Why are people so negative regarding clean eating?

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!

Thanks Sara, that's one of my favorites of all time.

Does this imply once our nutritional needs are met, we can go eat a half gallon of ice cream with out negative effects on our biochemistry(I am talking about lethargic or ill feeling)?

I don't follow IIFYM myself (it sounds entirely like too much effort for my goals...) but some of its more eloquent followers do make a good point in regards to what is considered "junk" food. A twinkie for example may not be considered a "healthy" choice but by the same token in the context of a balanced diet it is not necessarily an unhealthy choice either. It is in all likelihood a neutral choice. Some dieters may find that thinking liberating which frees them up to align them more closely to the things that actually work - the fundamentals.

I'm going to be really lazy and quote Lyle McDonald here:

I’d note before continuing that this much of the above rationalizing tends to be more for people who are only paying somewhat ‘superficial’ attention to ‘eating well’ (or some other fairly abstract goal). That is, the type of thing I’m going to talk about doesn’t generally occur among folks who are diet obsessed and track macros or calories or what have you. Rather it’s for folks who, while they may say that they are concerned with their diet or body weight or body fat, are focusing on the wrong things (a topic I addressed in more detail in Fundamental Principles vs. Minor Details).

Finally type of behavior seems to occur more prevalently in people who tend to divide foods into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ categories (a category that many popular diets and dietary approaches tend to promote). ‘Good’ foods become equated with healthy and, altogether too often, can be eaten without consequence (i.e. weight gain). Researchers call this the ‘health halo’ by which supposed ‘healthy foods’ have a halo of invincibility around them In the same vein ‘bad’ foods are equated with being unhealthy and this categories are not only absolute but cause us to do some of those strange mental gymnastics when it comes to how we approach our food intake.

You can find examples of this all over the place where people assume that ‘healthy/good’ foods can be eaten in uncontrolled amounts whereas the tiniest amount of ‘unhealthy/bad foods’ mean that the diet has failed, the dieter is immoral and weak, and health will simply be destroyed (this is seen at the greatest extreme in a psychological condition called orthorexia whereby people see food as a moral choice judging not only themselves but others by the foods that they choose to eat). You can see some good examples of this in the comments section of Straight Talk About High-Fructose Corn Syrup: What it is and What it Ain’t. – Research Review.

link: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/the-dieters-paradox-research-review.html

Just adding to this a quote from one of my favorite peeps in the industry, Eric Helms.

I think one of the most pervasive, and possibly detrimental mind sets is that of seeing foods as either “good” or “bad”. This is a rather seductive way of looking at foods because it is simplistic. Look at a food, identify it as friend or foe, and then go with the “good” option not the “bad” option and you’ll be healthy, fit, lean and sexy! It’s that easy! But of course, that’s not the case.

One of the problems with this mindset is that it fits perfectly into the behavioral paradigm that leads to obesity in the first place; the all or nothing mindset. One thing I find to be a commonality among folks who struggle with weight gain and permanent weight loss, is that they lose the middle ground. They bounce between being “on the diet” and falling off the band wagon and lapsing into cycles of overeating. We have no problem losing weight, we have trouble keeping the weight off. We crash diet and lose 20-30lbs in a few months, and then it all comes back on when we can’t maintain the crash diet approach.

All or nothing Black and white mindsets ignore the concepts of magnitude and frequency which are all important when it comes to long term change. Of course 1g of sugar eaten every 2 weeks will not have the same effect as 100g of sugar eaten daily, but we love to label sugar as “bad”. Even water consumed in massive excess can lead to hyponatremia and death. Sugar is not good or bad, and neither is water, they just are what they are and without attention to magnitude or frequency, labels like “good” or “bad” are misleading.

We tend to be overly reductionist in our approach to nutrition. Originally, we believed fat was the singular cause of the obesity epidemic. When the low fat craze had no impact on preventing the worsening of the obesity epidemic, we went the way of the low carb craze, and folks started consuming fat with abandon. When this didn’t turn the trend of waist expansion around, we decided that it’s not just fat or carbs, the causes are specific types of carbs and fat; specifically sugar, high fructose corn syrup and trans fat are the culprits!

The need to blame singular nutrients highlights the all or nothing, black or white attitude that is in and of itself one of the roots of unhealthy eating behavior and consequently obesity. Again, it comes down to seeking balance. The concept of balance in nutrition is inclusive of the concepts of magnitude and frequency that are needed for long term lifestyle change. Balance recognizes that it is not the small piece of chocolate that you had that wasn’t on your diet plan that was the problem, it was the carton of ice cream you had afterward!

The meal plan foods are “good”, and a piece of chocolate is “bad” and once you’d crossed over from “good” to “bad”, you said: “Screw it! I already blew it, I might as well just have cookie dough ice cream until I puke!” That is the all too common result of the all or nothing mindset in action. On the other hand, a balanced approach realizes that a small piece of chocolate is only ~100 calories, and will make a minuscule difference in terms of weight loss over time. In fact, a balanced meal plan might even allow for a daily range of calories, so that the following day could be reduced by 100 calories. Even more shockingly, a balanced meal plan might even include a piece of chocolate (blasphemy I know)!

There are truly VERY few foods that are actively bad for you. Most of the foods that we identify as “bad”, are simply low or devoid of micro-nutrients, minerals, fiber and other things like phytochemicals and protein that can be beneficial for you. These foods only become a problem when they occur frequently and with enough magnitude (frequency and magnitude!) to replace a significant enough portion of your diet that you become deficient in beneficial nutrients.

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! It’s not as though we have a health food critic living in our esophagus that has a control box that he switches from “get leaner and healthier” to “get fatter and unhealthier” every time he spots “good” or “bad” food. Thus, a healthy diet should be inclusionary vs. exclusionary; focused around including healthy foods, not excluding “unhealthy” foods. Meet your nutrient needs, and feel free to eat things that you may have traditionally seen as “bad” in moderation; so that you are still meeting your allotted caloric intake for your weight loss goals. Don’t make the mistake of looking at foods as “good” or “bad!” Good diets can include “bad” foods and bad diets can include “good” foods. Don’t get too caught up with what you have for lunch, because it is not a singular choice that will determine the success of your health and fitness goals, it is the balanced lifestyle you commit to long term!

http://dynamicduotraining.com/wordpress/15-nutrition-myths-you-want-to-knowallow-the-experts-to-tell/

Edited to highlight my favorite quote.

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!

Thanks Sara, that's one of my favorites of all time.

Does this imply once our nutritional needs are met, we can go eat a half gallon of ice cream with out negative effects on our biochemistry(I am talking about lethargic or ill feeling)?

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!

Thanks Sara, that's one of my favorites of all time.

Does this imply once our nutritional needs are met, we can go eat a half gallon of ice cream with out negative effects on our biochemistry(I am talking about lethargic or ill feeling)?

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!

Thanks Sara, that's one of my favorites of all time.

Does this imply once our nutritional needs are met, we can go eat a half gallon of ice cream with out negative effects on our biochemistry(I am talking about lethargic or ill feeling)?

It implies that what you do with your discretionary calories should be based on personal preference, which I would suggest includes how you feel when eating certain items.

I just wanted to clarify it for the other readers. By the wording, it just sounded like there are no benefits in keeping your diet "cleaner" once your nutritional needs are met. There are specific benefits, depends what you're looking for. If you're looking for weight loss and don't care, then it's fine, if you're looking for optimal functionality, then it does matter. I am taking summer math classes online(no instructor) and because it's summer they condense 18 weeks in to 6 weeks. SO it's literally an all day ordeal. I know that specific food choices will make it more difficult to focus.I am well aware of that, and I accept it when I decide not to abide to a less processed diet.

Sometimes when i am tired, and want a good sleep. I intentionally cause a sugar crash... We need to know how food effects our body.

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!

Thanks Sara, that's one of my favorites of all time.

Whelp, that's kind of Just Your Opinion, Some others don't agree. What you chose to use your extra calories on is your business, but if someone else makes a difference choice why is there a need to chastise them for it. Cant you eat your ice cream and they have some slices of watermelon without it turning into a IIFYM vs Clean Eaters debate. Maybe for them they do get extra credit because they are avoiding additives or want to stick to foods grown by mother nature. That is their philosophy and they are entitled to it. Just like an IIFYMer doesn't get kudos because they met their nutrients needs and decided they wanted to use the rest on some Mickey D's. Do what works for you. There's no reason to troll for the words "clean" just to cause tension and arguments. You don't need to preach your "facts and science" to every member who uses the word, or follows a different philosophy than yours.

Does this imply once our nutritional needs are met, we can go eat a half gallon of ice cream with out negative effects on our biochemistry(I am talking about lethargic or ill feeling)?

My thoughts exactly. Let me just say this, I try my best to avoid fast food at all costs because once I stopped eating it and then tried to have some, I felt sick to my stomach. My body completely rejected it. When something does that it may not necessarily be that great for you. I personally dont believe that just because I met my macros I can go eat whatever else I want. If that's your philosophy not a problem with me, but don't tell me that all your vast scientific evidence states otherwise. Whether you can eat certain foods and still lose weight is one thing. Whether its actually good for your body is another.

cue argument
"Fast food has nutrition do you even know what healthy is"
"stop demonizing food"
" there is no such thing as Good For You"
"as long as you meet your macro's blah blah blah"
"

I suggest you read the whole quote.

I was giving a well reasoned viewpoint from a highly educated person in the industry. No trolling was involved. He also lays out the logic, which you seem to have missed.

sorry no missed logic here

I don't follow IIFYM myself (it sounds entirely like too much effort for my goals...) but some of its more eloquent followers do make a good point in regards to what is considered "junk" food. A twinkie for example may not be considered a "healthy" choice but by the same token in the context of a balanced diet it is not necessarily an unhealthy choice either. It is in all likelihood a neutral choice. Some dieters may find that thinking liberating which frees them up to align them more closely to the things that actually work - the fundamentals.

I'm going to be really lazy and quote Lyle McDonald here:

I’d note before continuing that this much of the above rationalizing tends to be more for people who are only paying somewhat ‘superficial’ attention to ‘eating well’ (or some other fairly abstract goal). That is, the type of thing I’m going to talk about doesn’t generally occur among folks who are diet obsessed and track macros or calories or what have you. Rather it’s for folks who, while they may say that they are concerned with their diet or body weight or body fat, are focusing on the wrong things (a topic I addressed in more detail in Fundamental Principles vs. Minor Details).

Finally type of behavior seems to occur more prevalently in people who tend to divide foods into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ categories (a category that many popular diets and dietary approaches tend to promote). ‘Good’ foods become equated with healthy and, altogether too often, can be eaten without consequence (i.e. weight gain). Researchers call this the ‘health halo’ by which supposed ‘healthy foods’ have a halo of invincibility around them In the same vein ‘bad’ foods are equated with being unhealthy and this categories are not only absolute but cause us to do some of those strange mental gymnastics when it comes to how we approach our food intake.

You can find examples of this all over the place where people assume that ‘healthy/good’ foods can be eaten in uncontrolled amounts whereas the tiniest amount of ‘unhealthy/bad foods’ mean that the diet has failed, the dieter is immoral and weak, and health will simply be destroyed (this is seen at the greatest extreme in a psychological condition called orthorexia whereby people see food as a moral choice judging not only themselves but others by the foods that they choose to eat). You can see some good examples of this in the comments section of Straight Talk About High-Fructose Corn Syrup: What it is and What it Ain’t. – Research Review.

link: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/the-dieters-paradox-research-review.html

Just adding to this a quote from one of my favorite peeps in the industry, Eric Helms.

I think one of the most pervasive, and possibly detrimental mind sets is that of seeing foods as either “good” or “bad”. This is a rather seductive way of looking at foods because it is simplistic. Look at a food, identify it as friend or foe, and then go with the “good” option not the “bad” option and you’ll be healthy, fit, lean and sexy! It’s that easy! But of course, that’s not the case.

One of the problems with this mindset is that it fits perfectly into the behavioral paradigm that leads to obesity in the first place; the all or nothing mindset. One thing I find to be a commonality among folks who struggle with weight gain and permanent weight loss, is that they lose the middle ground. They bounce between being “on the diet” and falling off the band wagon and lapsing into cycles of overeating. We have no problem losing weight, we have trouble keeping the weight off. We crash diet and lose 20-30lbs in a few months, and then it all comes back on when we can’t maintain the crash diet approach.

All or nothing Black and white mindsets ignore the concepts of magnitude and frequency which are all important when it comes to long term change. Of course 1g of sugar eaten every 2 weeks will not have the same effect as 100g of sugar eaten daily, but we love to label sugar as “bad”. Even water consumed in massive excess can lead to hyponatremia and death. Sugar is not good or bad, and neither is water, they just are what they are and without attention to magnitude or frequency, labels like “good” or “bad” are misleading.

We tend to be overly reductionist in our approach to nutrition. Originally, we believed fat was the singular cause of the obesity epidemic. When the low fat craze had no impact on preventing the worsening of the obesity epidemic, we went the way of the low carb craze, and folks started consuming fat with abandon. When this didn’t turn the trend of waist expansion around, we decided that it’s not just fat or carbs, the causes are specific types of carbs and fat; specifically sugar, high fructose corn syrup and trans fat are the culprits!

The need to blame singular nutrients highlights the all or nothing, black or white attitude that is in and of itself one of the roots of unhealthy eating behavior and consequently obesity. Again, it comes down to seeking balance. The concept of balance in nutrition is inclusive of the concepts of magnitude and frequency that are needed for long term lifestyle change. Balance recognizes that it is not the small piece of chocolate that you had that wasn’t on your diet plan that was the problem, it was the carton of ice cream you had afterward!

The meal plan foods are “good”, and a piece of chocolate is “bad” and once you’d crossed over from “good” to “bad”, you said: “Screw it! I already blew it, I might as well just have cookie dough ice cream until I puke!” That is the all too common result of the all or nothing mindset in action. On the other hand, a balanced approach realizes that a small piece of chocolate is only ~100 calories, and will make a minuscule difference in terms of weight loss over time. In fact, a balanced meal plan might even allow for a daily range of calories, so that the following day could be reduced by 100 calories. Even more shockingly, a balanced meal plan might even include a piece of chocolate (blasphemy I know)!

There are truly VERY few foods that are actively bad for you. Most of the foods that we identify as “bad”, are simply low or devoid of micro-nutrients, minerals, fiber and other things like phytochemicals and protein that can be beneficial for you. These foods only become a problem when they occur frequently and with enough magnitude (frequency and magnitude!) to replace a significant enough portion of your diet that you become deficient in beneficial nutrients.

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! It’s not as though we have a health food critic living in our esophagus that has a control box that he switches from “get leaner and healthier” to “get fatter and unhealthier” every time he spots “good” or “bad” food. Thus, a healthy diet should be inclusionary vs. exclusionary; focused around including healthy foods, not excluding “unhealthy” foods. Meet your nutrient needs, and feel free to eat things that you may have traditionally seen as “bad” in moderation; so that you are still meeting your allotted caloric intake for your weight loss goals. Don’t make the mistake of looking at foods as “good” or “bad!” Good diets can include “bad” foods and bad diets can include “good” foods. Don’t get too caught up with what you have for lunch, because it is not a singular choice that will determine the success of your health and fitness goals, it is the balanced lifestyle you commit to long term!

http://dynamicduotraining.com/wordpress/15-nutrition-myths-you-want-to-knowallow-the-experts-to-tell/

Edited to highlight my favorite quote.

I approve of "opinions" of others who are able to substantiate their opinions with information provided by experts or otherwise acknowledged individuals. I do not approve of hypothetical and arbitrary determination of a food item being declared unhealthy without substantiated details as to what, exactly, makes it unhealthy. "There are truly VERY few foods that are actively bad for you. Most of the foods that we identify as “bad”, are simply low or devoid of micro-nutrients, minerals, fiber and other things like phytochemicals and protein that can be beneficial for you. These foods only become a problem when they occur frequently and with enough magnitude (frequency and magnitude!) to replace a significant enough portion of your diet that you become deficient in beneficial nutrients." My favorite quote from Sara's link. Also, thanks Sara for the link, there are several other good points from other experts to read and ponder in that article.

I brought the popcorn....... Oh and the Gazelle!!!

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!

Thanks Sara, that's one of my favorites of all time.

Whelp, that's kind of Just Your Opinion, Some others don't agree. What you chose to use your extra calories on is your business, but if someone else makes a difference choice why is there a need to chastise them for it. Cant you eat your ice cream and they have some slices of watermelon without it turning into a IIFYM vs Clean Eaters debate. Maybe for them they do get extra credit because they are avoiding additives or want to stick to foods grown by mother nature. That is their philosophy and they are entitled to it. Just like an IIFYMer doesn't get kudos because they met their nutrients needs and decided they wanted to use the rest on some Mickey D's. Do what works for you. There's no reason to troll for the words "clean" just to cause tension and arguments. You don't need to preach your "facts and science" to every member who uses the word, or follows a different philosophy than yours.

Does this imply once our nutritional needs are met, we can go eat a half gallon of ice cream with out negative effects on our biochemistry(I am talking about lethargic or ill feeling)?

My thoughts exactly. Let me just say this, I try my best to avoid fast food at all costs because once I stopped eating it and then tried to have some, I felt sick to my stomach. My body completely rejected it. When something does that it may not necessarily be that great for you. I personally dont believe that just because I met my macros I can go eat whatever else I want. If that's your philosophy not a problem with me, but don't tell me that all your vast scientific evidence states otherwise. Whether you can eat certain foods and still lose weight is one thing. Whether its actually good for your body is another.

cue argument
"Fast food has nutrition do you even know what healthy is"
"stop demonizing food"
" there is no such thing as Good For You"
"as long as you meet your macro's blah blah blah"
"

I suggest you read the whole quote.

I was giving a well reasoned viewpoint from a highly educated person in the industry. No trolling was involved. He also lays out the logic, which you seem to have missed.

sorry no missed logic here, both your quotes were OPINIONS and your "highly educated person in the industry" is also sharing his OPINION

Feel free to QFT hahahaha ok but seriously

most IIFYMer actually eat clean 80-90% of the time so in your own words stop "demonizing" the term. Let by gones be by gones. Whether you like it or not "Clean Eating" is a philosophy that exists just like your IIFYM is. There are many reasons besides just weight loss as the person stated above. There's nothing wrong with it and I see more people calling Clean Eating wrong, than I see members attacking IIFYMer for having some ice cream. Macro's aren't the end all be all in my opinion but it has valid points, Clean Eating isn't the end all be all, but it has some great points...is it so hard to admit that?

Oh dear!

You really did not understand the quote (it was only one from me btw) that I posted at all if that is your reaction. I posted it not for your 'approval' as frankly I do not care. I posted it as a reasoned explanation from someone who is very well versed in nutition for people who may be interested.

ETA: I am still a bit baffled as to how posting that quote is trolling. Methinks you just like to insult people who have a different viewpoint. That could be considered trolling you know!

Mmmm Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

Why is there this constant "I need to educate you attitude" I am sure people who like to eat clean are very educated. Its this constant preaching that tends to be overkill.

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!

Thanks Sara, that's one of my favorites of all time.

Whelp, that's kind of Just Your Opinion, Some others don't agree. What you chose to use your extra calories on is your business, but if someone else makes a difference choice why is there a need to chastise them for it. Cant you eat your ice cream and they have some slices of watermelon without it turning into a IIFYM vs Clean Eaters debate. Maybe for them they do get extra credit because they are avoiding additives or want to stick to foods grown by mother nature. That is their philosophy and they are entitled to it. Just like an IIFYMer doesn't get kudos because they met their nutrients needs and decided they wanted to use the rest on some Mickey D's. Do what works for you. There's no reason to troll for the words "clean" just to cause tension and arguments. You don't need to preach your "facts and science" to every member who uses the word, or follows a different philosophy than yours.

Does this imply once our nutritional needs are met, we can go eat a half gallon of ice cream with out negative effects on our biochemistry(I am talking about lethargic or ill feeling)?

My thoughts exactly. Let me just say this, I try my best to avoid fast food at all costs because once I stopped eating it and then tried to have some, I felt sick to my stomach. My body completely rejected it. When something does that it may not necessarily be that great for you. I personally dont believe that just because I met my macros I can go eat whatever else I want. If that's your philosophy not a problem with me, but don't tell me that all your vast scientific evidence states otherwise. Whether you can eat certain foods and still lose weight is one thing. Whether its actually good for your body is another.

cue argument
"Fast food has nutrition do you even know what healthy is"
"stop demonizing food"
" there is no such thing as Good For You"
"as long as you meet your macro's blah blah blah"
"

I suggest you read the whole quote.

I was giving a well reasoned viewpoint from a highly educated person in the industry. No trolling was involved. He also lays out the logic, which you seem to have missed.

sorry no missed logic here, both your quotes were OPINIONS and your "highly educated person in the industry" is also sharing his OPINION

Feel free to QFT hahahaha ok but seriously

most IIFYMer actually eat clean 80-90% of the time so in your own words stop "demonizing" the term. Let by gones be by gones. Whether you like it or not "Clean Eating" is a philosophy that exists just like your IIFYM is. There are many reasons besides just weight loss as the person stated above. There's nothing wrong with it and I see more people calling Clean Eating wrong, than I see members attacking IIFYMer for having some ice cream. Macro's aren't the end all be all in my opinion but it has valid points, Clean Eating isn't the end all be all, but it has some great points...is it so hard to admit that?

Oh dear!

You really did not understand the quote (it was only one from me btw) that I posted at all if that is your reaction. I posted it not for your 'approval' as frankly I do not care. I posted it as a reasoned explanation from someone who is very well versed in nutition for people who may be interested.

ETA: I am still a bit baffled as to how posting that quote is trolling. Methinks you just like to insult people who have a different viewpoint. That could be considered trolling you know!

Mmmm Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

Why is there this constant "I need to educate you attitude" I am sure people who like to eat clean are very educated. Its this constant preaching that tends to be overkill.

Please show me where I have insulted you, or anyone in this post.

I was sharing a viewpoint. Are we not supposed to do that? Is that now insulting? To post a well reasoned opinion from someone who actually knows what they are talking about?