Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

there is plenty of evidence. mountains of it. so much that i'm not going to waste my time finding it for you.

as for people who don't eat "clean" in outstanding health... what like professional athletes? how many professional athletes make it past 80? I don't personally consider athletes to be a paragon of health. Fitness? Yeah... some... but health? Nah, not so much. It's really not healthy to train as hard as elite athletes do over a long period of time.

... Who brought up pro athletes?? I cannot understand how your brain works.

pepper your angus

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

there is plenty of evidence. mountains of it. so much that i'm not going to waste my time finding it for you.

as for people who don't eat "clean" in outstanding health... what like professional athletes? how many professional athletes make it past 80? I don't personally consider athletes to be a paragon of health. Fitness? Yeah... some... but health? Nah, not so much. It's really not healthy to train as hard as elite athletes do over a long period of time.

... Who brought up pro athletes?? I cannot understand how your brain works.

haha i just thought that's where you were going.

ok, if not athletes... then who are these people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level?

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

there is plenty of evidence. mountains of it. so much that i'm not going to waste my time finding it for you.

as for people who don't eat "clean" in outstanding health... what like professional athletes? how many professional athletes make it past 80? I don't personally consider athletes to be a paragon of health. Fitness? Yeah... some... but health? Nah, not so much. It's really not healthy to train as hard as elite athletes do over a long period of time.

... Who brought up pro athletes?? I cannot understand how your brain works.

haha i just thought that's where you were going.

ok, if not athletes... then who are these people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level?

albert nunez

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

there is plenty of evidence. mountains of it. so much that i'm not going to waste my time finding it for you.

as for people who don't eat "clean" in outstanding health... what like professional athletes? how many professional athletes make it past 80? I don't personally consider athletes to be a paragon of health. Fitness? Yeah... some... but health? Nah, not so much. It's really not healthy to train as hard as elite athletes do over a long period of time.

... Who brought up pro athletes?? I cannot understand how your brain works.

haha i just thought that's where you were going.

ok, if not athletes... then who are these people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level?

albert nunez

I... what? Ok... same point as my athlete point... how many body builders make it past 80?

I answered it.

Your statement that someone WILL feel and look better eating "clean" has no evidence at all to back it up. Period. Look at all the people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level.

there is plenty of evidence. mountains of it. so much that i'm not going to waste my time finding it for you.

as for people who don't eat "clean" in outstanding health... what like professional athletes? how many professional athletes make it past 80? I don't personally consider athletes to be a paragon of health. Fitness? Yeah... some... but health? Nah, not so much. It's really not healthy to train as hard as elite athletes do over a long period of time.

... Who brought up pro athletes?? I cannot understand how your brain works.

haha i just thought that's where you were going.

ok, if not athletes... then who are these people who do not eat "clean" who are in outstanding health and look and feel and perform at a high level?

albert nunez

I... what? Ok... same point as my athlete point... how many body builders make it past 80?

doesnt make as much sense because bodybuilding didnt become popular until 50s.

http://thepoormouth.blogspot.com/2012/07/oldest-living-olympians.html
here are the oldest living olympians

In 50 years lets all meet back and then we can better determine who was the winner.

agreed! :drinker:

If I meet here in 50 years I will be the winner by default as I will be 95! Deal?

bump

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.

It really depends on the definition of junk food.

After all, nowadays the diet hipsters define:
Dairy
Beans/Peas
Breads
Pastas
Potatoes
Corn
Rice
Peanuts
Deli Meats
Sausages and other processed meats
Cereal (and all grain based things)

as junk food.

Its easy to strawman IIFYM as the pop tart diet. But nowadays those that are on the bacon diet (cough paleo) shift the goal posts, redifing junk as all things not meat and some vegetables.

You can in fact eat an awesome super healthy diet consisting solely of what a bacon diet preacher terms junk food, without ever touching the sugary and fatty treats that were traditionally termed junk food.

So yes, I would advocate a diet of junk food. Not necessarily actually junk food, but what the bacon preachers term junk food for sure.

@Coach reddy.... Three words, life's, too, short... Hit your macros! If you wanna eat burgers do it!! If you wanna eat super organic 100% raw flax seed meal, go for it! As for me, I'll eat chex mix and ice cream and take me a multivitamin ^_^

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.

It really depends on the definition of junk food.

After all, nowadays the diet hipsters define:
Dairy
Beans/Peas
Breads
Pastas
Potatoes
Corn
Rice
Peanuts
Cereal (and all grain based things)

as junk food.

Its easy to strawman IIFYM as the pop tart diet. But when those that are on the bacon diet (cough paleo) shift the goal posts, redifing junk as all things not meat and some vegetables.

You can in fact eat an awesome super healthy diet consisting solely of what a bacon diet preacher terms junk food, without ever touching the sugary and fatty treats that were traditionally termed junk food.

totally agree. i don't consider any of the above junk food. i'm talking the pop tarts, ice cream, and fast foods of the world. not that you can't indulge occasionally, but you can't build a diet around those foods and expect to be as healthy as someone who eats primarily whole foods, whether paleo, vegan, or IIFYM (which in reality encompasses all "diets")

Don't be starting on my ice cream after we just started to play nice.

Ingredients list of one of my favorite ice creams:

Salty Caramel Ice Cream
Ingredients: Snowville Creamery Milk, Snowville Cream, Sugar, Light Brown Sugar, Madagascar Bourbon Pure Vanilla Extract (Water, Alcohol, Sugar, Vanilla Bean Extractives), Sea Salt, Tapioca Starch
Contains: Milk
**Gluten Free**


Not junk.....

I am not saying to eat it all the time...but it is not 'junk' food at all.

This article is from the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It is entitled, "Uric Acid, the Metabolic Syndrome and Renal Disease" http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/17/12_suppl_3/S165.full

From the article: "...Recently, uric acid also was found to have a causal role in the metabolic syndrome that was induced experimentally by fructose (38). Fructose rapidly raises uric acid as a consequence of activation of fructokinase with ATP consumption, intracellular phosphate depletion, and stimulation of AMP deaminase (39). Lowering uric acid in fructose-fed rats ameliorates much of the metabolic syndrome, including a reduction in BP, serum triglycerides, hyperinsulinemia, and weight gain (38). The rise in uric acid after fructose ingestion likely has a significant role in inducing insulin resistance via its effect to lower nitric oxide (35) and also possibly by a direct effect of uric acid on the adipocytes (Sautin et al., submitted).

In turn, fructose intake correlates well with the recent rise in the epidemic of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease (40). Fructose constitutes 50% of table sugar and also is a major component in high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in the United States as a sweetener. Intake of fructose has increased markedly in the past few decades and correlates with the rising rates of metabolic syndrome...."

In a related area, here is a link to the proceedings of a "Food Addiction Summit" held several years ago. The list of presenters was pretty impressive. Sugar consumption was cited by a number of the researchers as a large part of the problem. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/index.htm

is associated with progressive renal disease in humans.

You have to already have it

That study fed rats 60% fructose.
on a 3000 calorie diet that is 450g of straight fructose a day. for 6 straight months

If you ate 450g of fructose a day for 6 months
you deserve to have diabetes.

as I said.
please interpret the study before you post garbage

Well, duh. The reason why they gave the rats high doses of fructose is because the rats have the uricase enzyme (humans do not--they have the gene for it but it is non-functional). In order to get the rats to produce high levels of uric acid, they had to either overdose them on fructose or suppress the uricase enzyme. They chose to overdose them on fructose and raise the level of uric acid to what would be an equivalent level in a human with a much lower dose of fructose. You don't know what you are talking about. (And, you are behaving in a fairly obnoxious fashion.)

Out of interest, what would that dose equate to in a human?

One of the researchers, Richard Johnson, M.D. writes: "A more targeted criticism of studies in laboratory animals is that the fructose is typically administered in large amounts to rats (such as 60 percent of their diet) when humans are ingesting only 10 to 15 percent of their [calories] in fructose. Recall, however, that humans are much more sensitive to the effects of fructose because they have the uricase mutation. When we inhibited uricase in rats, they developed features of metabolic syndrome with even low doses of fructose. Moreover, it is common in laboratory studies to give large doses of a factor in order to speed up the disease process. For example, insulin resistance occurs within two months in rats fed 60 percent fructose, but it takes 15 months if they are given a diet containing 15 percent fructose [the amount that the average person ingests on a daily basis--from all sources]...The effect of fructose on metabolism also takes time to develop [this was after a discussion of fructose, uric acid production and kidney disease]. Young, healthy people are relatively resistant to the effects of fructose, in part because they absorb less, and also because they tend to have healthy blood vessels. However, over time, the repeated assault associated with high sugar intake increases the proteins involved in fructose absorption and metabolism, and the effects of excessive fructose intake become much more apparent in individuals who are obese or [already] have insulin resistance... If your goal is to show that fructose is safe, then do a short term study in young healthy children or adults. In contrast, if you want to show that even short-term fructose can induce metabolic effects, then give the fructose to someone who is already obese and pre-diabetic..."

In other words, it would be difficult to determine what that level is because it makes a difference where you start metabolically and genetically. Some people are obviously much more sensitive, as he stated---age, health status, etc. It is also known that glucose enhances the uptake of fructose and sucrose is also 50% glucose (whereas, in the study, only fructose was administered). Nevertheless, in a parallel study, the researchers were able to induce metabolic syndrome in 25 percent of adult men in the study in TWO WEEKS when they supplemented their diet with 200 grams of fructose. Now this is the equivalent of about nine soft drinks a day and that is more than most people would ordinarily consume in a day. But consider that one piece of "Carrot Cake A La Mode" at The Keg restaurant chain, would contain 130 grams of fructose in the 260 grams of sugar that it contains. And food processors hide a LOT of sugar in their products. (Why do you think they need so much salt? I suspect that it is to cover what would otherwise be a too sweet taste.) While it is true that the 200 grams of fructose is more than most people would ingest in a day, Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is also true that metabolic syndrome normally takes years to develop and to see this occur in just two weeks was striking. Thankfully, these changes reversed [in the test subjects] when the study was over..."

Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.

Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.

I get the concept of the study - a bit too many extrapolations, assumptions and maybes....but worth further studies.

I think the point is adherence to a caloric deficit must be first and foremost the biggest priority for significantly overweight people. Dieting is over-whelming to many people and imposing too many restrictions can cause adherence problems. Sometimes, at first, the only thing that does matter is restricting calories.

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.

It really depends on the definition of junk food.

After all, nowadays the diet hipsters define:
Dairy
Beans/Peas
Breads
Pastas
Potatoes
Corn
Rice
Peanuts
Cereal (and all grain based things)

as junk food.

Its easy to strawman IIFYM as the pop tart diet. But when those that are on the bacon diet (cough paleo) shift the goal posts, redifing junk as all things not meat and some vegetables.

You can in fact eat an awesome super healthy diet consisting solely of what a bacon diet preacher terms junk food, without ever touching the sugary and fatty treats that were traditionally termed junk food.

totally agree. i don't consider any of the above junk food. i'm talking the pop tarts, ice cream, and fast foods of the world. not that you can't indulge occasionally, but you can't build a diet around those foods and expect to be as healthy as someone who eats primarily whole foods, whether paleo, vegan, or IIFYM (which in reality encompasses all "diets")

Don't be starting on my ice cream after we just started to play nice.

Ingredients list of one of my favorite ice creams:

Salty Caramel Ice Cream
Ingredients: Snowville Creamery Milk, Snowville Cream, Sugar, Light Brown Sugar, Madagascar Bourbon Pure Vanilla Extract (Water, Alcohol, Sugar, Vanilla Bean Extractives), Sea Salt, Tapioca Starch
Contains: Milk
**Gluten Free**


Not junk.....

I am not saying to eat it all the time...but it is not 'junk' food at all.

haha ok fair enough. i'm all about the playing nice. :happy:

Many who come to these forums are obese and pre-diabetic (indeed a number of them are already struggling with Type II diabetes). It is irresponsible to tell them that the only thing that matters is restricting their calories.

I get the concept of the study - a bit too many extrapolations, assumptions and maybes....but worth further studies.

I think the point is adherence to a caloric deficit must be first and foremost the biggest priority for significantly overweight people. Dieting is over-whelming to many people and imposing too many restrictions can cause adherence problems. Sometimes, at first, the only thing that does matter is restricting calories.

QFT - agree wholeheartedly that calorie control is priority number one. always.

I don't think anyone ever says that calorie intake is the only thing that matters. I've literally never seen anyone say that.

Well many/most do acknowledge (even among clean eaters) that calorie intake is the only thing that matters for weight loss/gain, with the caveat that noone is really interested in actually just losing weight; that losing fat is actual goal when someone desires weight loss, and for that, there is more to the story than just calories.