Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?
Replies
-
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 differ
Satiey is not a factor though in a calorie controlled study.0 -
Crap in, crap out .. that's my take on it. Not logical or scientific but honest.
You make your own decision! Good luck
0 -
There's the whole gut bacteria issue as well. The science is not well understood, but certain foods may harbor gut bacteria that do a much better job of breaking down food and unlocking all those calories. One might also hypothesize that independent of that, highly processed foods are likely easier for the body to absorb and get the full caloric payload.0
-
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
Satiey is not a factor though in a calorie controlled study.
There are mixed methodology studies that would allow satiety to be examined alongside other factors in a controlled study. However, I have no idea if anyone has ever performed this type of study on this particular topic.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.
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
This is how I understand it. And I found an actual picture of it once, with two meals side by side. one being a burger, the other being chicken brown rice and veggies. Don't feel like looking for it now, but it's good.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 differ
Satiey is not a factor though in a calorie controlled study.
I am clearly aware of that. I am talking about long term sustainability for the average person and overall happiness.0 -
Hypothetically, you'd be close to the same weight, I would guess. I think your metabolism would be better if you had been eating better foods (high protein, etc) all along.
I have a friend who has lost almost the same amount of weight that I have - close to 80 lbs. I am 5'10 and she is 5'9. She is a confessed fast foodaholic. She's just eating less of it than she used to. She drinks black coffee for breakfast and smokes until noon, then starts eating. She smokes throughout the day. She drinks beer everyday. She will just skip dinner if she is over on the beer. She eats McDonald's on a daily basis, donuts, convenience store hot dogs, etc. She hasn't worked out once in the last 15 years by her own admission.
We weigh almost the same right now but I am a size 8 and she is a 10, should be a 12. I saw her yesterday and gave her a hug and her body is soft all over, even in places where she looks skinny (shoulders, etc). She has fat that hangs over her jeans and her tank top at her backline and underarm area.
I suppose the difference could be the working out (I've worked hard to get my body where its at as far as the gym, weights, trainer, cardio, etc) that is the difference but I think its some of both. My diary isn't perfect and I drink on the weekends but I tend to make up for it with exercise and eat clean at least 5 days a week if not 6.0 -
to lose weight no. to have a healthy life, yes. Along the way of losing weight, one usually gets interested in a healthy life style. Once you dive into that, what you eat starts to matter. For health reasons, eating better is going to help in the long run. Dieabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure are just a few health concerns that are related to what we put in our bodies. Food can be our medicine or our killer. With that being said, we are human so I dont think you have to eat 100% clean to be healthy. I a firm believer in the 80/ 20 rule. It makes life easier.0
-
sounds like a great experiment you and your twin should undertake!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.
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
This is how I understand it. And I found an actual picture of it once, with two meals side by side. one being a burger, the other being chicken brown rice and veggies. Don't feel like looking for it now, but it's good.
What is that supposed to mean?
Its calorie for calorie and you are the same. it doesnt make a difference.
we are eliminating hunger and psychological responses from eating "junk food"
we are just looking at it physiologically and the body's reaction to it0 -
If it fits your macros is my mantra. I try to eat as best I can, but I also enjoy dessert, wine, and other treats. I've held at a pretty stable weight though, and have seen gains in my athletic performance. If you want that cookie, have it. Just don't eat the whole bag.0
-
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred and this applies to calories.
you arent going to get fat if you utilize more energy than what you take in
regardless if its junk or not0 -
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 itself
This is how I understand it. And I found an actual picture of it once, with two meals side by side. one being a burger, the other being chicken brown rice and veggies. Don't feel like looking for it now, but it's good.
... What is that supposed to establish?
Also, I wonder how they got as much fat as a burger into chicken, brown rice, and veggies. Soak everything in olive oil maybe?
Sounds like it was the same calorie quantity, not macros.0 -
I don't understand why people get so evangelical about eating processed food?
"I don't eat clean" is hardly a badge of honour.
How about just being agnostic about healthy eating?
Eat more of nutrient rich, more fresh food, more fruit, nuts, seeds lean meat, fish, whole grain and dairy
Eat less fried, less sweets, less fatty meats
But don't bother to totally eliminate anything you enjoy.0 -
I don't understand why people get so evangelical about eating processed food?
"I don't eat clean" is hardly a badge of honour.
How about just being agnostic about healthy eating?
Eat more of nutrient rich, more fresh food, more fruit, nuts, seeds lean meat, fish, whole grain and dairy
Eat less fried, less sweets, less fatty meats
But don't bother to totally eliminate anything you enjoy.
its because people are extremists
they go to opposite ends of the pole and thats why they are usually the first to fail0 -
For just losing weight...no, probably doesn't matter. For being healthy...yes. matters a lot. And healthy just looks and feels better.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?
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.
Just because I eat clean, doesn't mean I overeat, in fact I eat more while staying within my calorie limit and I'm never hungry, nor do I get cravings, but if I had a choice of a 250 calorie donut or 300 calorie breakfast of an egg, greek yogurt and a piece of fruit, I'm gonna go with the 300 calorie breakfast.
Dude, what does it matter to you what I eat anyway? This is my choice, for ME it is the right choice. Its not for everyone obviously. Also long term overall health involve more factors than just obesity, diabetes runs in my family, so does heart disease and though obesity can be a contribiting factor, that is not always the case. My maternal grandmother died of complications from both heart disease and diabetes, she was never overweight and I don't think I ever saw her eat a vegetable, unless it was a potatoe and it was fried.0 -
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
Satiey is not a factor though in a calorie controlled study.
There are mixed methodology studies that would allow satiety to be examined alongside other factors in a controlled study. However, I have no idea if anyone has ever performed this type of study on this particular topic.
There has been a lot of research done trying to prove the superiority of eating clean (various definitions). Every time there was a clear benefit, either calories, protein, or both were uncontrolled.
It has always been the white elephant in the room for the clean eating crowd. Heck every time any study even somewhat hints that some calories may be better than others, Gary Taubes loudy takes to the air and boldy proclaims calories dead, and every single time you see some seriously massaged data that really says nothing of the sort or horrible studies that fail to account for factors that are known to matter (protein and/or calories).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?
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.
Just because I eat clean, doesn't mean I overeat, in fact I eat more while staying within my calorie limit and I'm never hungry, nor do I get cravings, but if I had a choice of a 250 calorie donut or 300 calorie breakfast of an egg, greek yogurt and a piece of fruit, I'm gonna go with the 300 calorie breakfast.
Dude, what does it matter to you what I eat anyway? This is my choice, for ME it is the right choice. Its not for everyone obviously. Also long term overall health involve more factors than just obesity, diabetes runs in my family, so does heart disease and though obesity can be a contribiting factor, that is not always the case. My maternal grandmother died of complications from both heart disease and diabetes, she was never overweight and I don't think I ever saw her eat a vegetable, unless it was a potatoe and it was fried.
I have no idea what you eat. I never said a word about what you eat.
You said calorie quality matters more than quantity. This is absolutely false. Obesity will destroy your health way faster than "dirty" food of appropriate caloric content that fits your macros.0 -
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.
Some of the leanest people on this site advocate IIFYM. I honestly have never seen anyone on this site advocate an entire diet of junk food. EVER! So I can only assume that it is IIFYM'ers that you refer to with your above statement. You obviously have no real understanding of how IIFYM works. In order to achieve, IIFYM the majority of your diet has to be clean. The concept allows for some indulgence which makes it easier to maintain. Can you honestly say that your diet is 100% clean? Or do you allow yourself the occassional treat? Or do you just break down and binge and then hop back up on the 'clean' horse again the next day?
this is what I think. I think the holier than thou are actually making little mistakes here and there and just not fessing up. i also think the "dirty" eaters eat cleaner than they take the time to mention because their "dirty" parts are what keeps them going. so all in all I think really everyone's eating pretty much almost the same but it's just a matter of how you set your mind to it. SOme people seem to prefer to give off the image of perfection and strive for that and don't even let themselves look at the slip ups while others eat mostly good and look forward to those little treats they already know will be there. Two sides of the same coin.0 -
wtf i just looked up about that guyThe 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
Satiey is not a factor though in a calorie controlled study.
There are mixed methodology studies that would allow satiety to be examined alongside other factors in a controlled study. However, I have no idea if anyone has ever performed this type of study on this particular topic.
There has been a lot of research done trying to prove the superiority of eating clean (various definitions). Every time there was a clear benefit, either calories, protein, or both were uncontrolled.
It has always been the white elephant in the room for the clean eating crowd. Heck every time any study even somewhat hints that some calories may be better than others, Gary Taubes loudy takes to the air and boldy proclaims calories dead, and every single time you see some seriously massaged data that really says nothing of the sort or horrible studies that fail to account for factors that are known to matter (protein and/or calories).
****ing aerospace engineer writing a book about it?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 metabolism
Some of the newest research suggests that it is the fructose component of sugar (i.e. sucrose--which is 50% fructose) that does the damage. High fructose consumption has been demonstrated to be linked to fatty liver, hypertension, Type II diabetes, gouty arthritis, renal disease and failure. It would be much healthier for someone to eat pure glucose (known in the industry as "dextrose") for their sweets. Glucose is taken directly into the cells from the gut, and utilized. Fructose metabolism is much more complex and occurs in the liver in much the same way that alcohol is metabolized. The small amount of fructose that we get in the eating of natural fruits is not a problem for a healthy individual. The massive amount that is eaten in the form of table sugar (i.e. sucrose) is contributing to the diseases mentioned above. There is an epidemic of renal failure among sugar cane workers in Central America. Researchers expect to find that the problem stems from their habit of drinking soda pop or sugar-sweetened fruit juice while working in the very hot fields. Fructose is one source of high blood levels of uric acid and the high levels of uric acid in their blood, combined with dehydration causes the uric acid to crystalize in their kidneys, creating profound damage and leading to renal failure. Sucrose damages the metabolism over time in more subtle ways, but the epidemic of hypertension is just one example of the damage it does. I used to have hypertension and after I went sucrose-free, my blood pressure dropped to normal even before I lost much weight. (And I had been on the maximum dose of two different b.p. meds).0 -
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.
I think this is the first comment you have made on this thread that I 100% agree with! There are so many nutrients that our bodies need to function properly. I'm willing to bet that even the cleanest of eaters is deficient in several of them.0 -
Well if you're eating vegetables it's harder to get as many calories as if you're eating high carb junk food. That's the basic difference. It's not so much that clean eating is better, it's that it fills you up on lower calorie foods. If you ate the same amount of calories and met the same macros, though, you have the same effects.
I think those who want to eat clean are more careful about what they eat, so tend to have better results. If you don't care what you're eating, you probably aren't here on MFP anyway, or aren't tracking very well what you eat.0 -
I don't understand why people get so evangelical about eating processed food?
"I don't eat clean" is hardly a badge of honour.
How about just being agnostic about healthy eating?
Eat more of nutrient rich, more fresh food, more fruit, nuts, seeds lean meat, fish, whole grain and dairy
Eat less fried, less sweets, less fatty meats
But don't bother to totally eliminate anything you enjoy.
its because people are extremists
they go to opposite ends of the pole and thats why they are usually the first to fail
There are a lot of people that eliminate x,y,z successfully for a lifetime. WWFYIF2 (What works for you is fine too)
By being agnostic, I truly mean I don't care what diet one decides to use if it works and creates adherence.
Just don't try to tell me that denial and flagellation at the altar of eating clean is the only game in town. Because they serve cookies on the dark side.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 metabolism
Some of the newest research suggests that it is the fructose component of sugar (i.e. sucrose--which is 50% fructose) that does the damage. High fructose consumption has been demonstrated to be linked to fatty liver, hypertension, Type II diabetes, gouty arthritis, renal disease and failure. It would be much healthier for someone to eat pure glucose (known in the industry as "dextrose") for their sweets. Glucose is taken directly into the cells from the gut, and utilized. Fructose metabolism is much more complex and occurs in the liver in much the same way that alcohol is metabolized. The small amount of fructose that we get in the eating of natural fruits is not a problem for a healthy individual. The massive amount that is eaten in the form of table sugar (i.e. sucrose) is contributing to the diseases mentioned above. There is an epidemic of renal failure among sugar cane workers in Central America. Researchers expect to find that the problem stems from their habit of drinking soda pop or sugar-sweetened fruit juice while working in the very hot fields. Fructose is one source of high blood levels of uric acid and the high levels of uric acid in their blood, combined with dehydration causes the uric acid to crystalize in their kidneys, creating profound damage and leading to renal failure. Sucrose damages the metabolism over time in more subtle ways, but the epidemic of hypertension is just one example of the damage it does. I used to have hypertension and after I went sucrose-free, my blood pressure dropped to normal even before I lost much weight. (And I had been on the maximum dose of two different b.p. meds).
cite your references please0 -
Inb4 lustig0
-
Renal failure a result of pop drinking? You think sugarcane workers in Central America are drinking that much soda? You really think they can afford that?
No.
Read this:
The research team from the Boston University has linked the disease in Central America to strenuous labor, dehydration and environmental conditions in which chemicals may play a role. That theory was supported by the group’s most recent study, which found “markers” of kidney damage in adolescents as young as 12 in affected communities.
Thousands of miles away, research in Sri Lanka’s affected communities also indicates chemicals may play a key role in the illness devastating communities there.
As reported last month by the Center for Public Integrity, the country’s health ministry and World Health Organization announced in June that a years-long study had identified chemicals thought to be an essential cause of the disease: cadmium and arsenic. Both are heavy metals found in fertilizers and pesticides that can cause an array of health effects, including the type of kidney damage ravaging communities in Sri Lanka and Nicaragua.
While most of those tested had lower levels of the toxic elements than officially designated as dangerous by the United Nations, researchers believe that long-term exposure, likely through the food chain, may explain the high incidence of CDK.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/16/13866856-mystery-kidney-disease-decimates-central-america-sugarcane-workers?lite0 -
hmmm... does it matter? If you're a worm it might.You Are What You Eat -- Even the Littlest Bites: Dietary Influences Tied to Changes in Gene Expression
Mar. 28, 2013 — Sometimes you just can't resist a tiny piece of chocolate cake. Even the most health-conscious eaters find themselves indulging in junk foods from time to time. New research by scientists at the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS) raises the striking possibility that even small amounts of these occasional indulgences may produce significant changes in gene expression that could negatively impact physiology and health.
A pair of papers published in Cell by A.J. Marian Walhout, PhD, co-director of the Program in Systems Biology and professor of molecular medicine at UMMS, describe how metabolism and physiology are connected to diet. Using C. elegans, a transparent roundworm often used as a model organism in genetic studies, Dr. Walhout and colleagues observed how different diets produce differences in gene expression in the worm that can then be linked to crucial physiological changes.
"In short, we found that when C. elegans are fed diets of different types of bacteria, they respond by dramatically changing their gene expression program, leading to important changes in physiology," said Walhout. "Worms fed a natural diet of Comamonas bacteria have fewer offspring, live shorter and develop faster compared to worms fed the standard laboratory diet of E. coli bacteria."
Walhout and colleagues identified at least 87 changes in C. elegans gene expression between the two diets. Surprisingly, these changes were independent of the TOR and insulin signaling pathways, gene expression programs typically active in nutritional control. Instead, the changes occur, at least in part, in a regulator that controls molting, a gene program that determines development and growth in the worm. This connection provided one of the critical links between diet, gene expression and physiology detailed in "Diet-induced Development Acceleration Independent of TOR and Insulin in C. elegans." "Importantly, these same regulators that are influenced by diet in the worms control circadian rhythm in humans," said Lesley MacNeil, PhD, a postdoctoral student in the Walhout Lab and first author on the paper. "We already know that circadian rhythms are affected by diet. This points to the real possibility that we can now use C. elegans to study the complex connections between diet, gene expression and physiology and their relation to human disease."
Strikingly, Walhout and colleagues observed that even when fed a small amount of the Comamonas bacteria in a diet otherwise composed of E. coli bacteria, C. elegans exhibited dramatic changes in gene expression and physiology. These results provide the tantalizing possibility that different diets are not "healthy" or "unhealthy" but that specific quantities of certain foods may be optimal under different conditions and for promoting different physiological outcomes.
"It's just as true that a small amount of a 'healthy' food in an otherwise unhealthy diet could elicit a beneficial change in gene expression that could have profound physiological effects," said Walhout.
Additional research by the Walhout Lab further explored the possibility of using C. elegans as a model system to answer complex questions about disease and dietary treatment in humans. Detailed in the "Integration of Metabolic and Gene Regulatory Networks Modulates the C. elegans Dietary Response," Walhout and colleagues found that disrupting gene expression involved with C. elegans metabolism lead to metabolic imbalances that interfered with the animal's dietary response; a result that may have a direct correlation to the treatment of a class of human genetic diseases.
"To better understand the molecular mechanisms by which diet effects gene expression in the worm, we performed complimentary genetic screens looking for genes that gave an abnormal response to diet," said Emma Watson, a doctoral student in the Walhout Lab and co-first author on the second Cell study together with Dr. MacNeil. "What we discovered was a large network of metabolic and regulator genes that can integrate internal cellular nutritional needs and imbalances with external availability," said Watson. "This information is then communicated to information processing genes in the worm to illicit the appropriate response in the animal."
These findings suggest the existence of a genetic regulatory network that facilitates rapid responses to internal physiological and external environmental cues in order to maintain a metabolic balance in the worm. Interestingly, a similar phenomenon is involved in mutations that lead to inborn metabolic diseases in humans; classes of genetic diseases resulting from defects in genes that code for enzymes which help convert nutrients into usable materials in the cell. These diseases are usually treated by dietary interventions designed to avoid build-up of toxins and to supplement patients with metabolites that may be depleted.
According to Dr. Walhout, it may be possible to use this genetic regulatory network in C. elegans to compare how certain dietary regimens can be used to mitigate these metabolic diseases. It may also be used to screen for drugs or other small molecules that can produce the same results as dietary treatments.
Though Walhout and colleagues started out asking a fundamental dietary question in the worm, what they got was an answer directly related to disease and treatment in humans, thus establishing C. elegans as a model system for elucidating the mechanisms for dietary responses, inborn metabolic diseases and the connections between them.
"It's very hard to answer questions about the complex interaction between diet, gene expression and physiology in humans for many reasons," said Walhout. "Now, we can use a very tractable system -- namely C. elegans -- to ask precise questions about which components in diet can effect gene expression and physiological traits and ultimately disease, in humans."
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Massachusetts Medical School. The original article was written by Jim Fessenden.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Journal Reference:
Lesley T. MacNeil, Emma Watson, H. Efsun Arda, Lihua Julie Zhu, Albertha J.M. Walhout. Diet-Induced Developmental Acceleration Independent of TOR and Insulin in C. elegans. Cell, 2013; 153 (1): 240 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.0490 -
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.
Some of the leanest people on this site advocate IIFYM. I honestly have never seen anyone on this site advocate an entire diet of junk food. EVER! So I can only assume that it is IIFYM'ers that you refer to with your above statement. You obviously have no real understanding of how IIFYM works. In order to achieve, IIFYM the majority of your diet has to be clean. The concept allows for some indulgence which makes it easier to maintain. Can you honestly say that your diet is 100% clean? Or do you allow yourself the occassional treat? Or do you just break down and binge and then hop back up on the 'clean' horse again the next day?
this is what I think. I think the holier than thou are actually making little mistakes here and there and just not fessing up. i also think the "dirty" eaters eat cleaner than they take the time to mention because their "dirty" parts are what keeps them going. so all in all I think really everyone's eating pretty much almost the same but it's just a matter of how you set your mind to it. SOme people seem to prefer to give off the image of perfection and strive for that and don't even let themselves look at the slip ups while others eat mostly good and look forward to those little treats they already know will be there. Two sides of the same coin.
What are you suggesting? I am not lying about my diet. I assume some do. I am also not holier than thou. I gave my answer to the post, and all of a sudden I am holier than thou, closet binging and what not? If I eat something I shouldn't I do acknowledge my mistake and do my best not to go back. However, cheating on my established diet has proved destructive to my over all effort. I stay on track because I know myself. If go off and "slip" as you say, I will fall back for the whole week. I eat what I like, and if my dietary choices bother you then you have problems. I don't let anyone elses diet keep me up at night. Neither should you or anyone else. Live and let live for crying out loud.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 436 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions