Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?
Replies
-
Clean eating at a deficit makes you feel good inside out.
Junk eating at a defiict may achieve weight loss but may not make you feel as good inside.
I would think 'Healthy & Energetic' and not just 'weight-loss'.0 -
Suruprised someone knows about thisProtein 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.
Lol? what metabolic damage.."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.
what does it do? I want to hear how it damages your metabolism0 -
"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.
You ever hear of artificial sweeteners called "non-nutritive sweeteners"?
They are.
Think about that for a minute.
I'll give you a hint: it means that sugar is a "nutritive sweetener."
"Nutrient" doesn't mean "healthy" or "good for you" or something. Sugar is, literally, a nutrient.0 -
The article was fascinating but limited in scope. I find the whole argument of clean vs. junk to be more of a psychological one (if not physical where we don't have definitive wide spread studies.)
It's kind of like the Dave Ramsey plan. Dave's a widely listened to personal financial guy on the radio with the focus of getting out of debt and building wealth so you can provide for your family and give generously. In his baby step 2 to get out of debt you attack your debts smallest to largest with all available income (after food and shelter) until the last is paid off. You do this regardless of interest. NOW mathematically it may make more sense to pay things off according to their interest rates, however, Dave focuses on the psychology of repeatedly getting into debt (as we tend to do) And it WORKS!
Now in reality we don't know if eating clean makes a difference if macros and caloric intake remain comparable (apparently with a couple small exceptions of Cholesterol and possibly ghrelin response) but we do know people who need to see long term results do often see success and feel more in control by focusing on what they can do for their body and cutting out the foods that they have an 'addiction' response to. For instance sugar is sugar and I can down a ton of sour patch kids, but if I eat some fruit I'll probably feel satisfied faster and eat less. I would also possibly be less prone to feel the longings of what psychologically connect with sour patch kids (movies, soda, and buttered popcorn).
You don't get "there" easy. You don't lose weight, or change body comp "easy". People looking to make the tiniest changes, IMHO, tend to find ways to justify jumping to yet another food crutch. For instance, "I gave up all sweets at least .... so it's okay if I have mountains of cheese on my pasta tonight." or "I'm having a salad instead of my sandwich....so what if my dressing is full fat and gobs of it".
For many being overweight or obese is an addiction and nothing short of a "clean" (pun intended) break is something they can mentally handle. Perhaps those splurges can be reintroduced later, perhaps not.
This is all personal experience and opinion. I just have lots of them
Agree 100%! Some people simply can't handle "junk" food in moderation; food can be an addiction just like any other.
There is a really interesting BBC doc called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat?" - it's definitely worth a watch! The truth is - some people instinctively avoid excess calories and some have to make an effort to resist the urge to consume more than they need.
Here's a link to the doc as well as a blog about it. Check it out.
http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-are-thin-people-not-fat.html0 -
"...You know that sugar is a carbohydrate, right?..."
Well, duhh!
Didn't I say that there are other better and more nourishing ways to get carbohydrates? You should read more carefully.0 -
Clean eating at a deficit makes you feel good inside out.
Junk eating at a defiict may achieve weight loss but may not make you feel as good inside.
I would think 'Healthy & Energetic' and not just 'weight-loss'.
and what about if you eat "clean" and junk food at the same time at a deficit?0 -
Clean eating at a deficit makes you feel good inside out.
Junk eating at a defiict may achieve weight loss but may not make you feel as good inside.
I would think 'Healthy & Energetic' and not just 'weight-loss'.
Look at my diary. I feel great inside. 0 -
the problem is extremists make dieting appear so hard.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:
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"
As I said, I do not consider burger and fries junk, it is a real food if it's made in the kitchen (yours or a good restaurant) And forget lean meat and reduced fat cheese, enjoy the full fat versions, it does body good!... Personally I have few issues with the ones that come out of a drive through window. The main issue is lack of taste and surplus of ingredients that make the"product" last beyond the above said nuclear winter :ohwell:
But again, to each its own, people should eat whatever they desire, and if freaking Big Mac makes them happy once in a while so what?0 -
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.
Your ignorance is showing. Take flour fortification for example. There are 32 different nutrients that are removed during the process of turning wheat into white flour. If I remember correctly, about 6 or 7 are put back---and that only because people die of nutritional diseases if the flour isn't fortified. Would you consider your mouth "fortified" if I removed all of your teeth and put back 6 or 7?0 -
the problem is extremists make dieting appear so hard.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:
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"
As I said, I do not consider burger and fries junk, it is a real food if it's made in the kitchen (yours or a good restaurant) And forget lean meat and reduced fat cheese, enjoy the full fat versions, it does body good!... Personally I have few issues with the ones that come out of a drive through window. The main issue is lack of taste and surplus of ingredients that make the"product" last beyond the above said nuclear winter :ohwell:
But again, to each its own, people should eat whatever they desire, and if freaking Big Mac makes them happy once in a while so what?
agreed.
I go for lean meats and 2% cheese so I can add in a variety.
not to avoid fats but I can eat more and add an avocado to it lol
Saturated fat doesnt scare me I just like the variety of flavors0 -
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?
No study that has ever been conducted that controlled for calories and protein has shown any conclusive benefit of eating clean over dirty.
Add that one condition (controlling for calories and protien) and the a calorie is not a calorie people got nothin.0 -
"...You know that sugar is a carbohydrate, right?..."
Well, duhh!
Didn't I say that there are other better and more nourishing ways to get carbohydrates? You should read more carefully.
You said sugar has no nutritive value.
The fact that sugar is calorie-dense proves this absolutely wrong.0 -
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.
Your ignorance is showing. Take flour fortification for example. There are 32 different nutrients that are removed during the process of turning wheat into white flour. If I remember correctly, about 6 or 7 are put back---and that only because people die of nutritional diseases if the flour isn't fortified. Would you consider your mouth "fortified" if I removed all of your teeth and put back 6 or 7?
You're obviously paleo, i highly doubt your cavemen had the abundance of micro nutrients even the most junk filled diet provides today.0 -
Thanks all for the informative and entertaining replies.
I suppose the summary of my question is this: If one person eats 1,500 calories of twinkies a day for a year and his clone eats 1,500 calories of broccoli for a year, will their bodies LOOK much different? As in, will you be able to tell visually, be able to see a difference in physical appearance?
Short answer: Not really.
Long answer: There are many other factors that go into it. Macros, deficiency or surplus, strength training, etc. etc. etc. But not really.
I was just curious about the physicality of it all. These answers won't affect what I eat or plan to eat. I'm gonna go have a donut. :laugh:0 -
"...Micronutrient deficiency is not common at all... "
And just how would you know that? Just because a person doesn't drop dead immediately doesn't mean that he/she will not get sick down the road because of some missing nutrients from eating at a micro-nutrient-deficit.0 -
Thanks all for the informative and entertaining replies.
I suppose the summary of my question is this: If one person eats 1,500 calories of twinkies a day for a year and his clone eats 1,500 calories of broccoli for a year, will their bodies LOOK much different? As in, will you be able to tell visually, be able to see a difference in physical appearance?
Short answer: Not really.
Long answer: There are many other factors that go into it. Macros, deficiency or surplus, strength training, etc. etc. etc. But not really.
I was just curious about the physicality of it all. These answers won't affect what I eat or plan to eat. I'm gonna go have a donut. :laugh:
Well they would both die of malnutrition before the year was up. So they'll look pretty similar.
Neither twinkies nor broccoli have everything you need, by a long shot.
Again: it's nutrients that matter.0 -
"...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 consider vegetables to be nutrient-light. We are talking past each other it seems. We must define our terms.0 -
I was just curious about the physicality of it all. These answers won't affect what I eat or plan to eat. I'm gonna go have a donut. :laugh:
:drinker:
Enjoy!0 -
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?
No study that has ever been conducted that controlled for calories and protein has shown any conclusive benefit of eating clean over dirty.
Add that one condition (controlling for calories and protien) and the a calorie is not a calorie people got nothin.
there is the satiety index and there was a higher association of fullness for foods that were not processed vs actually processed.
The satiety is greater so technically someone would eat less.
protein from mcdonalds still has the same amount of calories as a protein from chicken breast.
composition that would make it more filling will differ0 -
Maybe not for your weight, but definitely for your health.0
-
Thanks all for the informative and entertaining replies.
I suppose the summary of my question is this: If one person eats 1,500 calories of twinkies a day for a year and his clone eats 1,500 calories of broccoli for a year, will their bodies LOOK much different? As in, will you be able to tell visually, be able to see a difference in physical appearance?
Short answer: Not really.
Long answer: There are many other factors that go into it. Macros, deficiency or surplus, strength training, etc. etc. etc. But not really.
I was just curious about the physicality of it all. These answers won't affect what I eat or plan to eat. I'm gonna go have a donut. :laugh:
Well they would both die of malnutrition before the year was up. So they'll look pretty similar.
Neither twinkies nor broccoli have everything you need, by a long shot.
Again: it's nutrients that matter.
Well obviously....c'mon, play along. I was trying to simplify.0 -
"...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 consider vegetables to be nutrient-light. We are talking past each other it seems. We must define our terms.
Nutrients are:
nu·tri·ent [noo-tree-uhnt, nyoo-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
nourishing; providing nourishment or nutriment.
2.
containing or conveying nutriment, as solutions or vessels of the body.
Fat, carbohydrates, and protein are nutrients. Ever notice how people call them macronutrients? Sugar is a "nutritive sweetener" as opposed to aspartame which is a "non-nutritive sweetener."
Anything with calories by definition is nutritive.0 -
0 -
Lets talk about the middle.
you have to have moderation in your life. no bodybuilder is going to eat mcdonalds in every meal.
they do eat healthy food
IIFYM was not created so people can just eat poptarts and whey protein. it was also meant to hit micronutrients daily.
That being said we are meant to incorporate both sides of "junk food" and "clean food" to achieve happiness during bulking, cutting, or eating at maintenance.
this way of living is sustainable through our lives0 -
Thanks all for the informative and entertaining replies.
I suppose the summary of my question is this: If one person eats 1,500 calories of twinkies a day for a year and his clone eats 1,500 calories of broccoli for a year, will their bodies LOOK much different? As in, will you be able to tell visually, be able to see a difference in physical appearance?
Short answer: Not really.
Long answer: There are many other factors that go into it. Macros, deficiency or surplus, strength training, etc. etc. etc. But not really.
I was just curious about the physicality of it all. These answers won't affect what I eat or plan to eat. I'm gonna go have a donut. :laugh:
Well they would both die of malnutrition before the year was up. So they'll look pretty similar.
Neither twinkies nor broccoli have everything you need, by a long shot.
Again: it's nutrients that matter.
Well obviously....c'mon, play along. I was trying to simplify.
Let's make a better simplification:
Person A eats 2000 calories a day, of which 40% is carbs, 30% is protein, and 30% is fat.
Person B eats 2000 calories a day, of which 40% is carbs, 30% is protein, and 30% is fat.
They both follow identical exercise routines.
Person A and Person B will look the same after a year.
Notice how I didn't mention what "quality" of nutrients they eat. That's because it doesn't matter. The body uses actual nutrients, and not food philosophies, to assemble and repair itself0 -
I’ve seen a lot on these boards about eating clean, nutrition is everything, etc. Conversely, I’ve seen a lot of talk against soda, artificial sweeteners, sugar, eating processed carbs, junk, saturated fats, etc. I’ve also seen that nearly everyone touts the fact that eating at a deficit (no matter what you eat) will cause you to lose; and eating at a surplus (no matter what you eat) will cause a gain.
What I’m wondering about, is if the quality of the gain/loss will really vary, given the quality of food.
For example, say I have a twin sister, who is exactly the same height/weight/build as me. Say that for an extended period of time (let’s say, 1 year), we both eat at a deficit. We both do the exact same amount of exercise. Now, while I am eating high amounts of lean protein, fresh veggies, nuts, berries, healthy fats, and so on, she is eating the exact same amount of calories – but eating complete junk. Fast food, soda, sugar, fried foods, etc.
After a year, would we look exactly the same? Would our diets affect our physical appearance in the same way, given the same overall net numbers? Or would I look "better"? I’m sure that I might feel better – I might have more energy, clearer skin, better mental function due to meeting my nutrient needs in a better way, etc. – but I’m wondering strictly about physical appearance – would it really make a difference?
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?
This may be a very silly question, but I've been very curious about it, and wondering if anyone has any experience with this....
Of course, I don't know this for sure, but my guess would be that the "clean eating" twin would have clearer skin, more energy and mental clarity, and less bloating due to less inflammation.
I've lost about 35lbs over the last year from eating mostly "clean" (that term is different to everybody). I didn't track my intake while I was losing, but have since tracked it here and there while maintaining, so I don't know if I was in a deficit or not. I do know that I have maintained my loss while eating over 2000 cals per day (5'2" 130lbs) and doing CrossFit 3-4 days/week. I started out wanting some relief from some painful digestive issues and ended up with relief AND weight loss.0 -
Thanks all for the informative and entertaining replies.
I suppose the summary of my question is this: If one person eats 1,500 calories of twinkies a day for a year and his clone eats 1,500 calories of broccoli for a year, will their bodies LOOK much different? As in, will you be able to tell visually, be able to see a difference in physical appearance?
Short answer: Not really.
Long answer: There are many other factors that go into it. Macros, deficiency or surplus, strength training, etc. etc. etc. But not really.
I was just curious about the physicality of it all. These answers won't affect what I eat or plan to eat. I'm gonna go have a donut. :laugh:
Eating a diet of purely one or the other would kill you in less than a year. But you'd die faster on the broccoli only diet since it would lack essential fat; of the essential macronutirents and micronutrients, lack of enough fat is the most deadly.0 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104I 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?
No study that has ever been conducted that controlled for calories and protein has shown any conclusive benefit of eating clean over dirty.
Add that one condition (controlling for calories and protien) and the a calorie is not a calorie people got nothin.
there is the satiety index and there was a higher association of fullness for foods that were not processed vs actually processed.
The satiety is greater so technically someone would eat less.
protein from mcdonalds still has the same amount of calories as a protein from chicken breast.
composition that would make it more filling will differ
Satiety is not a concrete term that can be quantified because it is only a sensation, or a feeling. Feelings can only be qualified, and without quantifiable data to support qualitative data, you do not have real scientific evidence.
here is the full study
http://www.ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EDWText/TextElemente/Ernaehrungswissenschaft/Naehrstoffe/Saettigung_Lebensmittel_Satiety_Index.pdf
there is my evidence0 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104Satiety is not a concrete term that can be quantified because it is only a sensation, or a feeling. Feelings can only be qualified, and without quantifiable data to support qualitative data, you do not have real scientific evidence.
here is the full study
http://www.ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EDWText/TextElemente/Ernaehrungswissenschaft/Naehrstoffe/Saettigung_Lebensmittel_Satiety_Index.pdf
Sorry... I misread your post. I went back and edited my reply.0 -
Let's make a better simplification:
Person A eats 2000 calories a day, of which 40% is carbs, 30% is protein, and 30% is fat.
Person B eats 2000 calories a day, of which 40% is carbs, 30% is protein, and 30% is fat.
They both follow identical exercise routines.
Person A and Person B will look the same after a year.
Notice how I didn't mention what "quality" of nutrients they eat. That's because it doesn't matter. The body uses actual nutrients, and not food philosophies, to assemble and repair itself
Gotcha.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions