Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?
pghlulu
Posts: 42
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....
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....
0
Replies
-
In order to make this a more fair comparison you would want to make sure each person is getting identical macronutrients for their needs and sufficient micronutrients.
In the example you've listed the person eating exclusively junk, would have a horrible macro profile and may possible be micronutrient deficient.
The person eating the whole foods diet probably wouldn't have those issues and as such they'd likely end up healthier and with a better body composition.
But that being said, this doesn't mean calories aren't calories nor does it negate the first paragraph you wrote.
The people advocating junk food shouldn't (and hopefully aren't) suggesting a diet exclusively of junk food. There exists a middle ground where macros are set properly, micronutrients are plentiful, and "some" junk food is included into the otherwise already healthy and sufficient diet. In a situation like this I'd expect minimal to zero differences in body composition vs a completely whole foods diet.
Some food for thought, although just a snapshot:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17536194
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html0 -
Eating clean makes it easier to achieve results, however, moderation is a good practice if you do desire less beneficial foods. For some, denying foods that one considers enjoyable can cause a mental roadblock affecting commitment.0
-
Clean eating does wonders for the body. Much of its philosophy is based in the concept that the human digestive system evolved on a very simple diet of a few natural ingredients that your body can process easily. On the other hand, junk food contains a lot of over-processed unnatural components that are unrecognizable to your body. Additionally clean eating involves a lot more nutrition, so even if you and your twin eat the same number of calories in these two diets, the junk-eater is likely to be very malnourished. I also feel as if the junk-eater would also gain more weight just because their diet wouldn't have any fiber or vitamins or healthiness to it.0
-
Thanks for the article links, very interesting.
And I do agree that allowing a bit of "junk" here and there is totally OK and probably good to keep the commitment to healthy eating on track. If I didn't have my treats in moderation like I do, I know I would eventually go on an insane peanut butter-chocolate-donut bender-binge.0 -
In your scenario, you would both lose the same amount of weight, but you would probably look healthier, in terms of skin, hair, etc.
If you just want to lose fat, then all you need to do is eat at a calorie deficit. It doesn't matter what you eat. If you want to be healthy, however, then that's a different story.
Personally, I am not a fan of eating clean OR living off junk. A nice, happy medium will get you where you want to be health and weight-wise without missing out on the foods you like.0 -
Eating clean makes it easier to achieve results, however, moderation is a good practice if you do desire less beneficial foods. For some, denying foods that one considers enjoyable can cause a mental roadblock affecting commitment.
I love you too much to see you use the "C" word. Please, just stop.0 -
duplicate0
-
Oh, just wanted to add:
"Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice"0 -
I have made it from my healthiest (trail running uphill, 100 mile clean eating diet) to my skinniest with crappy food. I kind of plateaued working out so I joined weight watchers. It was so exciting! I could eat sugar free jello pudding in the place of ANYTHING and I lost a ton of weight, but it was my ultimate demise because it set me up for the cold that ended it all (I got so sick and worn down that I gained 20 lbs that I haven't been able to lose since and went even higher than that
)
I'm almost back at the 20 lbs over the skinniest, then I can make sure I do it right from now in. It wasn't worth the last 10 lbs at ALL to switch the bad diet.
so in the short run, the crappy food will help you lose weight, but it will set you up for misery0 -
Please explain how weight gain would occur when in a caloric deficit. (Hint: Google "Twinkie Diet" before you answer)...I also feel as if the junk-eater would also gain more weight just because their diet wouldn't have any fiber or vitamins or healthiness to it.
In the OP's hypothetical example (given isocaloric diets and identical metabolisms, activity levels, etc.), weight loss would be the same. Speaking purely in terms of weight loss, calories in < calories out is all that matters; however, when you factor in body composition and overall health, macro and micronutrients certainly do matter and the outcomes between the two would be vastly different in that regard.
And as usual, SideSteel is right on the mark with this ^.The people advocating junk food shouldn't (and hopefully aren't) suggesting a diet exclusively of junk food. There exists a middle ground where macros are set properly, micronutrients are plentiful, and "some" junk food is included into the otherwise already healthy and sufficient diet. In a situation like this I'd expect minimal to zero differences in body composition vs a completely whole foods diet.0 -
Likely the junk-food eater would be heavier even though they eat the same amt. of calories. What you eat affects your metabolism and how your body reacts to the nutrients - and junk foods tend to shift your body towards storing fat (anything that causes a spike in insulin like high fructose corn syrup) and storing water (bloat - high sodium). So, you would consume the same amt of calories, but your basal metabolisms would not stay the same so you wouldn't be burning the same amt. Add in the water weight and there you go - you would be lighter and look better.0
-
Realistic I would imagine you would both look close to the same, you might weight close to the same....But your insides would be completely different. The person eating a lot of junk would be at a higher risk for heart problems, high cholesterol, vitamin deficiencies, even type II diabetes (More things cause type II diabetes than just being overweight) whereas the person eating healthier foods would probably be healthier overall.0
-
I can only give you my experience, which is this. When I eat 1500 calories in high fat foods (think fast food, fried foods, chips, carbs and salty foods) - I gain weight. When I eat 1500 calories in fresh fruits, fresh veggies and lean protein prepared cleanly (no frying... think grilled, steamed, baked), I lose weight, am less bloated and have more energy. All calories are NOT created equal in my humble opinion. It just makes sense. As much as I want to believe I can eat 1500 calories in nachos and not gain weight, it's not true. Good luck to you in your weight loss journey!0
-
I dont believe there would be that much of a difference but the amount of food you can eat "eating clean" versus junk makes it a whole lot easier not to eat too much. I believe that is the major difference plus getting the many nutrients not provided by junk foods help to stabilize your body with hormone production and such.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.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.
I don't understand why people get so evangelical about eating clean food?
"I eat clean" is hardly a badge of honour.0 -
I wouldn't think there would be much difference if they're both eating within their calories, & working out. Now there would be a difference in the bodies if one were say, not doing any exercising at all or if they were just running, while the other was a heavy lifter exerciser.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.
I don't understand why people get so evangelical about eating clean food?
"I eat clean" is hardly a badge of honour.
yep0 -
This is a good article to read about IIFYM- If It Fits Your Macros. Meaning, it doesn't make a difference if you are eating processed or "clean" foods, as long as you are hitting your macronutrients (carbs, fats, proteins) daily. The article explains this very well.
http://www.doyoueven.com/2013/01/iifympart1/0 -
My personal opinion is, you can still look great if you decide to eat junk as long as you still maintain your allowed calories. However, eating the right foods helps you reach your goal because you will feel more full,less hungry all the time.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.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.
Neither is it anything to be ashamed about.0 -
In order to make this a more fair comparison you would want to make sure each person is getting identical macronutrients for their needs and sufficient micronutrients.
In the example you've listed the person eating exclusively junk, would have a horrible macro profile and may possible be micronutrient deficient.
The person eating the whole foods diet probably wouldn't have those issues and as such they'd likely end up healthier and with a better body composition.
But that being said, this doesn't mean calories aren't calories nor does it negate the first paragraph you wrote.
The people advocating junk food shouldn't (and hopefully aren't) suggesting a diet exclusively of junk food. There exists a middle ground where macros are set properly, micronutrients are plentiful, and "some" junk food is included into the otherwise already healthy and sufficient diet. In a situation like this I'd expect minimal to zero differences in body composition vs a completely whole foods diet.
Some food for thought, although just a snapshot:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17536194
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html
^^this bears repeating.
Plus, if eating 'junk' food in an otherwise nutritiously dense diet allows for greater adherence and happiness, which is the 'better' way of doing it in the long run?0 -
Probably wouldn't look the same. A diet of junk lacks nutrition. For example, potato chips are high in cals, as much as say a healthy food like a salad but lack all the vitamins and nutrients from a salad. A diet of junk would lead to nutritional defencies so there would probably be more muscle loss in that person than one whom ate the same amount of healthy food. So even if by some off chance they weighed the same, the unhealthy one would probably be skinny fat.0
-
"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 -
One summer when I was a kid, I ate potato chips only all summer. I looked great and felt great, but I was 14. I still love chips! :flowerforyou:0
-
"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.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?
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.0 -
One summer when I was a kid, I ate potato chips only all summer. I looked great and felt great, but I was 14. I still love chips! :flowerforyou:
When I was in high school, I knew a girl and the only thing she ate was ice cream... nothing all day but ice cream... like 3 or 4 bowls a day. Thinnest girl I ever met.0 -
No it doesn't matter. Clean is a function of ones point of view anyway, clean for one person is dirty for another.
Weight is a function of calories almsot exclusively.
Body composition is a function of calories, macronutrients (mostly protein), and exercise. Eat high protein (relative to a normal american diet) and strength train, gains due to a calorie surpus tend toward muscle and losses due to a calorie deficit tend toward fat, over time eating and exercising this way will take you to a highly desirable body composition. The cleanness of food is irrelevant.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