Why "clean eating" is a myth

Short version - two headlines from the article:

"Why There are No Good or Bad Foods"

"How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You"

Clear as mud.

I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.

If you read the content, however...

Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends on who is eating it, and how much they eat.

A healthy highly trained endurance athlete or bodybuilder exercising several hours per day is going to have very different needs and tolerances than a sedentary diabetic overweight office worker.

The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet. They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”

The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable foods to avoid over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense foods since they’re eating fewer calories.

That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.
In reality for some people eating a load of processed lard is good for them.
For others, mostly salads might be a better idea.

Short version - two headlines from the article:

"Why There are No Good or Bad Foods"

"How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You"

Clear as mud.

I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.

If you read the content, however...

Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends on who is eating it, and how much they eat.

A healthy highly trained endurance athlete or bodybuilder exercising several hours per day is going to have very different needs and tolerances than a sedentary diabetic overweight office worker.

The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet. They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”

The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable foods to avoid over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense foods since they’re eating fewer calories.

That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.
In reality for some people eating a load of processed lard is good for them.
For others, mostly salads might be a better idea.

Exactly. It depends. Which is why I went on to say:

"But it does ultimately state the RIGHT answer:

"Should you eat it, and how much can you have?

It depends…"

It depends is awesome. THAT should be the answer posted on here for every question of that kind."


BTW, who would benefit from a "load of processed lard"?

Interesting perspective... I'd be willing to concede that there is no such thing as a universal definition for clean eating, but rather it is largely dependent on the individual in question. Personally I am someone who traditionally had a lot of sugar in my diet, so the following part of the article did catch my eye:

Consuming moderate amounts of sugar does not decrease insulin sensitivity or impair your ability to process glucose, as long as you maintain your weight and don’t over-eat.

Despite the references, there are other studies out there which do indicate sugar consumption does impact insulin sensitivity and the ability to maintain one's weight (see http://jn.nutrition.org/content/137/6/1447.full for example). The lack of a definition of "moderate" is likely where our perspective comes to a cross. I personally know that when I eat sugary foods, my appetite spikes and as a result, I consume far more calories that I would have eating other nutritious foods... can you tell I drink the Paleo Kool-Aid? :laugh:

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?

Yes.

Read the forums for awhile. Read any hippy blog. Talk to some Keto people. Talk to some paleo people.

That's the problem. So many people fall into a false dichotomy when it comes to clean eating. You either eat clean or you eat dirty. There is no grey area. If you have never seen that fallacy, then you haven't been following the fitness community or fitness information very long/thoroughly.

Fast Eddie may not think Armi making a point about moderation is important - but that doesn't make Armi's post any less important to the MULTITUDES of people who don't understand the concept of moderation, and believe in the clean eating false dichotomy.

Short version - two headlines from the article:

"Why There are No Good or Bad Foods"

"How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You"

Clear as mud.

I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.

If you read the content, however...

Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends on who is eating it, and how much they eat.

A healthy highly trained endurance athlete or bodybuilder exercising several hours per day is going to have very different needs and tolerances than a sedentary diabetic overweight office worker.

The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet. They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”

The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable foods to avoid over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense foods since they’re eating fewer calories.

That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.
In reality for some people eating a load of processed lard is good for them.
For others, mostly salads might be a better idea.

So now there ARE special snowflakes? Which is it?

A calorie is a calorie. All food is the same. But you're not getting enough protein. Watch your macros! lol Yeah. Semantics. Fighting one misleading idea with another. Definition of counterproductive.

How is a calorie a calorie when it take 9 calories to make up a gram of fat but only 4 in a gram of protein?

Flawed concept is flawed. Ironic that you used a misleading idea yourself. lol

Sorry, you missed the satire in my musings. We're saying the same thing. "A calorie is a calorie" is something of a battle cry around here to try (badly) to explain that you can eat the foods you want in moderation. The gross oversimplification is only sometimes followed by "in moderation" or "IIFYM". Those are BIG qualifiers that seem to say exactly the opposite of "a calorie is a calorie". The irony is, the people who use that huge, misleading oversimplification are quick to trounce on anyone who says "too much added sugar is bad". Then we get the post about the one guy who lost weight eating nothing but Twinkies. Which, of course, has nothing to do with moderation or IIFYM.

Just loads, and loads of half-truths, over simplifications, anecdotes, misleading lines, and bickering over semantics. Tends to obscure the good information sometimes.

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?

Yes.

Read the forums for awhile. Read any hippy blog. Talk to some Keto people. Talk to some paleo people.

That's the problem. So many people fall into a false dichotomy when it comes to clean eating. You either eat clean or you eat dirty. There is no grey area. If you have never seen that fallacy, then you haven't been following the fitness community or fitness information very long/thoroughly.

Fast Eddie may not think Armi making a point about moderation is important - but that doesn't make Armi's post any less important to the MULTITUDES of people who don't understand the concept of moderation, and believe in the clean eating false dichotomy.

I'm a proponent of clean eating. I think paleo is awesome. I think vegan is awesome. I think any lifestyle you choose to follow is awesome. What I don't think is awesome is the abundance of IIFYM people who spend their time creating threads and jumping into other threads with the sole purpose of tearing down people who don't eat Pop Tarts and McDonalds.

There's a middle ground of respect that this board is entirely missing. I understand that these IIFYM people THINK they're HELPING others by showing that these "restrictive" diet plans are unnecessary, but why can't you let people decide that for THEMSELVES.

Anyway, back to the point, I'm a proponent of those things, but I also recognize that moderation is important and it goes both ways. Moderation of "bad" foods AND moderation of "good" foods. You'll drive yourself crazy and fall off the wagon unless your dietary lifestyle is sustainable, and I'll say that to anyone - be they Paleo or IIFYM.

Tagging, just in case something interesting comes up. Hasn't happened yet.

I'm sorry we haven't done enough to entertain you, oh Illustrious One. We'll try harder next time.

gmafb

Short version - two headlines from the article:

"Why There are No Good or Bad Foods"

"How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You"

Clear as mud.

I can see it would be confusing if you just read the headlines but not the content.

If you read the content, however...

Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends on who is eating it, and how much they eat.

A healthy highly trained endurance athlete or bodybuilder exercising several hours per day is going to have very different needs and tolerances than a sedentary diabetic overweight office worker.

The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet. They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”

The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable foods to avoid over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense foods since they’re eating fewer calories.

That rather supports the argument that you can not call one food healthy or not healthy.
In reality for some people eating a load of processed lard is good for them.
For others, mostly salads might be a better idea.

So now there ARE special snowflakes? Which is it?

A calorie is a calorie. All food is the same. But you're not getting enough protein. Watch your macros! lol Yeah. Semantics. Fighting one misleading idea with another. Definition of counterproductive.

How is a calorie a calorie when it take 9 calories to make up a gram of fat but only 4 in a gram of protein?

Flawed concept is flawed. Ironic that you used a misleading idea yourself. lol

Sorry, you missed the satire in my musings. We're saying the same thing. "A calorie is a calorie" is something of a battle cry around here to try (badly) to explain that you can eat the foods you want in moderation. The gross oversimplification is only sometimes followed by "in moderation" or "IIFYM". Those are BIG qualifiers that seem to say exactly the opposite of "a calorie is a calorie". The irony is, the people who use that huge, misleading oversimplification are quick to trounce on anyone who says "too much added sugar is bad". Then we get the post about the one guy who lost weight eating nothing but Twinkies. Which, of course, has nothing to do with moderation or IIFYM.

Just loads, and loads of half-truths, over simplifications, anecdotes, misleading lines, and bickering over semantics. Tends to obscure the good information sometimes.

HAH ok my bad. Sadly I don't pick up on sarcasm on this board too well as there are PLENTY of people who would have actually believed what you said very deeply :P

Plenty of people who say those words over and over and over and.... yeah.

It's very interesting to look at their diaries. Most of the "Eat whatever you want" people have loads of broccoli and apples in there and only eat "bad" food in moderation. Weird. But they probably do that because, regardless of what they say on the forums, that's what actually works. Just a lot of trolling.

How is a calorie a calorie when it take 9 calories to make up a gram of fat but only 4 in a gram of protein?

Flawed concept is flawed. Ironic that you used a misleading idea yourself. lol

People say a calorie is a calorie... not 9 calories = 4 calories or 1 gram of fat = 1 gram of protein.

I understand that these IIFYM people THINK they're HELPING others by showing that these "restrictive" diet plans are unnecessary, but why can't you let people decide that for THEMSELVES.

I regularly get PMs from people thanking me for my contributions to the board which have helped them abandon the ideas of "good food bad food" and "eat clean." I also coach a few people in real life who have tried restrictive diets like clean eating and Atkins only to fail after a couple of months, that now have real long-term loss as a result of IIFYM.

The concepts of good food vs bad food are so ingrained into the public consciousness that it takes real work to undo that. And I know that advocating IIFYM, and learning to eat foods you love in moderation, helps people because they literally tell me it has helped them a great deal (and they have the results to show for it).

I am also a personal example. I don't have the willpower to last long on any sort of "clean eating" diet. If I had tried that from the beginning I would still be fat. I am thankful that people like me, who came before me, opened my eyes to the idea that I could be healthy and in shape while still eating Taco Bell several times a week.

The point of the article is largely that the concept of "bad food" by its nature is harmful because of the effect this has on people's compliance. I think there's a great deal of merit to this.

You and me both. We've done and will continue to do the same things for people coming at it from a different perspective.

Listen if I know that people are having problems sticking to something, I would never suggest they keep trying the same thing. There's absolutely merit to the way you eat and the way you help others eat, but it's simply a first step. That's it. An important one. A titanic one. Man on the moon sized maybe. But it's still just a first step, because as you and I well know there have been plenty of "fit" people to keel over of a heart attack. There are plenty of "fit" people with high blood pressure or other conditions that MAY have been preventable through proper nutrition. This is where we differ in philosophy. You see these things as inevitable and I see them as preventable. You don't believe the science behind what I say and that's fine - you don't have to - but to tell people it's impossible to prevent disease through "clean" eating or "paleo" or whatever is just as irresponsible as what you think about what I do. The truth is that you don't KNOW I'm wrong.

I'm not religious but my Dad once told me that even if there's a 99.999999999% chance there's no God and no heaven, it is STILL in your best interest to be religious in the OFF CHANCE they do exist, because if they don't then I'm no worse off - but if I refuse to acknowledge God's existence and it turns out he's real... welp. I'm ****ed.

Same thing with food.