am so raising my chest higher and smiling through my meal because I know it is the better choice...for me anyways lol

jonnythan

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

there is plenty of evidence. mountains of it. so much that i'm not going to waste my time finding it for you.

as for people who don't eat "clean" in outstanding health... what like professional athletes? how many professional athletes make it past 80? I don't personally consider athletes to be a paragon of health. Fitness? Yeah... some... but health? Nah, not so much. It's really not healthy to train as hard as elite athletes do over a long period of time.

... Who brought up pro athletes?? I cannot understand how your brain works.