"Clean" vs. "unclean" eating studies?

Options
12357…15

Replies

  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,732 Member
    Options
    I don't have my mind made up, but I do tend toward this all being bull*** based on the science I've read so far. I'm more than willing to be swayed, but I have yet to see a single compelling piece of evidence to support "clean" eating, or even a logical definition of what it means.
    What I see in the graphs is a marked upward trend in weight and calorie intake in the 1950's-1960s when processed foods and fast food take off as an everyday staple.

    Ok, I was definitely reading the graph wrong. But I do wonder why sugar consumption rose dramatically in the 1840's or so and obesity did not begin rising for over 50 years. What happened during those 50 years to keep sugar up, but waistlines down? Also, the real climb in obesity seems to have happened around 1970 or '80, not 1950. If you look at the differences between sugar consumption in the 1800's to 1950, the jump is equal or more than the jump between 1950 and present day...but it did not have an equal impact on waistlines until the 70's to 80's. Could there be another explanation? I suggested before that calories consumed might have increased, and a quick Google tells me that portion sizes have doubled, and they began increasing in the 1950's. Could that be a more logical culprit?
    As Europe, Japan and other countries have introduced more processed food and fast food they've seen increases in rates of obesity and calorie intake and childhood obesity. How do we explain this if not the food?

    Along with our Western foods/restaurants, are we also exporting our portion sizes to Europe and Japan? I've been in Japan and the Philippines, and I can tell you that the only places you get large American portions are in some American restaurants.
    I posted several links and quotes showing why its healthier to eat fruit,veggies, whole grains and meats in their original state (what I'm calling clean foods). You seem to have skipped over those. I'll post them again to clarify.

    I did see your list, but I'm not sure exactly what it has to do with "clean" vs. "unclean." I can take those exact same foods and purchase them from a non-organic source, or purchase them in a can or frozen dinner, or from a restaurant. Is there some impact on my health markers if I buy those foods frozen or packaged or otherwise processed as opposed to buying them in their natural state and preparing them myself? Again, I think we're still stuck on the definition of "clean." I can buy "clean" tomatoes or even grow them myself, or I can buy packaged tomatoes from the produce section, or canned tomatoes, or hermetically sealed tomatoes...barring the obvious, like contamination, is there any difference in impact on my health between those forms of tomatoes?

    Also, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions :)
  • lizarddev
    lizarddev Posts: 100 Member
    Options
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

    Ha! I know all about the Twinkie diet, as I'm usually the one who posts it. But that doesn't really address the question, as there's no control group and tests to compare. And I'm not interested necessarily in just weight loss, but also in general health markers.

    I'm really curious as to whether this clean eating rage makes a real difference, as most of those who tout it claim that while CICO works for weight loss, clean eating also addresses total health. I'd like to see proof of that. Does it exist?

    Take it for what its worth. I can find you some more if you like these are the preliminaries of coming studies in the work at Harvard and John Hopkins


    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eKGvGksKdloC&oi=fnd&pg=PT1&dq=Clean+Eating+vs+BAd+eating&ots=2jqsjP8F_x&sig=BQO5bB_PFPtGdpcruDtDaB-jTF4#v=onepage&q&f=false


    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666313003942

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666312005077
  • independant2406
    independant2406 Posts: 447 Member
    Options
    And how do we account for the sudden increase in calorie intake? Companies chemically engineer cigarettes to be addictive. Can you prove they don't do the same to foods? Like I said. Search google scholar and It'll show you all the research that is out there specific to making processed food more appealing (read: addictive).

    Statistically morbid obesity brings on other health markers (diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke etc) so I'm not sure I understand your question there. Yes they definitely pump in extra vitamins, artificial fiber and the like so we don't have people running around dying of scurvy and other illnesses like that. But we've gained a marked increase in obesity and the other illnesses listed above. Where are those coming from? Is it random? Does food play no role in it?

    Are you an adult?
    Can you make choices on your own?

    So what if they do make it more addictive....
    They ain't forcing it down your throat......

    MY GOD, take some damn responsibility at some point, and stop blaming others or some big company.

    It is coming from the fact that we have more food available
    More jobs are sedentary
    ppl sit on their fat *kitten* a lot more
    technology....
    laziness

    pick anything you like.....

    COMES DOWN TO CHOICES

    Yes I'm an adult. I like to make informed choices. I like to know what I'm eating and how it affects my body.

    I do take responsibility for myself which is why I research and make decisions based on my own opinion.

    I agree there are other factors that bring on weight. I disagree that all fat people are inherently lazy, and irresponsible which is what you seem to imply.

    You can be ugly towards me all you want. I don't care honestly. People think for themselves and won't always agree with you no matter how much you bully them. :)
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    Options
    And how do we account for the sudden increase in calorie intake? Companies chemically engineer cigarettes to be addictive. Can you prove they don't do the same to foods? Like I said. Search google scholar and It'll show you all the research that is out there specific to making processed food more appealing (read: addictive).

    Statistically morbid obesity brings on other health markers (diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke etc) so I'm not sure I understand your question there. Yes they definitely pump in extra vitamins, artificial fiber and the like so we don't have people running around dying of scurvy and other illnesses like that. But we've gained a marked increase in obesity and the other illnesses listed above. Where are those coming from? Is it random? Does food play no role in it?

    Are you an adult?
    Can you make choices on your own?

    So what if they do make it more addictive....
    They ain't forcing it down your throat......

    MY GOD, take some damn responsibility at some point, and stop blaming others or some big company.

    It is coming from the fact that we have more food available
    More jobs are sedentary
    ppl sit on their fat *kitten* a lot more
    technology....
    laziness

    pick anything you like.....

    COMES DOWN TO CHOICES

    Yes I'm an adult. I like to make informed choices. I like to know what I'm eating and how it affects my body.

    I do take responsibility for myself which is why I research and make decisions based on my own opinion.

    I agree there are other factors that bring on weight. I disagree that all fat people are inherently lazy, and irresponsible which is what you seem to imply.

    You can be ugly towards me all you want. I don't care honestly. People think for themselves and won't always agree with you no matter how much you bully them. :)
    Yep, my bingo card is full. Accusations of bullying, when there was none
  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,732 Member
    Options
    I went to googlescholar.com to search articles and typed in "weight loss processed versus unprocessed food" and this article was the best fit in the 5 or 6 I saw on first page of hits: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63262-X/fulltext I just scanned it, but it may give you some information, although it is mainly about the benefits of paleo eating. It also has a lengthy list of research referenced at the end of it and you may find more journal articles of interest on the subject. Everyone is right about how "clean" and "unclean" are the wrong search perameters to use...try other more specific ones and I'm pretty sure you'll find the information you are looking for. Best wishes in your search, and to our good health!

    Thanks! I took a look, and unfortunately it looks like it's just a paper comparing hunter/gatherer, low-fat, low-carb and Mediterranean diets with a bit of hokum and Paleo cheerleading, and zero science. It touts hunter/gatherer over even Mediterranean, which we know tends to produce good health outcomes.
  • MityMax96
    MityMax96 Posts: 5,778 Member
    Options
    And how do we account for the sudden increase in calorie intake? Companies chemically engineer cigarettes to be addictive. Can you prove they don't do the same to foods? Like I said. Search google scholar and It'll show you all the research that is out there specific to making processed food more appealing (read: addictive).

    Statistically morbid obesity brings on other health markers (diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke etc) so I'm not sure I understand your question there. Yes they definitely pump in extra vitamins, artificial fiber and the like so we don't have people running around dying of scurvy and other illnesses like that. But we've gained a marked increase in obesity and the other illnesses listed above. Where are those coming from? Is it random? Does food play no role in it?

    Are you an adult?
    Can you make choices on your own?

    So what if they do make it more addictive....
    They ain't forcing it down your throat......

    MY GOD, take some damn responsibility at some point, and stop blaming others or some big company.

    It is coming from the fact that we have more food available
    More jobs are sedentary
    ppl sit on their fat *kitten* a lot more
    technology....
    laziness

    pick anything you like.....

    COMES DOWN TO CHOICES

    Yes I'm an adult. I like to make informed choices. I like to know what I'm eating and how it affects my body.

    I do take responsibility for myself which is why I research and make decisions based on my own opinion.

    I agree there are other factors that bring on weight. I disagree that all fat people are inherently lazy, and irresponsible which is what you seem to imply.

    You can be ugly towards me all you want. I don't care honestly. People think for themselves and won't always agree with you no matter how much you bully them. :)

    You keep bringing up straw-men arguments.....you did the same in the other thread.

    Then do your research, but don't blame companies on how they make their product for people's lack of self control

    You would have to be rather stupid at this point to think that you can eat whatever you want and any amount you want, and stay slim and healthy.

    And I ain't being ugly.
    I am pointing out facts....tell me where I am wrong with what I said.

    Unless they have some medical/health condition.....I would say that most people that are overweight, are prolly irresponsible...
    Maybe not lazy.....
    Maybe not even irresponsible....maybe just lack of discipline and self-control.
  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,732 Member
    Options
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

    Ha! I know all about the Twinkie diet, as I'm usually the one who posts it. But that doesn't really address the question, as there's no control group and tests to compare. And I'm not interested necessarily in just weight loss, but also in general health markers.

    I'm really curious as to whether this clean eating rage makes a real difference, as most of those who tout it claim that while CICO works for weight loss, clean eating also addresses total health. I'd like to see proof of that. Does it exist?

    Take it for what its worth. I can find you some more if you like these are the preliminaries of coming studies in the work at Harvard and John Hopkins


    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eKGvGksKdloC&oi=fnd&pg=PT1&dq=Clean+Eating+vs+BAd+eating&ots=2jqsjP8F_x&sig=BQO5bB_PFPtGdpcruDtDaB-jTF4#v=onepage&q&f=false


    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666313003942

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666312005077

    Thanks! The book was super interesting to skim through, but didn't really address clean/unclean. It still had a lot of valuable information, though.

    The studies were about peer pressure relating to healthy/unhealthy food choices, and modern portion sizes as barriers to weight loss (which corresponds with what I was saying earlier.) Good try, though!!
  • glasshalffull713
    glasshalffull713 Posts: 323 Member
    Options
    Idk I like eating clean just because I feel like I can eat more or at least I feel fuller thats really it. Oh and sat fats probably aren't the greatest thing for you and I always assumed when I told myself that I wanted to lose weight that if I clean eat now it'll have a positive affect on my elderly life ^_^. I mean all in all why NOT eat clean ya know? now I'm not saying treating yourself everyonce and awhile is the end of the world but as I'm typing this I've got some rice, chicken, and avocado in front of me and tbh its as good as anything else. I mean theres really no point to not eating clean if you have doubts about a certain food dont know if its good for you or what not IE fast food, pizza, ect then why even risk it? again not saying every once and awhile is bad but ..... you get my drift

    Now, that's just too logical and reasonable! LOL. That's why I get so confused when people cling to defending eating unhealthy foods in moderation. I mean, that is better than overeating bad foods, for sure. Don't get me wrong, I have treats from time to time, but I would much rather eat things that I am confident are good for me, and incidentally are also delicious and satisfying!
  • glasshalffull713
    glasshalffull713 Posts: 323 Member
    Options
    But why would anyone give up pizza and ice cream and cashews and other things they truly enjoy if there is no proof of any negative effects? And would the pizza be "clean" if you made it yourself?

    Yes probably because I am very selective about what ingredients I would use.
    If so, what's the difference between you making it and a restaurant making it?

    Restaurants are generally trying to turn a profit and will likely use ingredients that are mass produced and cheaper and likely not "clean." Also- they don't care about my health, they are just putting in whatever makes the food taste good and sell, often chemicals in the form of flavors, colors, etc.
    What if it's a restaurant that specializes in local and organic foods? Is it "clean" then?

    Why yes, yes it is.
  • glasshalffull713
    glasshalffull713 Posts: 323 Member
    Options
    TOO many people on this site try to over think and "beat" the system on weight loss/health.

    It boils down to CICO for weight loss. It boils down to correct macro/micro balance with health.

    If you feel you LACK the correct macro/micro nutrients to meet the goal you're trying to attain (whether it be healthier, adding muscle, etc), then CHANGE THEM to fit it. Whether it's "clean" or processed ISN'T going to matter much at all.

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

    The question the OP asked wasn't whether it would help weight loss, but if there were overall health benefits of eating clean.
  • independant2406
    independant2406 Posts: 447 Member
    Options
    And how do we account for the sudden increase in calorie intake? Companies chemically engineer cigarettes to be addictive. Can you prove they don't do the same to foods? Like I said. Search google scholar and It'll show you all the research that is out there specific to making processed food more appealing (read: addictive).

    Statistically morbid obesity brings on other health markers (diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke etc) so I'm not sure I understand your question there. Yes they definitely pump in extra vitamins, artificial fiber and the like so we don't have people running around dying of scurvy and other illnesses like that. But we've gained a marked increase in obesity and the other illnesses listed above. Where are those coming from? Is it random? Does food play no role in it?

    Are you an adult?
    Can you make choices on your own?

    So what if they do make it more addictive....
    They ain't forcing it down your throat......

    MY GOD, take some damn responsibility at some point, and stop blaming others or some big company.

    It is coming from the fact that we have more food available
    More jobs are sedentary
    ppl sit on their fat *kitten* a lot more
    technology....
    laziness

    pick anything you like.....

    COMES DOWN TO CHOICES

    Yes I'm an adult. I like to make informed choices. I like to know what I'm eating and how it affects my body.

    I do take responsibility for myself which is why I research and make decisions based on my own opinion.

    I agree there are other factors that bring on weight. I disagree that all fat people are inherently lazy, and irresponsible which is what you seem to imply.

    You can be ugly towards me all you want. I don't care honestly. People think for themselves and won't always agree with you no matter how much you bully them. :)

    You keep bringing up straw-men arguments.....you did the same in the other thread.

    Then do your research, but don't blame companies on how they make their product for people's lack of self control

    You would have to be rather stupid at this point to think that you can eat whatever you want and any amount you want, and stay slim and healthy.

    And I ain't being ugly.
    I am pointing out facts....tell me where I am wrong with what I said.

    Unless they have some medical/health condition.....I would say that most people that are overweight, are prolly irresponsible...
    Maybe not lazy.....
    Maybe not even irresponsible....maybe just lack of discipline and self-control.

    I respect your right to your opinion. I just don't understand why my opinions provoke what appears to be anger in you? I did not direct any of my statements to anyone other than the OP. So why do you take it so personally if I don't like a particular kind of food?

    If you feel my conclusions are "Straw" as you say then give me some real science that disproves what I've said. I welcome a lively discussion as long as its supported by evidence and not presented in anger. I love learning new things and hearing other people's opinions.
  • farmerpam1
    farmerpam1 Posts: 402 Member
    Options
    "In California, Seventh-Day Adventists who are vegetarians live about a year and a half longer than those who eat meat, according to a 2001 study of 34,000 Adventists published in the Archives of Internal Medicine."

    Seventh-Day Adventists who are that devout, aside from not eating meat, also don't believe in smoking,drinking, wearing make-up, going to the club etc etc (it all leads to bad health and high risk behavior a.k.a. SINNING). So it would make sense that they live longer because they don't do anything except go to church an pray and eat eggs:laugh:

    Seriously though, I went to SDA schools until 7th grade. They wouldn't let you do ANYTHING! It sucked major b*lls and I was happy when the parentals wizened up and sent me to Catholic school :smokin:

    Far as I'm concerned they can keep the extra year and a half. I'd rather enjoy life.


    ^^^^My thoughts exactly.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    In.
  • MityMax96
    MityMax96 Posts: 5,778 Member
    Options
    And how do we account for the sudden increase in calorie intake? Companies chemically engineer cigarettes to be addictive. Can you prove they don't do the same to foods? Like I said. Search google scholar and It'll show you all the research that is out there specific to making processed food more appealing (read: addictive).

    Statistically morbid obesity brings on other health markers (diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke etc) so I'm not sure I understand your question there. Yes they definitely pump in extra vitamins, artificial fiber and the like so we don't have people running around dying of scurvy and other illnesses like that. But we've gained a marked increase in obesity and the other illnesses listed above. Where are those coming from? Is it random? Does food play no role in it?

    Are you an adult?
    Can you make choices on your own?

    So what if they do make it more addictive....
    They ain't forcing it down your throat......

    MY GOD, take some damn responsibility at some point, and stop blaming others or some big company.

    It is coming from the fact that we have more food available
    More jobs are sedentary
    ppl sit on their fat *kitten* a lot more
    technology....
    laziness

    pick anything you like.....

    COMES DOWN TO CHOICES

    Yes I'm an adult. I like to make informed choices. I like to know what I'm eating and how it affects my body.

    I do take responsibility for myself which is why I research and make decisions based on my own opinion.

    I agree there are other factors that bring on weight. I disagree that all fat people are inherently lazy, and irresponsible which is what you seem to imply.

    You can be ugly towards me all you want. I don't care honestly. People think for themselves and won't always agree with you no matter how much you bully them. :)



    I respect your right to your opinion. I just don't understand why my opinions provoke what appears to be anger in you? I did not direct any of my statements to anyone other than the OP. So why do you take it so personally if I don't like a particular kind of food?

    If you feel my conclusions are "Straw" as you say then give me some real science that disproves what I've said. I welcome a lively discussion as long as its supported by evidence and not presented in anger. I love learning new things and hearing other people's opinions.
    [/quote]

    Not angry and not mad.
    You bring up straw-men arguments.....
    I have seen enough on here, and I think it is wrong.
    It is a way for an overweight person to have execuses on why they can't lose weight,
    "It is because of something outside of them....."
    Which I think is bull crap.

    And what I was answering, you did not list a specific food....you were saying food in general, made by big companies

    I am not disagreeing with you that companies make their foods more sugary or more salty.....I know they do that.

    So it is not a matter of science.
    It is purely a matter of ones self-control and self-discipline.

    So how you posed your questions in the part I quoted is a straw-man argument, plain and simple.
  • lizarddev
    lizarddev Posts: 100 Member
    Options
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

    Ha! I know all about the Twinkie diet, as I'm usually the one who posts it. But that doesn't really address the question, as there's no control group and tests to compare. And I'm not interested necessarily in just weight loss, but also in general health markers.

    I'm really curious as to whether this clean eating rage makes a real difference, as most of those who tout it claim that while CICO works for weight loss, clean eating also addresses total health. I'd like to see proof of that. Does it exist?

    Take it for what its worth. I can find you some more if you like these are the preliminaries of coming studies in the work at Harvard and John Hopkins


    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eKGvGksKdloC&oi=fnd&pg=PT1&dq=Clean+Eating+vs+BAd+eating&ots=2jqsjP8F_x&sig=BQO5bB_PFPtGdpcruDtDaB-jTF4#v=onepage&q&f=false


    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666313003942

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666312005077

    Thanks! The book was super interesting to skim through, but didn't really address clean/unclean. It still had a lot of valuable information, though.

    The studies were about peer pressure relating to healthy/unhealthy food choices, and modern portion sizes as barriers to weight loss (which corresponds with what I was saying earlier.) Good try, though!!

    Sorry you don't get it. But I do have a doctor in Computer science and research is the synapses of research papers. So you skimmed through something without having the knowledge or the willing to open up to something that could prove or disprove a hypothesis. Research is like eating healthy and unhealthy you can make bad synopsis on things without pulling 100's of research papers into the equation. There is no one stop shop in research that will tell you the person the right and wrong with both. This will come however with other researchers that will follow to answer that question when people don't learn how to eat correctly and eating basic food groups. That means good fats and bad fats will play a big part of this.

    Next time I will get a connect the dots form for you to really understand what Clean Eating and Un-Clean eating really is. I will make a point to pull hundred of papers together and zip them up for you to read.
    Thanks
  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,732 Member
    Options
    I may have found one study which sort of addresses the question: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7947991&fileId=S1368980010003241

    It's about the affects of ultra-processed foods on the health of Brazilians. The premise: It's not the nutrients or type of foods, but the processing that is the problem.

    It defines processing as all industrial processes which turn whole foods into food products, and groups foods into 3 categories: unprocessed, processed, and ultra-processed, defined as
    salting, sugaring, baking, frying, deep frying, curing,
    smoking, pickling, canning, and also frequently the use of
    preservatives and cosmetic additives, the addition of synthetic
    vitamins and of minerals, and sophisticated types of
    packaging.

    Which, btw, includes chocolate and baby food, apparently.

    Conclusion:
    Causal relationships
    between consumption of Group 3 food products
    and health have been indicated or established only
    for some products.

    Those are soft drinks, impacting caloric intake, processed meats impacting colorectal cancer, and fast foods/snacks impacting obesity (although the paper specifies that this last is still inconclusive.)

    Any other studies along these lines?
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options


    There is a book called "Healthy at 100" about the eating/lifestyle/cultural habits of people who have lived to be 100 years old. One of his topic points is that the people of Okinawa eat 7 servings of whole grains per day. They, as a people, have some of the longest lifespans in the world.

    Horse ****. Have you ever been to Okinawa? They eat white rice and pork and fish.

    Hi-freakin-five Beach!!! Okinawa is well known for their pork dishes. Why do people think they don't eat any freakin' meat. They do. A lot.
  • HeidiCooksSupper
    HeidiCooksSupper Posts: 3,831 Member
    Options
    Go to PubMed and search "processed foods" and you'll find a variety of studies. I didn't right off hand that exactly addresses what you are asking but there are a variety of things that look at the relationship of consumption of high-calorie/low-nutrient foods or ease of access to fast food restaurants on things like child development, population BMI, etc.

    I think denying the importance of eating a healthy diet because you can lose weight on a diet of Twinkies is just as bone-headed as denying global climate change because it snowed at your house last night.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    Not sure if this got posted or not:

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html/
  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,732 Member
    Options
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

    Ha! I know all about the Twinkie diet, as I'm usually the one who posts it. But that doesn't really address the question, as there's no control group and tests to compare. And I'm not interested necessarily in just weight loss, but also in general health markers.

    I'm really curious as to whether this clean eating rage makes a real difference, as most of those who tout it claim that while CICO works for weight loss, clean eating also addresses total health. I'd like to see proof of that. Does it exist?

    Take it for what its worth. I can find you some more if you like these are the preliminaries of coming studies in the work at Harvard and John Hopkins


    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eKGvGksKdloC&oi=fnd&pg=PT1&dq=Clean+Eating+vs+BAd+eating&ots=2jqsjP8F_x&sig=BQO5bB_PFPtGdpcruDtDaB-jTF4#v=onepage&q&f=false


    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666313003942

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666312005077

    Thanks! The book was super interesting to skim through, but didn't really address clean/unclean. It still had a lot of valuable information, though.

    The studies were about peer pressure relating to healthy/unhealthy food choices, and modern portion sizes as barriers to weight loss (which corresponds with what I was saying earlier.) Good try, though!!

    Sorry you don't get it. But I do have a doctor in Computer science and research is the synapses of research papers. So you skimmed through something without having the knowledge or the willing to open up to something that could prove or disprove a hypothesis. Research is like eating healthy and unhealthy you can make bad synopsis on things without pulling 100's of research papers into the equation. There is no one stop shop in research that will tell you the person the right and wrong with both. This will come however with other researchers that will follow to answer that question when people don't learn how to eat correctly and eating basic food groups. That means good fats and bad fats will play a big part of this.

    Next time I will get a connect the dots form for you to really understand what Clean Eating and Un-Clean eating really is. I will make a point to pull hundred of papers together and zip them up for you to read.
    Thanks

    Really? You're going to throw a sarcastic little tantrum because your links didn't provide relevant information? Perhaps, as has been stated repeatedly, the problem is in our definitions of "clean" eating.

    The confusion, as clearly evidenced in previous posts, is that this not only involves the types of foods, but also in how they are prepared and with what other ingredients...ie. canned, frozen, read-made meals, etc. with or without additives or preservatives and possibly fortified with extra nutrients. Is sugar clean? Is ice cream from the store clean? Is it cleaner if I make it myself? Is Bryers clean, with it's tiny list of understandable ingredients, as opposed to some other brand with preservatives and solidifiers?

    So the question has never been about whether veggies are good for you, which is what you seem to be trying to answer...it's whether processed veggies have a different health impact than fresh veggies. I'm afraid your response did not address that.

Categories