How important is it to "eat clean"

lemurcat12 · August 2014

Personally, if I eat a 300 calorie meal of brocolli, carrots, peas and beans, - you get the idea - then I'm full for longer and I don't crave to eat again until the next meal is due.

If I eat 300 calories of millionaire shortbread, then I'm craving to eat another 300 calories of millionaire shortbread in the next 20 minutes.

Junk food contains high amounts of sugar and salt with fat which are all addictive and in combination even more so, whereas "clean" foods do not trigger such acute cravings.

Hmm. My breakfast this morning involved processed and unprocessed foods (none "junk" IMO), and I think both played a role in being satiating. If someone is eating meals that don't keep them full, yes, they should work on the balance. That's no good reason to say that one must eliminate all non-processed foods, however, especially because a lot of them (see my lists in the post above) may well play a role in keeping one full or meeting one's nutrition goals.

I'm not sure how you are defining "junk," but the definition of "clean" (an unnecessary, silly term) is generally much narrower than "not junk."

Also, even if one chooses to eat food one considers junk on occasion (I'm not much offended by the term "junk food" and I do eat it on occasion, although I probably use it more narrowly than you do) that clearly does not mean that one is basing one's diet on it. When I was a kid we got to go to McD's or Long John Silvers once a month or so, and while I don't personally eat fast food now unless I'm on a road trip, I don't think that the fact that we occasionally had fast food meant that my childhood was spent eating a non-nutritious, unclean diet.

lemurcat12 · August 2014

We need a new definition of food. Instead of clean or junk or whatever, we need a nice shiny word that means compatible with a particular person's health, calorie goals, and satiety signals. Someone invent a new term!

Individually Optimal?

Nah, sounds silly and too many syllables. Humans don't like too many syllables.

Healthy works for me. I try to eat a healthy diet. I try to eat in a way that meets my health goals. (I'd say "healthy and balanced," but some people can intentionally eat unbalanced (i.e., low carb, 80/10/10) and still be healthy and meet their goals, so I'll leave it out.

What everyone means by that will be individual, but that's fine.

likitisplit · August 2014

We need a new definition of food. Instead of clean or junk or whatever, we need a nice shiny word that means compatible with a particular person's health, calorie goals, and satiety signals. Someone invent a new term!

Individually Optimal?

Nah, sounds silly and too many syllables. Humans don't like too many syllables.

Healthy works for me. I try to eat a healthy diet. I try to eat in a way that meets my health goals. (I'd say "healthy and balanced," but some people can intentionally eat unbalanced (i.e., low carb, 80/10/10) and still be healthy and meet their goals, so I'll leave it out.

What everyone means by that will be individual, but that's fine.

I use the term "healthy and balanced" to mean "nutritionally adequate," not "equal macro ratios."

annaskiski · August 2014

Here's a recent article on Otzi, the 5,000 year old Ice Man.

He clearly didn't eat any processed food, but surprised scientists with his predisposition to heart disease (hardened arteries).

"Initially, the atherosclerosis was a bit of a surprise, because much research has linked heart disease to the couch-potato lifestyle and calorie-rich foods of the modern world, Zink said. But in recent research, as scientists conducted CT scans on mummies from the Aleutian Islands to ancient Egypt, they realized that heart disease and atherosclerosis were prevalent throughout antiquity, in people who had dramatically different diets and lifestyles, he said. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/otzi-heart-disease-mummy_n_5637352.html

JenniferIsLosingIt · August 2014

calories in vs calories out = weightloss or gain
macros and micros can have a large effect on your overall heath and fitness goals as well
if weight loss is your only goal and you want to keep things simple then just worry about the calries. If you have other goals in mind then do some research on that.

Unless you have PCOS or other hormonal issues, in which case losing weight is incredibly hard. There is so much crap you have to go throughin order to get to a point where you can actually lose weight..

Meerataila · August 2014

Here's a recent article on Otzi, the 5,000 year old Ice Man.

He clearly didn't eat any processed food, but surprised scientists with his predisposition to heart disease (hardened arteries).

"Initially, the atherosclerosis was a bit of a surprise, because much research has linked heart disease to the couch-potato lifestyle and calorie-rich foods of the modern world, Zink said. But in recent research, as scientists conducted CT scans on mummies from the Aleutian Islands to ancient Egypt, they realized that heart disease and atherosclerosis were prevalent throughout antiquity, in people who had dramatically different diets and lifestyles, he said. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/otzi-heart-disease-mummy_n_5637352.html

Oooh. Interesting. I wonder if stress had anything to do with it? Had to be a hard life, trying to get enough to eat while not getting eaten. And though our stressors are different now, in my particular society at least, we have them, and constantly.

FatFreeFrolicking · August 2014

It's important for health.

stephe1987 · August 2014

I think it depends.

How often are you eating out? Once to a few times a week is fine. But I was reading an article about a girl who only ate pizza, McDonald's, soda, etc. and at 22 her doctor told her she had the heart of a 90-year-old. There has to be a healthy balance between never eating out (which can make you crave it more and more likely to binge down the road) and eating out most or all of the time.

Does it fit into your sodium and sugar macros? If not, try not to go over too often or it could lead to long-term health problems (heart issues, type 2 diabetes, etc.)

Do you have a health condition that requires a special diet? If so, you need to do what your doctor tells you.

Missfit35 · August 2014

You Are What You Eat! The cleaner you eat the better the results and performance in your body.

lolly2414 · August 2014

I'm on a grain free lower carb diet (I average 75 to 100 carbs per day and still have a calorie limit that I stay under). I still drink one can of Coke per day and sometimes eat ice cream or hot dogs (w/out the bun) or other foods not really considered healthy but I find that I have more energy or feel better when I eat more natural protein (grass fed meat or eggs), fruit, and veggies, and drink a lot of water. So while I do think you can lose weight by just reducing calories, I think it's better for your overall health to eat healthier, but that doesn't mean you have to cut out all of your guilty pleasure/comfort foods all the time. Just reduce them.

Oh and I am not saying that a grain free low carb diet is right for everyone. I'm on it because my dietician recommended it when a regular low calorie/low fat diet wasn't working for me. Eating less calories and exercising is what's most important for most people trying to lose weight.

lemurcat12 · August 2014

We need a new definition of food. Instead of clean or junk or whatever, we need a nice shiny word that means compatible with a particular person's health, calorie goals, and satiety signals. Someone invent a new term!

Individually Optimal?

Nah, sounds silly and too many syllables. Humans don't like too many syllables.

Healthy works for me. I try to eat a healthy diet. I try to eat in a way that meets my health goals. (I'd say "healthy and balanced," but some people can intentionally eat unbalanced (i.e., low carb, 80/10/10) and still be healthy and meet their goals, so I'll leave it out.

What everyone means by that will be individual, but that's fine.

I use the term "healthy and balanced" to mean "nutritionally adequate," not "equal macro ratios."

Yeah, I guess I do too. I can just see someone thinking a diet really low in some macro is being excluded by the term.

likitisplit · August 2014

We need a new definition of food. Instead of clean or junk or whatever, we need a nice shiny word that means compatible with a particular person's health, calorie goals, and satiety signals. Someone invent a new term!

Individually Optimal?

Nah, sounds silly and too many syllables. Humans don't like too many syllables.

Healthy works for me. I try to eat a healthy diet. I try to eat in a way that meets my health goals. (I'd say "healthy and balanced," but some people can intentionally eat unbalanced (i.e., low carb, 80/10/10) and still be healthy and meet their goals, so I'll leave it out.

What everyone means by that will be individual, but that's fine.

I use the term "healthy and balanced" to mean "nutritionally adequate," not "equal macro ratios."

Yeah, I guess I do too. I can just see someone thinking a diet really low in some macro is being excluded by the term.

As long as you are getting the minimums within your calorie goals...and there is no minimum for carbs. While I would never do Keto, it's nutritionally balanced.

JCLondonUK · August 2014

I don't want any vegetables, thank you. I paid for the cow to eat them for me.
Doug Coupland

;D

:bigsmile: :bigsmile: :bigsmile:

lemurcat12 · August 2014

As long as you are getting the minimums within your calorie goals...and there is no minimum for carbs. While I would never do Keto, it's nutritionally balanced.

Works for me! I'm probably overthinking the ambiguity, because I also have nothing against keto (except that I wouldn't enjoy it).

strassenkoenigin · August 2014

From my experience it does not make any difference. The less you eat the more you lose. But I realized that I have an addiction problem to carbs. Especially bread. I love good bread and if I buy a loaf I usually eat the whole thing in no time. So I have to stay away from things like that. I am convinced that this is due to the way they grow flour, corn, soybeans etc. nowadays because when I was younger I did not have that problem.
But on the other hand I also like to eat fruit. And there is the same problem I tend to eat too much and go over my calorie goal.
In the past I found that for me the best way to lose is to go on a sort of mono diet of some healthy satisfying food and train myself to eat as little as possible. But that does not always work. I once went on a potato diet and the pounds just dropped off, but only because I did not put any butter or sour cream on the potatoes. So what I do now I change my diet every week, then it does not get too boring eating the same stuff.

jetlag · August 2014

Except it's a known fact that these foods are created to manipulate our body and brain chemistry to find them most pleasurable.

Most food is created in an effort to make it most pleasurable. That's what learning to cook teaches you how to do. That's every bit as true about traditional home-cooked meals as marketed stuff, and most people will agree with me that really good home-cooked or restaurant food, cooked to their taste using fresh, whole ingredients (and, sure, butter) is much tastier and harder to resist than packaged stuff or fast food, I expect, although obviously taste is subjective.

It just sounds scarier if it's some big corporation doing that, vs. mom or Julia Child.

If anything, a lot of the additives in packaged food and fast food is because they are trying to make them tasty on the cheap, and as indicated above they still generally don't taste as good. Compare a frozen pizza to a pizza cooked at a really good local pizza place or home-cooked by someone with the right equipment.

If you are claiming that transfats or HFCS or whatever are as addictive as truly addictive drugs, provide the evidence. It's certainly not my experience.

Ignorance is bliss. I'd go into more details but you obviously don't care so fine. You're absolutely right in every way.

Ignorance definitely is bliss. Having survived an actual drug addiction, I can say, hand on heart, that anyone claiming food is as addictive as drugs is ignorant. Yes, they may be contrived to tick all the right pleasure boxes, but they are not addictive like drugs are. Ever seen anyone try and peel the skin off their own face because they can't get their hands on mars bar? No, me neither.

Nicotine is a drug, too, though, and I've never heard anyone claim it isn't addicting, yet some foods are definitely harder for some people to avoid than cigarettes.

Yeah, ex-smoker here, too. I can tell you first hand, the battle I had to quit smoking is nothing like the battle I have with not eating crisps. I did things to get cigarettes that I would never do to get a doughnut.

Lack of willpower and addiction are two very different things. I think that people think they're addicted to certain foods which give themselves a psychological free pass to overindulge in them. They can't help it, it's beyond their control. You may have a psychological dependence, but don't ever do yourself the disservice of claiming an addiction.

But anyone using that crutch isn't likely to see it for what it is because believing they're addicted makes them feel better about their weight and lack of control.

How important is it to "eat clean"

Replies

Categories