Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?

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

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

Re-quoting here as pertinent

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

Re-quoting here as pertinent

However, Sara, some DO advocate diets consisting primarily of "junk foods", and because you/magerum/etc align yourselves with them, it leads many to believe that you don't disagree with that.

However, Sara, some DO advocate diets consisting primarily of "junk foods", and because you/magerum/etc align yourselves with them, it leads many to believe that you don't disagree with that.

However, Sara, some DO advocate diets consisting primarily of "junk foods", and because you/magerum/etc align yourselves with them, it leads many to believe that you don't disagree with that.

I have not seen a single person who advocates a diet consisting primarily of junk food. You are setting up a straw man.

People like me do not advocate a diet consisting primarily of "junk food."

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.

yep

When I first came to this site, I saw some guy talking about how he had cupcakes that morning for breakfast. And another girl was talking about how she had cinnamon buns covered in frosting that morning. And now this guys health bar is all taco bell and junk? hahahahahah who can take it seriously

It's not a health bar. And if you could give one specific reason that, say, a chicken soft taco from Taco Bell is bad I'd love to hear it.

When I first came to this site, I saw some guy talking about how he had cupcakes that morning for breakfast. And another girl was talking about how she had cinnamon buns covered in frosting that morning. And now this guys health bar is all taco bell and junk? hahahahahah who can take it seriously

It's not a health bar. And if you could give one specific reason that, say, a chicken soft taco from Taco Bell is bad I'd love to hear it.

Taco bell is total ****. I don't eat taco bell or any of the things you have listed. Nor would I go home and make the same thing and call it healthy. I do not eat fast food. So you don't really want to talk to me.

That's not really specific. Is it certain ingredients that are ****? Macro profiles? What?

Which part of the taco is ****? Is it the tortilla, the chicken, the lettuce, or the tomato?

When I first came to this site, I saw some guy talking about how he had cupcakes that morning for breakfast. And another girl was talking about how she had cinnamon buns covered in frosting that morning. And now this guys health bar is all taco bell and junk? hahahahahah who can take it seriously

It's not a health bar. And if you could give one specific reason that, say, a chicken soft taco from Taco Bell is bad I'd love to hear it.

Taco bell is total ****. I don't eat taco bell or any of the things you have listed. Nor would I go home and make the same thing and call it healthy. I do not eat fast food. So you don't really want to talk to me.

That's not really specific. Is it certain ingredients that are ****? Macro profiles? What?

Which part of the taco is ****? Is it the tortilla, the chicken, the lettuce, or the tomato?

Its processed garbage I won't touch. You can however eat whatever you want. I do not eat fast food.

When I first came to this site, I saw some guy talking about how he had cupcakes that morning for breakfast. And another girl was talking about how she had cinnamon buns covered in frosting that morning. And now this guys health bar is all taco bell and junk? hahahahahah who can take it seriously

It's not a health bar. And if you could give one specific reason that, say, a chicken soft taco from Taco Bell is bad I'd love to hear it.

Taco bell is total ****. I don't eat taco bell or any of the things you have listed. Nor would I go home and make the same thing and call it healthy. I do not eat fast food. So you don't really want to talk to me.

That's not really specific. Is it certain ingredients that are ****? Macro profiles? What?

Which part of the taco is ****? Is it the tortilla, the chicken, the lettuce, or the tomato?

Its processed garbage I won't touch. You can however eat whatever you want. I do not eat fast food.

Which part? The tortilla, the chicken, the lettuce, or the tomato?

"Processed" doesn't mean bad. Whole wheat bread is processed. Butter is processed.

So what, specifically, is bad?

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.

Suruprised someone knows about this

"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.

Lol? what metabolic damage..
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 please