The Clean Eating Myth; Why Insulin Isn't the Bad Guy

IDK ..you came ripping through this thread acing all angry about the post and blasting this point and that point about flexible dieting…just came off as pissed off …but maybe I read too much into your posts...

Disagreeing with a premise and debating my view isn't being pissed off or angry.

It's just...disagreeing with a premise and debating my view.

It seems that many people in the fitness industry like to wear masochism as a badge of honor; as if not eating food that tastes good is some type of moral ....

In for this.

I personally do not equate the above with clean eaters, although I know some who fit the description to a T, that's still no basis to assume it's restricted to clean eating or that all clean eaters do it.

But since joining MFP I've realised what an alarmingly large number of people live with this mentality. And it can be seen in attitude to excercise (people speaking with more love and pride of their pain than of their results) as well as food.

---

Edited a tautology and sloppy spelling

OP, love it

I think this comes down to each individual and their preferences. Some people need to eliminate certain food due to their body being stubborn or simply because they don't feel good when eating them (I'm both when it comes to sugar and carbs).

To each their own, if it is working for you and you are happy then that is all that matters.

The article was CLEARLY addressing people who do not have metabolic problems or other health-related dietary restrictions. Nor was it aimed at people who are vegan, vegetarian, etc. due to lifestyle or personal choices.

So are vegetarians, vegans, or human beings who live in areas with limited flexibility all special snowflakes? If, as the author contends, "flexible dieting" is the only real way to lose or maintain weight, why are there so many hundreds of millions of exceptions to this rule?

I also find it a bit odd that you take so much issue with this article given that you are indeed practicing flexible dieting as demonstrated by your comment about how you enjoy cake and cookies yourself. If you feel like moderation and flexible dieting are paths to failure and no better than a restrictive diet long-term, why do still eat the foods you enjoy?

I've been on "restricted" eating plans in the past where I enjoyed what I ate and was not miserable. I sympathize with people who are on restricted path, either by necessity or choice, who all too often face endless suggestions that they must be miserable with their restrictions. This is incorrect.

I also take issue with the myth that "flexible dieting" and "moderation" lead to some significant increase in the chances of long term weight loss management, when the statistics don't back it up at all.

Also my personal path to weight loss does not include any calorie counting, weighing, or daily "moderation". So I'm likely not practicing "moderation" or flexibility in the way you assume.

Also note that I never said that moderation and flexible dieting are paths to "failure"', that's your interpretation. I'm merely challenging the idea that they offer significant increases for success, or that more restrictive diets are inherently bad for all, or even most.

where did the author say that flexible dieting is the only way to lose weight? I did not see the section that said "flexible dieting is the only way to to lose weight"…..

"Furthermore, strict clean eating just isn’t sustainable for most people psychologically; this is why you see so many people lose weight then go ahead and put it all back on, plus a few more pounds"

Which, inversely, suggests that "flexible dieting" and "moderation" have a proven track record of helping people elude these fates.

Except, well, there is ZERO scientific evidence that I've ever seen to back up this very popular, likely fairytale.

OK - so the author is saying that people try to eat clean, restrict themselves too much, and then end up binging and gaining the weight back…I have seen some posts from people suggesting they had this experience, so I do not think it is fairytale, I also do not think it is a common occurrence, but it is definitely a possible outcome.

That is a far cry from saying that you will not lose weight with clean eating.

The problem I have with the above logic is that it assumes that calorie counting doesn't have the same effect for many people. There's an inherent selection bias on a calorie counting site like MFP, for both the calorie-counting success stories, and the non-calorie-counting failure threads. In fact, I've seen encouraged on here all the time, behaviors that are arguably more likely to cause disordered eating than the moderately-restrictive diets (ie - regular Paleo, lacto-ovo vegetarian, etc., as opposed to very restrictive diets like AIP or raw vegan). Namely, the encouragement that you have to weigh every morsel of food that goes into your mouth and that basically, there's somehow so much error in measuring by volume that even a person with a solid 1000 calorie per day deficit is still seeing zero weight loss (not slower than calculated, here, none at all). Or, the circle-jerking when someone makes a post crying about how they've gone over their calorie allotment for the day and worried that it's going to ruin their progress and nearly in tears over it (and the thread becomes a circle-jerk when those who post something along the lines of "calm down, it's not the end of the world, there's no need to overreact" get accused of invalidating the person's feelings).

The simple truth is that doing anything that requires you to pay that much attention to what you're eating comes with a risk of triggering an obsession over it. For some people, counting calories works just fine, while counting carbs doesn't. For others, counting anything at all doesn't work and leads to disordered eating very quickly. The selection bias comes in here -- if someone already knows that calorie counting leads to disordered eating, then they're not going to join a site like MFP in the first place, and if they don't know and later find out, then they're more likely to quit MFP and go somewhere else. Either way, you never hear from them on the MFP boards, because there's not much point in saying "calorie counting doesn't work for me, psychologically" on a calorie-counting website (and we all know that posting some kind of "I'm leaving MFP" is invariably met with "don't let the door hit you on the way out" responses).

The fact that some people end up binging when trying a food-restrictive diet is real, certainly. The fairytale, though, is thinking that the same thing doesn't happen in a calorie-restricted diet (particularly when the macro spread isn't right for the individual's needs). I personally "failed" (in the sense that I said "screw it" and ate far over my calorie allotment) several times on a calorie-restricted diet using roughly the macros that MFP sets by default. It wasn't until I drastically dropped my carbs and yes, cut out grains (which were a big factor in my carb intake), was I able to sustain a calorie deficit without fighting with my body in the way that many "flexible diet"/IIFYM/"everything in moderation" people insist will only happen when one restricts the foods they eat and not just the amounts they eat.

As for the article itself (no longer addressing just the person I've quoted above), I agree with parts of it, and disagree with others.

Now, this might lead you to believe that reducing overall insulin secretion, as opposed to acute insulin secretion, would lead to greater fat loss. If macronutrient partitioning were to be kept the same, this may be true, but this isn't due to anything special regarding insulin, but the fact that, by default, this would require a reduction in overall macronutrient (and thereby caloric) intake. Insulin is secreted in response to elevated blood glucose levels - whether this elevation happens rapidly (in the case of simple sugars on an empty stomach) or over an extended period of time is irrelevant to total insulin secretion (I won’t go into the issue of insulin resistance here, as that is another topic). This also isn’t true because insulin isn’t required for fat storage. Even in the complete absence of insulin, which for all practical purposes isn’t tangible as protein is quite insulinogenic, fat storage can occur via acylation stimulating protein (15).

Point 1 - Insulin alone isn't the only hormone to trigger fat storage, certainly, but it does play a more significant role than the author gives it credit, in my opinion. If it weren't, Type 1 Diabetes (which arguably do have the insulin-absent environment he says can't exist) wouldn't have a highlighting symptom of weight loss (or failure to thrive in children), and wouldn't gain weight from starting insulin therapy. Diabulemia also wouldn't be a thing. (To be fair, T1D also shows the evidence the author points out that Insulin isn't the only thing controlling fat mobilization and storage, as T1D often do well on the so-called "Eskimo diet," even prior to the advent of insulin therapy.) Prior to insulin therapy, 2/3 of children under 10 who were diagnosed with T1D would die within a year and a half. ( http://www.diapedia.org/type-1-diabetes-mellitus/natural-history )

Point 2 - Insulin isn't only secreted in the presence of elevated blood glucose. Protein in general elevates it, as well, and casein specifically, elevates it even more. Insulin is a multifunction hormone that plays a large role in growth, not just a glucose shuttle. This is important for anyone who wants/needs to monitor/modulate insulin levels independently of blood glucose levels (and likely one of the reasons a low-carb/high-protein diet starts reversing initial weight loss).

Point 3 - Reducing overall insulin secretion does lead to improved fat loss, even when macronutrient partitioning is kept the same. Ask anyone who's responded to Metformin (which has pretty much the sole purpose of increasing the liver's sensitivity to insulin, thereby lowering insulin levels in the body) and lost weight because of it.

Point 4 - Changing macronutrient partitioning does not require changing calorie intake in any way, and certainly doesn't require reducing calories. Dr. Peter Attia illustrates his own experience with this quite well - http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight - The main takeaway is that he actually increased his calories whenever he repartitioned his macros, to the point that he was eating 50% more calories in his final keto state than he was in his starting high-carb state, and his exercise stayed the same or decreased somewhat between the start and end numbers, and he lost body fat and maintained lean mass overall.

Does everyone need to watch their insulin levels like a hawk? Not really. However, I don't think people should ignore it entirely like the author suggests. Ignoring the content of what we put into our bodies and how it affects us (both in terms of the food itself does physically, and also what drives us to eat more - be it low levels of satiety or other factors) is what lead our populations to have increasing levels of overweight and obesity (and diabetes and insulin resistance) to begin with. I think it's prudent to be mindful of the major ways in which what we eat affects us, and that includes at least a general idea of the role of insulin and how diet affects it both while fasted and after meals.

Insulin certainly isn't a "bad guy." In fact, it's so important in nature that nearly every animal, and even some non-animal lifeforms, create and use it. What is "bad" is when your diet or other habits affect it (and other mechanisms in your body) to the point that your goals aren't met, or even worse, it starts working against your general health.

The only thing I ate yesterday was McDonalds fries and nuggets, which totaled up to about 1000 calories. I lost 3 pounds of water weight over night

Ignoring insulin resistance renders the article moot to me.