Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?

UsedToBeHusky

LOL @ YOU.... "lean" eh? You can look like a bean pole and fat inside. Don't you worry about MY diet. Just you worry about working on your condescending attitude. By the way, I don't get into pages long back-and-forths with the self righteous. But you are welcome to continue the argument by yourself.

Sara and Sidesteel, both people who have posted in this thread, are IIFYM'ers and both are exceptionally lean. This began with your condescension in the first place. I noticed you answered my question by lashing out. I'm going to have to assume after a long stretch of severe deprivation from the foods that you really want, you must break down and binge. When, you could have a cookie a day, or a candy bar a day, or even a bowl of ice cream a day and continue consistently eating clean at every other meal without the guilt of a binge. Best of luck to you! I hope I'm wrong.

You attacked me. And I only gave MY personal experience. Get over yourself.

How did I attack you? You suggested that people who eat junk food are fat. I simply stated that no one on this site advocates a 'junk food' diet as you described it. And suggested that the people advocating IIFYM are exceptionally lean. I asked you a question about your diet and you screamed condescension and decried that you will not engage in the discussion with me.

jonnythan

I say it matters. Simple carbs are going to turn into fat before lean protein or complex carbs. HFCS is an evil that keeps you thinking you are hungry. I know there some who advocate and swear by eating processed garbage, but I found that for MYSELF, if I eat that stuff it only hurts me. I would rather eat lean meat and veggies and see progress, than eat pizza, cheese sticks, and drink soda and be bloated, tired, and fatter that I was that morning.

However, I really wish someone would do that project. Identical twins going at that diet and exercise program for 1 year. It would be interesting.

I don't believe for a second you've spent any significant amount of time running a "dirty" diet with proper macro ratios and calorie intake while following an effective exercise program.

I will continue to eat ice cream, Taco Bell, and pizza while maintaining lean mass and losing fat.

waldo56

LOL @ YOU.... "lean" eh? You can look like a bean pole and fat inside. Don't you worry about MY diet. Just you worry about working on your condescending attitude. By the way, I don't get into pages long back-and-forths with the self righteous. But you are welcome to continue the argument by yourself.

Sara and Sidesteel, both people who have posted in this thread, are IIFYM'ers and both are exceptionally lean. This began with your condescension in the first place. I noticed you answered my question by lashing out. I'm going to have to assume after a long stretch of severe deprivation from the foods that you really want, you must break down and binge. When, you could have a cookie a day, or a candy bar a day, or even a bowl of ice cream a day and continue consistently eating clean at every other meal without the guilt of a binge. Best of luck to you! I hope I'm wrong.

You attacked me. And I only gave MY personal experience. Get over yourself.

bcattoes

More variables than just diet would affect outcome. There is no way to know the answer.

DatMurse

I say it matters. Simple carbs are going to turn into fat before lean protein or complex carbs. HFCS is an evil that keeps you thinking you are hungry. I know there some who advocate and swear by eating processed garbage, but I found that for MYSELF, if I eat that stuff it only hurts me. I would rather eat lean meat and veggies and see progress, than eat pizza, cheese sticks, and drink soda and be bloated, tired, and fatter that I was that morning.

However, I really wish someone would do that project. Identical twins going at that diet and exercise program for 1 year. It would be interesting.

i highly suggest you take a look into the absorption and physiological function of carbohydrates in general.
It is not about what works for you or through experience. carbohydrates are still used for energy within all people, and it fills your glycogen stores before it gets stored and for it to be stored you would have to consume a ridiculous amount of carbohydrates.

Processed foods happen to have less satiety than non processed so people tend to consume more.
Regardless it is not about experience because either way you were in a caloric deficit.
eating 1000 calories of mcdonalds vs 1000 calories of meats and fruits will not make a difference in how many calories were utilized.
you may be hungrier but we are speaking with hunger aside.

icmuse

I am always amazed at the MFP "wars" over clean vs junk.

I think people should do/eat what makes them happy, in the end, that is the real point of life!

Personally I follow this theory to a T. I only eat foods that I absolutely adore and that make me feel happy. And it so happens I love eating simple food. I love to cook & I never had a taste for processed food nor sweets.

Definition of JUNK is so blurry - if I want to have a burger and fries, you bet I will have them and enjoy the crap out of them. I do not consider it junk if it's made from good ingredients or if I make it at home etc.

Also everybody's definition of CLEAN differs. This is what I consider clean - full fat dairy, lots and lots of good fat (avocados, nuts etc.) - some people think I am crazy for eating lots of fat. See to me eating FAT-FREE is junk and to them it is clean.... go figure...

Anyway I am just ranting away....blah blah blah....

Lets just all agree to disagree, eat what we want and be done with it! :drinker:

DatMurse

I am always amazed at the MFP "wars" over clean vs junk.

I think people should do/eat what makes them happy, in the end, that is the real point of life!

Personally I follow this theory to a T. I only eat foods that I absolutely adore and that make me feel happy. And it so happens I love eating simple food. I love to cook & I never had a taste for processed food nor sweets.

Definition of JUNK is so blurry - if I want to have a burger and fries, you bet I will have them and enjoy the crap out of them. I do not consider it junk if it's made from good ingredients or if I make it at home etc.

Also everybody's definition of CLEAN differs. This is what I consider clean - full fat dairy, lots and lots of good fat (avocados, nuts etc.) - some people think I am crazy for eating lots of fat. See to me eating FAT-FREE is junk and to them it is clean.... go figure...

Anyway I am just ranting away....blah blah blah....

Lets just all agree to disagree, eat what we want and be done with it! :drinker:

the problem is extremists make dieting appear so hard.
its all about moderation

What is so unhealth about a burger?
lets break it down
ground beef
bread
lettuce
cheese

now what is unhealthy? saturated fats from the beef?
Saturated fat has a bad rap because it can cause problems in people who are not active
if it bothers people that much they can always use extra lean ground beef.
along with 2% cheese.
so you have bread and lettuce.
whole wheat bread or those 100 calorie bread sandwich thins?
lettuce? i think i explained myself.

I dont advocate using anything with so many preservatives that it could last nuclear winter though.
I am just wanting people to think about what they claim is "unhealthy"

dym123

I don't eat "clean" as a diet, I was losing weight doing the whole calorie deficit thing before I learned about clean eating, I started eating "clean" after reading about all of the things that go into our foods to make it cheap and appetizing (not nutritious). I eat clean because I believe the quality of my calories are more important than the quantity. It is not about weight loss, it is about long term overall health.

ZyheeMoongazer

Reducing or eliminating junk foods from your diet is not just about weight loss, but about healthy living. You may be at an ideal weight but there could be significant damage to your internal organs, be more at risk for cancers and other health issues, as well a lower life expectancy.

In our society we put far too much emphasis on "looking good". Yes, I to want to "look good" but my choice to reduce the amount of junk food I eat is to increase my health not just reduce my waist line.

jonnythan

I don't eat "clean" as a diet, I was losing weight doing the whole calorie deficit thing before I learned about clean eating, I started eating "clean" after reading about all of the things that go into our foods to make it cheap and appetizing (not nutritious). I eat clean because I believe the quality of my calories are more important than the quantity. It is not about weight loss, it is about long term overall health.

Let's not go too far overboard. Long term overall health is MUCH more affected by obesity than it is calorie "quality," however you define it.

You can argue calorie "quality" matters but you can't argue that it matters more than quantity.

SanteMulberry

"...On the other side of the coin, what if we both ate at a large surplus – again, me 100% clean, her 100% junk, but both netting the same. Would we both gain the same amount of fat, in the same places?..."

For one thing, if you were eating nutrient dense food, you might have trouble even eating at a significant surplus. This seems to be the experience of a lot of people--particularly older women. But, body builders periodically work at eating a surplus in order to gain muscle. A lot of that surplus is spent on protein and the rest on carbohydrates---apparently a bit fewer calories on fat. If someone else ate a surplus of mostly sugar and nutrient-light food, I expect that they would look a bit different at the end. A lot of women, in particular, complain that, "...it has been three months, and I have been faithfully weighing my food and counting calories and I'm losing about a half-pound per month..." When you examine their food diaries, you see that they are indeed staying within their calorie goals (presuming they are not lying---what would be the point?). But it is almost inevitable that you see that they are way below what is recommended for protein and quite a bit above their macros for sugar and carbohydrates. They also typically do no lifting and little to no cardio (however, sometimes they do a lot of cardio).

jonnythan

"...On the other side of the coin, what if we both ate at a large surplus – again, me 100% clean, her 100% junk, but both netting the same. Would we both gain the same amount of fat, in the same places?..."

For one thing, if you were eating nutrient dense food, you might have trouble even eating at a significant surplus.

This is nonsensical. It literally is the opposite of reality. "Nutrient dense foods" are high-calorie things like oil, cheese, cream, HFCS, etc. It's "nutrient light" foods like vegetables, which have low levels of nutrients (remember, protein, carbs, and fat are nutrients) per gram that are difficult to eat in excess.

bcattoes

I don't eat "clean" as a diet, I was losing weight doing the whole calorie deficit thing before I learned about clean eating, I started eating "clean" after reading about all of the things that go into our foods to make it cheap and appetizing (not nutritious). I eat clean because I believe the quality of my calories are more important than the quantity. It is not about weight loss, it is about long term overall health.

Let's not go too far overboard. Long term overall health is MUCH more affected by obesity than it is calorie "quality," however you define it.

You can argue calorie "quality" matters but you can't argue that it matters more than quantity.

I think you are probably correct, but Is there any data to back up that up? Most people who are obese don't eat clean, so is there any evidence that a person that became obese by eating clean would generally be less healthy than a thin person that ate low quality junk food?

bcattoes

"...On the other side of the coin, what if we both ate at a large surplus – again, me 100% clean, her 100% junk, but both netting the same. Would we both gain the same amount of fat, in the same places?..."

For one thing, if you were eating nutrient dense food, you might have trouble even eating at a significant surplus.

This is nonsensical. It literally is the opposite of reality. "Nutrient dense foods" are high-calorie things like oil, cheese, cream, HFCS, etc. It's "nutrient light" foods like vegetables, which have low levels of nutrients (remember, protein, carbs, and fat are nutrients) per gram that are difficult to eat in excess.

I don't know if there is an official definition of the term, but generally when I've seen "nutrient dense" used it means micro-nutrient dense.

jonnythan

I don't eat "clean" as a diet, I was losing weight doing the whole calorie deficit thing before I learned about clean eating, I started eating "clean" after reading about all of the things that go into our foods to make it cheap and appetizing (not nutritious). I eat clean because I believe the quality of my calories are more important than the quantity. It is not about weight loss, it is about long term overall health.

Let's not go too far overboard. Long term overall health is MUCH more affected by obesity than it is calorie "quality," however you define it.

You can argue calorie "quality" matters but you can't argue that it matters more than quantity.

I think you are probably correct, but Is there any data to back up that up? Most people who are obese don't eat clean, so is there any evidence that a person that became obese by eating clean would generally be less healthy than a thin person that ate low quality junk food?

The claim was that calorie quality matters more than quantity.

It does not. Eating excess calories leads directly to obesity, which has been established to be very bad for health over and over and over and over.

By comparison, there is no real evidence that eating "clean" is any better than "not clean" when macronutrient ratios and calorie intake are matched.

jonnythan

"...On the other side of the coin, what if we both ate at a large surplus – again, me 100% clean, her 100% junk, but both netting the same. Would we both gain the same amount of fat, in the same places?..."

For one thing, if you were eating nutrient dense food, you might have trouble even eating at a significant surplus.

This is nonsensical. It literally is the opposite of reality. "Nutrient dense foods" are high-calorie things like oil, cheese, cream, HFCS, etc. It's "nutrient light" foods like vegetables, which have low levels of nutrients (remember, protein, carbs, and fat are nutrients) per gram that are difficult to eat in excess.

I don't know if there is an official definition of the term, but generally when I've seen "nutrient dense" used it means micro-nutrient dense.

Well they should specify that then. Nutrients are nutrients.

DatMurse

"...On the other side of the coin, what if we both ate at a large surplus – again, me 100% clean, her 100% junk, but both netting the same. Would we both gain the same amount of fat, in the same places?..."

For one thing, if you were eating nutrient dense food, you might have trouble even eating at a significant surplus.

This is nonsensical. It literally is the opposite of reality. "Nutrient dense foods" are high-calorie things like oil, cheese, cream, HFCS, etc. It's "nutrient light" foods like vegetables, which have low levels of nutrients (remember, protein, carbs, and fat are nutrients) per gram that are difficult to eat in excess.

I think he may have misworded it.

In regards to women they have estrogen which can heavily affect sodium retention. I am aware men have estrogen too but not to that extent.

Women also have a much smaller caloric window than men do and it is easy to miscount it.
People miscount in general.

the water weight gain is what screws over alot of women.
The whole 2 lbs a week rule means that you have to consume a deficit of 7000 calories over 7 days.
So women are not going to lose 2 lbs of fat a week. maybe water weight but not fat
that is 1000 calories less than body requirements and for many women that can be as much as 75% of their daily caloric requirement.

waldo56

But, body builders periodically work at eating a surplus in order to gain muscle. A lot of that surplus is spent on protein and the rest on carbohydrates---apparently a bit fewer calories on fat. If someone else ate a surplus of mostly sugar and nutrient-light food, I expect that they would look a bit different at the end.

You know that sugar is a carbohydrate, right?

Protein is more important when cutting than when bulking. The body is more protein efficient when gaining (you aren't fighting the tendency of your body to eat your muscles when it needs calories). Either way, as a % of your diet, if you keep constant protein levels, the % of your diet that is protein is much lower when bulking.

The only benefit that more complex carbs have is to satiety, and when bulking that is the last thing you want.

SanteMulberry

"Clean" doesn't really mean anything.

Your body doesn't care whether a particular amino acid came from a Snickers bar, a cow, or a soybean.

What matters is nutrients. Fiber, protein, saturated fat, potassium, vitamin D; these are nutrients. They are what matter.

Get proper amounts of nutrients. Where they come from does not matter.

+1

No matter how processed a food is... all food has some quantifiable level of nutrition. There is no food that is completely devoid of nutrition.

Except for sugar (i.e. sucrose). When you discount the metabolic damage it does, the carbohydrate value might as well be tossed out the window. There are a lot of better, healthier ways to get carbohydrates. White flour is another item that is pretty light in the nutrition department. And both substances are addictive. Sugar is because of what obesity researchers call its "anti-satiety" effect and white flour because the gluten component contains a substance called, gliadin, which has been shown to be highly addictive in animal studies.

Phrakman

I also get a bit of a kick of clean eaters heavily promoting micronutrients. Most "junk" food is fortified with vitamins, a solid multi vitamin is hardly expensive. Micronutrient deficiency is not common at all.