Why "clean eating" is a myth
Replies
-
Scientific studies can't really establish that anything in particular is "good for you."
??
So we're just guessing?
Aren't there scientific studies that establish a link between obesity and diabetes (among many other things)? Don't we know that obesity can be prevented or reversed by burning more calories than you eat?
Don't scientific studies link smoking to lung cancer? Can we agree that avoiding lung cancer is "good for you"?0 -
What's the difference between a TEDtalk and the OP's article? Both reference scientific studies, they're just presented in different formats.
The only difference is that the ACTUAL SCIENTIST is the one doing the damn lecture! The article is a second and third hand account. lol
Well, the OP's article is an article and not a video, and it directly references its claims in clickable form that I can directly follow.
I'm not sure what this is about anyway. I don't like videos, and haven't watched the video, so I have no idea how valid what he says is or is not. I clearly can't compare the article to the video.0 -
Scientific studies can't really establish that anything in particular is "good for you."
??
So we're just guessing?
Aren't there scientific studies that establish a link between obesity and diabetes? Don't we know that obesity can be prevented or reversed by burning more calories than you eat?
Don't scientific studies link smoking to lung cancer? Can we agree that avoiding lung cancer is "good for you"?
No, it's because we can't measure what "good for you" means. We can measure the rate at which people get specific negative health outcomes, we can measure changes in biological markers, etc. It depends on how you define "good for you." Fortunately, scientific studies avoid vague terms like that in their abstracts and use actual data on specific outcomes instead.
But a specific outcome, even if it's positive, doesn't mean something is good for you. For example, a drug that lowers cholesterol might be "good for you" on that basis. However, if it triples your chances of spontaneous combustion, then maybe it's not so "good for you." A study can't simply establish something is "good for you" because there are many aspects of some drug, process, or food to consider.0 -
What's the difference between a TEDtalk and the OP's article? Both reference scientific studies, they're just presented in different formats.
The only difference is that the ACTUAL SCIENTIST is the one doing the damn lecture! The article is a second and third hand account. lol
Well, the OP's article is an article and not a video, and it directly references its claims in clickable form that I can directly follow.
I'm not sure what this is about anyway. I don't like videos, and haven't watched the video, so I have no idea how valid what he says is or is not. I clearly can't compare the article to the video.
So you're using your laziness to prop up your stance that science can't prove that eating a certain way may have health benefits. I provided you with evidence, the onus is on you whether or not to acknowledge it.0 -
What's the difference between a TEDtalk and the OP's article? Both reference scientific studies, they're just presented in different formats.
The only difference is that the ACTUAL SCIENTIST is the one doing the damn lecture! The article is a second and third hand account. lol
Well, the OP's article is an article and not a video, and it directly references its claims in clickable form that I can directly follow.
I'm not sure what this is about anyway. I don't like videos, and haven't watched the video, so I have no idea how valid what he says is or is not. I clearly can't compare the article to the video.
So you're using your laziness to prop up your stance that science can't prove that eating a certain way may have health benefits. I provided you with evidence, the onus is on you whether or not to acknowledge it.
I'm not sure it's fair to call me lazy because you linked to some video about cancer and I don't want to watch it :laugh:
The video is evidence of nothing anyway, since it is not science. Link me to the science if you want to claim you offered evidence.0 -
Scientific studies can't really establish that anything in particular is "good for you."
??
So we're just guessing?
Aren't there scientific studies that establish a link between obesity and diabetes? Don't we know that obesity can be prevented or reversed by burning more calories than you eat?
Don't scientific studies link smoking to lung cancer? Can we agree that avoiding lung cancer is "good for you"?
No, it's because we can't measure what "good for you" means. We can measure the rate at which people get specific negative health outcomes, we can measure changes in biological markers, etc. It depends on how you define "good for you." Fortunately, scientific studies avoid vague terms like that in their abstracts and use actual data on specific outcomes instead.
But a specific outcome, even if it's positive, doesn't mean something is good for you. For example, a drug that lowers cholesterol might be "good for you" on that basis. However, if it triples your chances of spontaneous combustion, then maybe it's not so "good for you." A study can't simply establish something is "good for you" because there are many aspects of some drug, process, or food to consider.
Can we agree that avoiding lung cancer is "good for you"?0 -
I couldn't open article, sorry.
I watched my dad balloon to 380 lbs eating ridiculously large portions of food, snacking constantly. I recommended the Eat Clean Diet book Recharged to him so that he could learn to eat a healthier diet and learn a little something called 'portion control'. He was put on the list for gastric bypass surgery by his GP. In a last attempt, he asked for my help and seeing as how I had learned to like healthier additions to my meals and no longer suffered from the dreaded 'portion distortion' this was my way to help. I am no expert by any means and this response is based only on the results of myself, my mother and my stepdad. Mom and dad went on the cooler 2 (for those of you who are unfamiliar, cooler 2 is the most laid back of the eat clean diet plans.) Together they learned how to eat every 3 hours like clockwork, eat much healthier foods and in proper amounts. In six months so far, Mom (5'3", 145 lbs starting weight) has lost 21 lbs and has been working out 3 days a week doing cardio and strength. Dad (6'0", 380 lbs starting weight) has lost 100 lbs and since losing the first 30 lbs has started walking for exercise, as many days a week as he can (he's got a bad leg). They both have more energy and love all of the food they eat. While I believe in having a beer or 6 if I feel like it, pizza with my kids or any other indulgent thing, I think just making sure I make the majority of my eating decisions good ones that I will not only be happier but I will be healthier for it. If following a clean eating program teaches someone some self control, who is anyone to judge? What helps one may not help many...we are all different and of different mindsets when it comes to food. Learning to not overindulge at every sitting for a meal is also a good thing and then again...it all comes down to the simple science of calories in and out in the end...no matter where they came from. (Not that I'm ever going to give up a meal for the beer! LOL)
That's my $0.02 so good day, all!0 -
Can we agree that avoiding lung cancer is "good for you"?
Not always.
If I can halve my chances of getting lung cancer, that's good, right?
Well.... what if doing so raises my chances of getting heart disease?
Is it good for me then?0 -
What's the difference between a TEDtalk and the OP's article? Both reference scientific studies, they're just presented in different formats.
The only difference is that the ACTUAL SCIENTIST is the one doing the damn lecture! The article is a second and third hand account. lol
Well, the OP's article is an article and not a video, and it directly references its claims in clickable form that I can directly follow.
I'm not sure what this is about anyway. I don't like videos, and haven't watched the video, so I have no idea how valid what he says is or is not. I clearly can't compare the article to the video.
So you're using your laziness to prop up your stance that science can't prove that eating a certain way may have health benefits. I provided you with evidence, the onus is on you whether or not to acknowledge it.
I'm not sure it's fair to call me lazy because you linked to some video about cancer and I don't want to watch it :laugh:
The video is evidence of nothing anyway, since it is not science. Link me to the science if you want to claim you offered evidence.
HAHAHA how do you KNOW if you haven't watched it!? You're hilarious sometimes.
goodness.
"lalalalalalala I can't hear you so it can't be SCIENCE!"0 -
What's the difference between a TEDtalk and the OP's article? Both reference scientific studies, they're just presented in different formats.
The only difference is that the ACTUAL SCIENTIST is the one doing the damn lecture! The article is a second and third hand account. lol
Well, the OP's article is an article and not a video, and it directly references its claims in clickable form that I can directly follow.
I'm not sure what this is about anyway. I don't like videos, and haven't watched the video, so I have no idea how valid what he says is or is not. I clearly can't compare the article to the video.
So you're using your laziness to prop up your stance that science can't prove that eating a certain way may have health benefits. I provided you with evidence, the onus is on you whether or not to acknowledge it.
I'm not sure it's fair to call me lazy because you linked to some video about cancer and I don't want to watch it :laugh:
The video is evidence of nothing anyway, since it is not science. Link me to the science if you want to claim you offered evidence.
HAHAHA how do you KNOW if you haven't watched it!? You're hilarious sometimes.
goodness.
"lalalalalalala I can't hear you so it can't be SCIENCE!"
I know because TED talks are not peer-reviewed.
He might talk about science or reference science but a TED talk isn't "science."
The disturbing part is that you've apparently accepted his claims without looking at and critically evaluating the original science.0 -
Let me put it this way: if I were writing a paper and included a reference to a TED talk to verify a scientific claim, my paper would be rejectedon that basis.
If I want to reference a claim that I am making, I need to reference the actual scientific paper that represents evidence for that claim. Not a TED talk.
Does that make sense?0 -
'evidence' .... well the food industry loves that term. Prove a food is bad. Prove that God exists. Prove all calories are equal. No they are not. Just ask your taste buds. Like saying all gas is equal in a car when you have grades that vary the price you pay or in the case the price your body pays for certain calories.0
-
[quote/]
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.
[quote/]
This is the point that I have tried to make several times ( and all I got were a couple of nasty PMs). The sugar alone is less of a problem. However, since most people take that sugar in another form, usually cheap bleached flour and crappy fat, plus artificial sweeteners and colors are added and all of a sudden it's not only the " empty " calories from sugar, but also those from flour and fat....and that really adds up .0 -
I can't say I am a fan of this one. The author keeps saying that everyone else just has an "unscientific" opinion and yet this article is non peer reviewed.0
-
Can we agree that avoiding lung cancer is "good for you"?
Not always.
If I can halve my chances of getting lung cancer, that's good, right?
Well.... what if doing so raises my chances of getting heart disease?
Is it good for me then?
Can you show me the science that links non-smoking to higher risk of heart disease?
That's a big "what if". What if I was outside on a smoke break when the building burned down. Better keep smoking, just to be on the safe side.0 -
'evidence' .... well the food industry loves that term. Prove a food is bad. Prove that God exists. Prove all calories are equal. No they are not. Just ask your taste buds. Like saying all gas is equal in a car when you have grades that vary the price you pay or in the case the price your body pays for certain calories.
Interesting thing about gas is that the more expensive gas has lower energy density than the cheap gas. The expensive gas is essentially diluted with alcohol or something else to increase the pressure it can withstand before it ignites. The cheap stuff ignites more easily and has more energy.0 -
Let me put it this way: if I were writing a paper and included a reference to a TED talk to verify a scientific claim, my paper would be rejectedon that basis.
If I want to reference a claim that I am making, I need to reference the actual scientific paper that represents evidence for that claim. Not a TED talk.
Does that make sense?
You realize that he references science IN the TEDtalk, yes? You realize you can click "show transcript" right under the video in case you don't want to watch, yes? IN FACT you can even click any line OF THAT TRANSCRIPT and watch that part of the video seemlessly.
It's all so easy.
But that's just too much work for you.
Ok, here are some studies then instead. Have a blast.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20179671
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19491364
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484577
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14628433
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11605065
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/199695520 -
Can we agree that avoiding lung cancer is "good for you"?
Not always.
If I can halve my chances of getting lung cancer, that's good, right?
Well.... what if doing so raises my chances of getting heart disease?
Is it good for me then?
Can you show me the science that links non-smoking to higher risk of heart disease?
That's a big "what if". What if I was outside on a smoke break when the building burned down. Better keep smoking, just to be on the safe side.
I'm providing a hypothetical situation in which your hypothetical conclusion is not true.
"Reduces chances of cancer" doesn't necessarily mean "good for you." Whatever agent reduces chances of cancer may have other adverse effects that mean it's not good for you.
In the specific example of tobacco smoking, yes, "not smoking" is good for you... but that's not something one study can establish. Many many studies have established that smoking causes numerous adverse health outcomes and very few beneficial health outcomes. It's on the totality of that evidence that one can make a decision over whether a choice is "good for you" or not.0 -
Peer reviewed? Really? As if it were a published study in a scientific journal? I seriously hope this is a joke.I can't say I am a fan of this one. The author keeps saying that everyone else just has an "unscientific" opinion and yet this article is non peer reviewed.0 -
You realize that he references science IN the TEDtalk, yes?
I assumed so, which is why I asked for said references many posts ago.
Thank you for those. I will look through them. Did you have some question about them, or some specific point you want to make about them?0 -
Oh, and Jonny - this is William Li's bio:Many of society’s most devastating diseases -- cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and Alzheimer’s, to name a few -- share a common denominator: faulty angiogenesis, the body’s growth of new capillary blood vessels. Given excessive or insufficient blood vessel growth, serious health issues arise. While researching under Harvard surgeon Judah Folkman, who pioneered the study of angiogenesis, Li learned how angiogenesis-based medicine helps patients overcome numerous diseases by restoring the balance of blood-vessel growth.
Li co-founded the Angiogenesis Foundation in 1994. The foundation’s Project ENABLE -- a global system that integrates patients, medical experts and healthcare professionals -- democratizes the spread and implementation of knowledge about angiogenesis-based medicines, diet and lifestyle. Some 40,000 physicians have been educated on new treatments, ranging from cancer care to wound care, by the foundation’s faculty of medical experts, and they are bringing new, lifesaving and disease-preventing techniques to people around the world.
If only he were an expert in the field...
0 -
'evidence' .... well the food industry loves that term. Prove a food is bad. Prove that God exists. Prove all calories are equal. No they are not. Just ask your taste buds. Like saying all gas is equal in a car when you have grades that vary the price you pay or in the case the price your body pays for certain calories.
Interesting thing about gas is that the more expensive gas has lower energy density than the cheap gas. The expensive gas is essentially diluted with alcohol or something else to increase the pressure it can withstand before it ignites. The cheap stuff ignites more easily and has more energy.
Which point are you trying to make? He said not all gas is equal. You said not all gas is equal. Um. Okay. That point seems to have some consensus.
Fuel for your car behaves differently depending on what car it goes in. I put premium on the Kompressor and the Twin Turbo because the slower burn prevents detonation. In my race car, I run the lowest octane because the car needs as much advance as it can get. Different cars, different engines, different fuels.
Same with people. Different fitness, different activity levels, different number of discretionary calories. Makes sense that they would chose their calories differently.0 -
Oh, and Jonny - this is William Li's bio:Many of society’s most devastating diseases -- cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and Alzheimer’s, to name a few -- share a common denominator: faulty angiogenesis, the body’s growth of new capillary blood vessels. Given excessive or insufficient blood vessel growth, serious health issues arise. While researching under Harvard surgeon Judah Folkman, who pioneered the study of angiogenesis, Li learned how angiogenesis-based medicine helps patients overcome numerous diseases by restoring the balance of blood-vessel growth.
Li co-founded the Angiogenesis Foundation in 1994. The foundation’s Project ENABLE -- a global system that integrates patients, medical experts and healthcare professionals -- democratizes the spread and implementation of knowledge about angiogenesis-based medicines, diet and lifestyle. Some 40,000 physicians have been educated on new treatments, ranging from cancer care to wound care, by the foundation’s faculty of medical experts, and they are bringing new, lifesaving and disease-preventing techniques to people around the world.
If only he were an expert in the field...
Pretty sure I didn't say anything about him or the talk, other than the fact that the talk isn't science or evidence by itself. I thank you for linking me to the actual scientific references. I would appreciate it if you could identify what kind of response you're looking for, or if you're making a particular claim using these links as evidence.0 -
'evidence' .... well the food industry loves that term. Prove a food is bad. Prove that God exists. Prove all calories are equal. No they are not. Just ask your taste buds. Like saying all gas is equal in a car when you have grades that vary the price you pay or in the case the price your body pays for certain calories.
Interesting thing about gas is that the more expensive gas has lower energy density than the cheap gas. The expensive gas is essentially diluted with alcohol or something else to increase the pressure it can withstand before it ignites. The cheap stuff ignites more easily and has more energy.
Which point are you trying to make? He said not all gas is equal. You said not all gas is equal. Um. Okay. That point seems to have some consensus.
Fuel for your car behaves differently depending on what car it goes in. I put premium on the Kompressor and the Twin Turbo because the slower burn prevents detonation. In my race car, I run the lowest octane because the car needs as much advance as it can get. Different cars, different engines, different fuels.
Same with people. Different fitness, different activity levels, different number of discretionary calories. Makes sense that they would chose their calories differently.
No point, just an interesting tidbit about a topic another poster brought up.0 -
Oh, and Jonny - this is William Li's bio:Many of society’s most devastating diseases -- cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and Alzheimer’s, to name a few -- share a common denominator: faulty angiogenesis, the body’s growth of new capillary blood vessels. Given excessive or insufficient blood vessel growth, serious health issues arise. While researching under Harvard surgeon Judah Folkman, who pioneered the study of angiogenesis, Li learned how angiogenesis-based medicine helps patients overcome numerous diseases by restoring the balance of blood-vessel growth.
Li co-founded the Angiogenesis Foundation in 1994. The foundation’s Project ENABLE -- a global system that integrates patients, medical experts and healthcare professionals -- democratizes the spread and implementation of knowledge about angiogenesis-based medicines, diet and lifestyle. Some 40,000 physicians have been educated on new treatments, ranging from cancer care to wound care, by the foundation’s faculty of medical experts, and they are bringing new, lifesaving and disease-preventing techniques to people around the world.
If only he were an expert in the field...
Pretty sure I didn't say anything about him or the talk, other than the fact that the talk isn't science or evidence by itself. I thank you for linking me to the actual scientific references. I would appreciate it if you could identify what kind of response you're looking for, or if you're making a particular claim using these links as evidence.
that anti-angiogenic foods, herbs and spices may possibly be effective at preventing and treating cancer.
according to science.0 -
Scientific studies can't really establish that anything in particular is "good for you."In the specific example of tobacco smoking, yes, "not smoking" is good for you... but that's not something one study can establish. Many many studies have established that smoking causes numerous adverse health outcomes and very few beneficial health outcomes. It's on the totality of that evidence that one can make a decision over whether a choice is "good for you" or not.
So, scientific studies established that "not smoking" is good for you.
Thank you. Troll slain.0 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20010532
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19139005
two more for ya jonny0 -
Scientific studies can't really establish that anything in particular is "good for you."In the specific example of tobacco smoking, yes, "not smoking" is good for you... but that's not something one study can establish. Many many studies have established that smoking causes numerous adverse health outcomes and very few beneficial health outcomes. It's on the totality of that evidence that one can make a decision over whether a choice is "good for you" or not.
So, scientific studies established that "not smoking" is good for you.
Thank you. Troll slain.
:smokin:0 -
that anti-angiogenic foods, herbs and spices may possibly be effective at preventing and treating cancer.
according to science.
I accept that, and some of these studies seem to suggest that certain chemicals, extracts, or spices may have that property, sure.
Most of the studies linked are cross-sectional observational studies, which are not very compelling other than providing avenues to research more in-depth. But, yeah, the hypothesis that certain substances found in certain plants can help prevent and/or treat cancer certainly has merit.0 -
Re: ""The biggest problem with the idea of “clean eating” is that “clean” has no objective definition. Everyone believes different foods are “unclean.”
That can apply to almost anything. I read these forums a lot and have heard varying definitions of Paleo, Primal, clean, whole, and even IIFYM and 'everything in moderation'.
There are very few terms in the diet world that have one accepted definition.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions