Why "clean eating" is a myth

In the short term it doesn't matter what makes up the content of your calories and macros. I think most of us get that.

In the long term, though, I'm still betting that a decade or more of mostly eating real food versus junk food and foods containing many additives that have not been fully vetted yet could make a huge difference in many ways.

Most of the people on this site are short term oriented and are only looking maybe a year or two out at most. However, once you start getting older, a longer outlook becomes a lot more important.

I don't want to say "I eat whatever," because I don't. I try to make healthy choices, I pack my lunch so I'm not tempted to eat out, I snack on cashews and fruit instead of potato chips and candy bars but I also don't get so serious about it as others do. I don't knock anyone about it, if you wanna eat clean, be my guest, that's awesome and you have more willpower than I do clearly. I like what I see in the mirror, I lost 20 lbs working my behind off in the gym while still allowing myself "empty calories" here and there.

If I wanna enjoy a piece of cheesecake, I'm going to eat a piece of cheesecake. If I want 4 Miller Lites on a Friday night after work, I'm going to drink those Miller Lites.

But as I said, I commend those that are much more 'clean' and clearly have more willpower than me.

Sigh... how someone wants to eat has zero effect on you and what you do with your body. Why do you care what others do?

"As long as the majority of your calories come from whole nutrient dense foods, there’s no evidence you can’t meet your micronutrient needs while still consuming some “empty calories.”14-17 "

Has anyone ever disputed that ever?

At the end of the day people can decide whether they want to believe peer-reviewed science that is supported and funded by big food, big pharma, and the very industries that stand to benefit from the "research" said studies provide, or the information coming to us now from other sources. I - for one - just don't believe that the government, the FDA, the USDA, and the scientists they employ truly have my best interest at heart. It's not their fault, they've got to figure out a way to feed millions of people for the lowest possible cost, and I get that. But for me, personally, I'm going to trust my own body and I'm going to trust the way I feel when I'm eating "clean" and I'm going to trust the research that I feel is valuable to me.

Call it tinfoil hat territory, make fun all you want, but how does my belief about eating affect you? I still eat ice cream, french fries, pizza, soda, etc, but I do so sparingly and I surround that with incredibly high quality foods every day. I personally believe that just hitting your macros isn't enough.

"The CDC also estimates that around 90% of Americans are consuming adequate micronutrients.22"

1) I have a hard time believing that, and
2) If it IS true, the gov't also says that 46g of protein is adequate for a grown person. How many of you IIFYM folks agree?

:bigsmile: :laugh: :bigsmile:
Actually I personally think if you are going to eat an animal eat the whole thing (tail to snout) and be willing to kill it (or at the very least acknowledge where it is and what the process was - personally i'd like to take a butchery course

People who live in Asia do this by making recipes for just about every part of an animal. Be here in the US, many think it's gross.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

yep not just asia actually, In europe (particularly france italy spain and portugal) you see the same. Some of the best dishes i've had traveling are ones where i would have trouble even finding the ingredients here (That being said Organ meats etc aren't too hard to find in Toronto as we have big immigrant populations that they are traditional dishes for) mostly the european way will involve long slow cooking

No doubt that IIFYM's works great short term. But what do you think about recent long term data that suggests too much junk food causes earlier onset of disease even when you control for weight and lifestyle?

Define too much junk food. And I wouldn't disagree if the junk food was so nutrient deficient so that macros and micros aren't met.

If you can link study(ies) on the long term data. I'd like to read up on it.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Too much would be consuming over 10% of your daily calories from "added sugar." It might sound like a lot to you, but over 70% of the US population is getting more than that.

Here is the study

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573

Of course there are tons of possible confounders and it's specifically only addressing added sugar instead of the larger issue of nutrient dense food versus empty calories. But it's the best data I've seen.

So on a 2000 calorie diet, you believe that 3.5 tablespoons of added sugar is not within boundries of control for a healthy diet? If someone drank 3 cups of coffee a day and added 1.2 tablespoons of sugar for each, that's essentially too much?

EDIT: Thanks for the study.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

In all likelihood, a few cups of coffee with 200 calories of "added sugar" is a lot more benign than cupcakes and cinnamon buns that have 200 calories of "added sugar." That's because the cupcakes (etc.) will also automatically have another several hundred calories of more simple carbs with few nutrients.

Unfortunately the study is quite limited, but it's the best data we have available. Fortunately for me I switched to drinking black coffee years ago and now think coffee sweetened with sugar is gross.

Sorry but that's a terrible article. The author continually repeats something to the effect of "getting too high a percent of your calories from junk food is bad for x and y and z reasons. . . . but that's not relevant to health nuts like you." Yeah, it's not relevant to me b/c I minimize junk food and eat plenty of whole foods.

Exactly what I thought. Whole idea of the article is "No such thing as clean eating" and "There are no good foods and no bad foods." Then a million references to moderation. Why do you have to moderate if there's no bad food?

"People who eat tons of sugar are generally malnourished.20,21 However, most people who are serious about their health aren’t eating anywhere close to 20% of their daily calories from sugar."

Um, yeah, but some people do get 20% of their calories from sugar. What's the point of that observation? Clean eating isn't a problem for people who... eat pretty clean! lol

"If your diet has enough satiating power to keep you satisfied and happy, then there’s nothing wrong with also consuming some less-filling indulgences."

If there's no such thing as good food and bad food, why is anything an "indulgence"? Why the qualifier "some"?

The whole thing is just the opposite extreme. Fighting misinformation with half-truths isn't helpful. I use the example all the time- I know people who drink a ton of soda every day. 140 calories in a 12 oz. Coke. Drink 10 of those a day and you're at 1,400 calories and almost no nutrition. That would make it very difficult to hit your macros and calorie goal. Just switching to diet soda would make a massive improvement.

No, most folks here aren't drinking 10 Cokes a day - at least not anymore. But I bet there are some who have in the past. And there are people who do. And even if you have half as many, the effect is the same, just less extreme.

The whole point is moderation. Some things make it harder to meet your goals. Doesn't mean you can't have them, but you have to have them in moderation. I see zero harm in calling those "bad foods". And as the article says: "The reason many people consider these “clean foods” is because they tend to be harder to overeat than things like cookies or ice cream." Um. That sounds like "good food" to me.

As I've observed several times, this is a semantic argument. It's fine to explain to people that they don't have to give up the foods they love. But you have to enjoy the "bad" ones in moderation. Which is exactly what this article says. It just gets all hung up on the language. For most people trying to get or stay healthy, the label "bad" helps keep things straight. As long as you understand that you don't have to eliminate the "bad" things entirely, it's a fine thing to call some foods.

I can't open it.

Clean eating isn't a myth. It's just a way of eating the most of us follow in some way shape or form. It's not unhealthy or bad to eat an apple. The argument lies in what sort of apple is best for our bodies to consume (organic/versus natural/versus gmo)

It's not unhealthy or bad to eat a candy bar, although eating and entire box would be another issue. Some of us eat a candy bar here and there and other choose to forgo the candy bar in favor of something better for them.

I also do not trust the government, which is why a lot of the studies posted do not hold water with me. I absolutely believe they will sell out the citizens to make a buck. You don't have to agree with me, that's the beauty of it.

This post very nicely represents my view of clean eating.
It seems to be a way to justify uneducated choices that aren't backed up by good evidence.

As there's no good consistent definition, I'd suggest it also isn't a useful thing to use to describe the way you approach diet.

Which is why I just say "I eat right and exercise" when people ask me about how I lost weight. And if they probe I just say. I buy whole raw foods that I cook myself and stay away from processed food and those with a lot of sugar and additives. Works for me.

They can do what they want with that. There's nothing wrong with it. There' no bad advice there.

I never even labeled my food choices as clean or iifym or whatever until I joined this site. I just eat what makes me feel good and what my body likes the best. Which is not ice cream or cookies or sugary foods. If that works for you, great.

And.. just to be clear.. I do not think the peer-reviewed "independent" studies that are back by government or pharmaceutical companies are all that reliable or should be deemed good evidence for anything. If you want to trust them, that's on you.

Well said.

Sorry but that's a terrible article. The author continually repeats something to the effect of "getting too high a percent of your calories from junk food is bad for x and y and z reasons. . . . but that's not relevant to health nuts like you." Yeah, it's not relevant to me b/c I minimize junk food and eat plenty of whole foods.

Exactly what I thought. Whole idea of the article is "No such thing as clean eating" and "There are no good foods and no bad foods." Then a million references to moderation. Why do you have to moderate if there's no bad food?

"People who eat tons of sugar are generally malnourished.20,21 However, most people who are serious about their health aren’t eating anywhere close to 20% of their daily calories from sugar."

Um, yeah, but some people do get 20% of their calories from sugar. What's the point of that observation? Clean eating isn't a problem for people who... eat pretty clean! lol

"If your diet has enough satiating power to keep you satisfied and happy, then there’s nothing wrong with also consuming some less-filling indulgences."

If there's no such thing as good food and bad food, why is anything an "indulgence"? Why the qualifier "some"?

The whole thing is just the opposite extreme. Fighting misinformation with half-truths isn't helpful. I use the example all the time- I know people who drink a ton of soda every day. 140 calories in a 12 oz. Coke. Drink 10 of those a day and you're at 1,400 calories and almost no nutrition. That would make it very difficult to hit your macros and calorie goal. Just switching to diet soda would make a massive improvement.

No, most folks here aren't drinking 10 Cokes a day - at least not anymore. But I bet there are some who have in the past. And there are people who do. And even if you have half as many, the effect is the same, just less extreme.

The whole point is moderation. Some things make it harder to meet your goals. Doesn't mean you can't have them, but you have to have them in moderation. I see zero harm in calling those "bad foods". And as the article says: "The reason many people consider these “clean foods” is because they tend to be harder to overeat than things like cookies or ice cream." Um. That sounds like "good food" to me.

As I've observed several times, this is a semantic argument. It's fine to explain to people that they don't have to give up the foods they love. But you have to enjoy the "bad" ones in moderation. Which is exactly what this article says. It just gets all hung up on the language. For most people trying to get or stay healthy, the label "bad" helps keep things straight. As long as you understand that you don't have to eliminate the "bad" things entirely, it's a fine thing to call some foods.

The issue is worse than that a lot of people are drinking huge quantities of pop and then eating sugar laden foods. You just need to walk into a 7/11 store to see what the volume drivers and profit drivers are. they carry little beyond junk food and pop but are very profitable. Look at the movie theater "snack" Large popcorn and soda - 2400 calories with loads of sodium and it doesn't even include the candy that is part of the combo . All foods require moderation but some foods are just about enriching a snack food companies wallet.
There is a reason as a populace we have gotten so huge in North America and its entirely due to over-consumption (mostly of empty calories) - the only thing i will give the clean food idea is it gets people to think about eating something healthier than sugar laden foods - the idea that organic is better for you than another though is a joke - provided you wash the food before eating - like i said earlier there are other rteasons for eating non gmo and local though that have little to do with nutrition

Great article.

Armi is one of the best currently doing it. Site is full of great information.

Lots of info.