"Clean" vs. "unclean" eating studies?
Replies
-
watch super size me on Netflix. that will answer your questions. i would explain further but i dont want to get into a food war.
No, as has already been addressed, Supersize Me is about caloric intake, and has nothing to do with food quality. The man overate, he gained weight, and his health markers deteriorated accordingly. Now if that same man made a follow-up in which he ate the same number of calories, with the same macro percentages, only with clean foods instead of McDonald's, then we would see if the health outcome was the same, and he might be able to make his point. Until then, the message is simply don't overeat.0 -
The only way you could get close to being "clean" is if you were to grow and raise all your own food. :laugh: :laugh:
A good argument for trying to buy locally raised/grown food, where you can actually see the conditions, ask the farmer what they use, etc. I try to do this as much as possible, but it is really hard.
I don't find it that hard in part of the year, and it's how I get my meat all year (except for fish). It's basically impossible where I live in another part of the year, though, unless one wants a really restrictive diet, which would be a lot less healthy in ways that are important to me.
Again, this is why I think the blanket claims about "natural" or "unprocessed" being more healthy aren't really thought through.0 -
Certainly, when I hit about 75 I'm going to take up cigar smoking. I love the smell but don't want to die of cancer just yet.
Not to derail, but if you smoke cigars the way most people smoke cigars (1-2 per week, or even 1 per day, and don't inhale), your health is unlikely to be affected.
The government "study" that gets passed around to show that CIGAR SMOKING IS JUST AS BAD AS CIGARETTES!!!1!! only looked at people who smoked multiple cigars per day every single day and inhaled.
I smoke cigars and have a lot of cigar-smoking friends, and I don't know anyone who does either of those things.
Like all things, moderation is key.
Yes, I don't know anyone who inhales cigar smoke either. I also don't know anyone who eats peas with a butter knife.
Oh, and you don't need to inhale cigar smoke to get any of the various oral cancers (e.g. lip and tongue). Sure, you can smoke cigars for years and not succumb to anything more serious than bad odor (just as many cigarette smokers do), but don't go preaching about how "safe" they are.
But just so I know the official MFP party line: Are cigars now promoted in "moderation?"0 -
If you look at "clean" foods they are typically lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. They also have more fiber, healthy fats/oils, natural sugars and nutritional value.
Impossible assertion to make when there's no agreement on what's clean and what's not.
I love roast chicken and potatoes (and assume they should count as clean), but they have more calories than, say, some Fage 0%, which clearly is "unclean" under the usual definition. Neither has all that much fiber.0 -
So, if a person is 50 lbs over weigh because of eating too much of foods that are considered " clean" ( as in my case, never really ate junk or processed foods, fast foods, etc just serving sizes too big of what I was eating) vs. being 50 lbs overweight from eating too much " unclean" food is the risk of health problems the same? is it the excess body weight that is the health issue or what you ate to have the excess weight the issue?
Always wondered? I know of many people who are of " normal weight" who eating habits are awful but somehow these people are perceived by some as "healthy" because their weight is normal.
I wonder about this too. As an overweight person who does not have diabetes or HBP, and has great cholesterol levels, I consider myself to be healthy, just overweight. I do have Hypothyroidism and am an emotional eater, so I eat too much and don't metabolize normally, but I don't eat entire cakes or 17 Big Macs. I know people who are in a 'normal' weight range, who eat fast food daily, consume tons of soda, and eat a lot of junk food snacks. Most of them have high cholesterol or HBP, so how are they considered healthy?
Interesting theory and research is starting to look at the possibility that it is not so much obesity that is the health threat (not morbid obesity which, of course, is life-threatening) as much as it is the poor nutritional status of many who are overweight. They already know that "central obesity" with much visceral fat, is more of a health liability than is "distributed obesity" that is more concentrated in the thighs and buttocks (what many women have). Body fat will store many toxins and taking in a lot of toxins as the fat is being added, may be more of a health liability than fat that is more "pure". When fat is pulled from storage and burned in the body, it likely could make a difference in the health status of the body of such a person. We already know that from the animal world. I remember reading once that dolphins will die when metabolizing their fat, if they have absorbed many toxins while adding the fat.0 -
So, if a person is 50 lbs over weigh because of eating too much of foods that are considered " clean" ( as in my case, never really ate junk or processed foods, fast foods, etc just serving sizes too big of what I was eating) vs. being 50 lbs overweight from eating too much " unclean" food is the risk of health problems the same? is it the excess body weight that is the health issue or what you ate to have the excess weight the issue?
Always wondered? I know of many people who are of " normal weight" who eating habits are awful but somehow these people are perceived by some as "healthy" because their weight is normal.
I wonder about this too. As an overweight person who does not have diabetes or HBP, and has great cholesterol levels, I consider myself to be healthy, just overweight. I do have Hypothyroidism and am an emotional eater, so I eat too much and don't metabolize normally, but I don't eat entire cakes or 17 Big Macs. I know people who are in a 'normal' weight range, who eat fast food daily, consume tons of soda, and eat a lot of junk food snacks. Most of them have high cholesterol or HBP, so how are they considered healthy?
I think you make some great points here. I've been curious about this as well. There was an interesting study (a pretty big one) that looked into health and people who were overweight and their risk of mortality. Also an interesting discussion about BMI calculations and what should be considered "normal" Here's a link to the article. I haven't managed to find a copy of the full scientific study but I'll post it if I do find it:
http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/02/being-overweight-is-linked-to-lower-risk-of-mortality/0 -
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
Nope, the bold parts are the parts where it appears you threw a tantrum because your answers didn't address the question, which was indeed clearly stated in previous posts that you apparently didn't read. This is what "ruffled" my red hair.
But to answer your most recent reply, again, the book was nice and gave some good info, but didn't address clean vs. unclean, unless you only count types of food as a determining factor...and it listed zero studies to address effects of, for example, processed veggies as opposed to fresh.
The two studies you posted only listed the abstracts, and the information you quoted were not in those abstracts, and I'm not paying $39.95 to read them
Do you have another link which actually shows the full study? 0 -
If you look at "clean" foods they are typically lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. They also have more fiber, healthy fats/oils, natural sugars and nutritional value.
Impossible assertion to make when there's no agreement on what's clean and what's not.
I love roast chicken and potatoes (and assume they should count as clean), but they have more calories than, say, some Fage 0%, which clearly is "unclean" under the usual definition. Neither has all that much fiber.
Although it would depend on the definition of clean certainly (that is still up for debate)
I'd think if you averaged out a list of fruit, veggies and meat (non processed meats) anything traditionally considered "clean" or unprocessed and lined it up with a list of the foods traditionally considered "processed" foods. On average they would be much lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. Yes some foods like potatoes have lots of carbs. But there's no sodium in them or chemicals like you'd find in a box of instant potatoes. Yes roast chicken has calories. But not like KFC.)0 -
If you look at "clean" foods they are typically lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. They also have more fiber, healthy fats/oils, natural sugars and nutritional value.
Impossible assertion to make when there's no agreement on what's clean and what's not.
I love roast chicken and potatoes (and assume they should count as clean), but they have more calories than, say, some Fage 0%, which clearly is "unclean" under the usual definition. Neither has all that much fiber.
Although it would depend on the definition of clean certainly (that is still up for debate)
I'd think if you averaged out a list of fruit, veggies and meat (non processed meats) anything traditionally considered "clean" or unprocessed and lined it up with a list of the foods traditionally considered "processed" foods. On average they would be much lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. Yes some foods like potatoes have lots of carbs. But there's no sodium in them or chemicals like you'd find in a box of instant potatoes. Yes roast chicken has calories. But not like KFC.)
This is true, but I think dividing it that way already has a different name: whole foods. And I agree wholeheartedly that whole foods are preferable to processed foods for a variety of reasons...but my understanding of "clean" involves more than just the type of food you're eating. It also involves how it's prepared (ie. canned, frozen, fried, etc.) and whether there are additional ingredients like sweeteners, additives and preservatives. Does that make sense?
So, chicken can be clean if it's organic, free range, with no hormones or antibiotics, and if it's prepared with fresh herbs and spices and little added "bad" fats. Or it can be dirty if it's full of hormones and drugs, and it's breaded in white flour and deep fried.
ETA: So, for the purposes of this thread, if we we prepared these two chickens in ways which gave them a similar calorie and macro content, then would they have a different effect on our health? (The chicken is a bit of an extreme example, because arguably the hormones/drugs could have an adverse effect regardless of the rest of the variables)0 -
If you look at "clean" foods they are typically lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. They also have more fiber, healthy fats/oils, natural sugars and nutritional value.
Impossible assertion to make when there's no agreement on what's clean and what's not.
I love roast chicken and potatoes (and assume they should count as clean), but they have more calories than, say, some Fage 0%, which clearly is "unclean" under the usual definition. Neither has all that much fiber.
Although it would depend on the definition of clean certainly (that is still up for debate)
I'd think if you averaged out a list of fruit, veggies and meat (non processed meats) anything traditionally considered "clean" or unprocessed and lined it up with a list of the foods traditionally considered "processed" foods. On average they would be much lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. Yes some foods like potatoes have lots of carbs. But there's no sodium in them or chemicals like you'd find in a box of instant potatoes. Yes roast chicken has calories. But not like KFC.)
This is true, but I think dividing it that way already has a different name: whole foods. And I agree wholeheartedly that whole foods are preferable to processed foods for a variety of reasons...but my understanding of "clean" involves more than just the type of food you're eating. It also involves how it's prepared (ie. canned, frozen, fried, etc.) and whether there are additional ingredients like sweeteners, additives and preservatives. Does that make sense?
So, chicken can be clean if it's organic, free range, with no hormones or antibiotics, and if it's prepared with fresh herbs and spices and little added "bad" fats. Or it can be dirty if it's full of hormones and drugs, and it's breaded in white flour and deep fried.
So what does it make it if it is organic, free range and stuff but deep fried or full of hormones and prepared with herbs and spices?0 -
If you look at "clean" foods they are typically lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. They also have more fiber, healthy fats/oils, natural sugars and nutritional value.
Impossible assertion to make when there's no agreement on what's clean and what's not.
I love roast chicken and potatoes (and assume they should count as clean), but they have more calories than, say, some Fage 0%, which clearly is "unclean" under the usual definition. Neither has all that much fiber.
Although it would depend on the definition of clean certainly (that is still up for debate)
I'd think if you averaged out a list of fruit, veggies and meat (non processed meats) anything traditionally considered "clean" or unprocessed and lined it up with a list of the foods traditionally considered "processed" foods. On average they would be much lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. Yes some foods like potatoes have lots of carbs. But there's no sodium in them or chemicals like you'd find in a box of instant potatoes. Yes roast chicken has calories. But not like KFC.)
This is true, but I think dividing it that way already has a different name: whole foods. And I agree wholeheartedly that whole foods are preferable to processed foods for a variety of reasons...but my understanding of "clean" involves more than just the type of food you're eating. It also involves how it's prepared (ie. canned, frozen, fried, etc.) and whether there are additional ingredients like sweeteners, additives and preservatives. Does that make sense?
So, chicken can be clean if it's organic, free range, with no hormones or antibiotics, and if it's prepared with fresh herbs and spices and little added "bad" fats. Or it can be dirty if it's full of hormones and drugs, and it's breaded in white flour and deep fried.
So what does it make it if it is organic, free range and stuff but deep fried or full of hormones and prepared with herbs and spices?
That's the question, right? Where is the line between clean and unclean, and why? What impact does it have on health metrics? As I was asking before about tomatoes...does picking fresh tomatoes from my backyard have a different effect on my health than buying cans of tomato sauce? Even if they have a preservative, but one that has been proven non-toxic and unharmful?0 -
Not sure if this has been linked but http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/1/203.full this is a review of all the studies (1958-10 March 2010) regarding Organic vs conventionally produced foodstuffs.Conclusion: From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs.0
-
I think Lyle McDonald did some commentary on a study comparing the hormonal effects between a fast food meal and a home cooked one but other than that I can't think of one of relevance.
However Dr David Katz and Stephanie Meller reviewed many of the common diets out there including low carb, Paleo, low GI, Mediterranean and came to these earth shattering conclusions:
"There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding. For many reasons, such studies are unlikely."
and
"A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention."
as while they concluded no one diet was the "best" there were common elements across all eating patterns associated with good health outcomes. Shocking news, I know. Try and stay on your chair.
Personally, I find most people on either side of the clean eating v dirty eating debate to be insufferable.0 -
I agree. Why is it that people eat things like morning star. They are so processed its ridiculous. Just because they are veggies. They are considered healthy. It's completely weird to me. I love cereal crackers etc. They are highly processed. I don't eat them all day every day. I eat them in addition to my other items. Try to eat fresh but sometimes I just can't. Today I ate grapes 2 corn tortillas and a salad from taco cabana. Minus the shell. Not clean not low in carbs not unhealthy. But it was so yummy. I am full and don't regret eating it. I will go to the gym for one hour today. Because it's good for me. I am diabetic so I have to be careful with my food. I need to lose 50 more pounds. All I know is it isn't good for me to eat all junk. I think balance is the key. I wish there was a study that really did address this. Maybe eat junk for 6 months and then healthy for 6 months. Then let a Dr. Determine the results. All I can think about is super size me. However there is a guy who eats mcds every day and he's fit as a fiddle. Not sure what the answer is but I want to research it.0
-
Not sure if this has been linked but http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/1/203.full this is a review of all the studies (1958-10 March 2010) regarding Organic vs conventionally produced foodstuffs.Conclusion: From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs.
Thanks! That one hasn't been posted yet. And it is interesting...no nutrient-related difference in health markers between eating organic and non-organic foods. Makes you wonder why it costs 2-3 times as much.0 -
This was one of the more interesting studies I've read here. Though it's not so much about overall health as about metabolism. But it did make me think twice about choosing processed foods.
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755
Conclusion: Ingestion of the particular PF meal tested in this study decreases postprandial energy expenditure by nearly 50% compared with the isoenergetic WF meal.
(PF: processed food, WF: whole food)0 -
I think Lyle McDonald did some commentary on a study comparing the hormonal effects between a fast food meal and a home cooked one but other than that I can't think of one of relevance.
However Dr David Katz and Stephanie Meller reviewed many of the common diets out there including low carb, Paleo, low GI, Mediterranean and came to these earth shattering conclusions:
"There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding. For many reasons, such studies are unlikely."
and
"A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention."
as while they concluded no one diet was the "best" there were common elements across all eating patterns associated with good health outcomes. Shocking news, I know. Try and stay on your chair.
Personally, I find most people on either side of the clean eating v dirty eating debate to be insufferable.
Thanks! Dr. Katz is on my list for further research, and I'll add Meller.
0 -
This was one of the more interesting studies I've read here. Though it's not so much about overall health as about metabolism. But it did make me think twice about choosing processed foods.
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755
Conclusion: Ingestion of the particular PF meal tested in this study decreases postprandial energy expenditure by nearly 50% compared with the isoenergetic WF meal.
(PF: processed food, WF: whole food)
Yeah, we looked at that study on another site. While very small, it's still really interesting. It basically addresses whole grains specifically, but I hadn't looked at them from quite that angle before, so it was really good information!0 -
For me personally I think of clean as whole foods that I have prepared that nutritionally dense but necessarily calorie dense. This would include: fresh/frozen vegetables, fresh fruit, lean meat, potatoes, sweet potatoes, milk, nuts, legumes, whole oats.
Canned foods, pre-prepared meals, whole foods that have been processed (added chemicals and or cooked at a factory - out of my control) would be considered unclean I guess.
Its kind of hard to get fat eating the "clean foods", because they are typically lower in calories and I they do not induce cravings in me so I don't tend to overeat.
If I eat foods on the unclean list, they tend not to be very satisfying so I end up eating more.
This is purely anecdotal of course.0 -
If you look at "clean" foods they are typically lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. They also have more fiber, healthy fats/oils, natural sugars and nutritional value.
Impossible assertion to make when there's no agreement on what's clean and what's not.
I love roast chicken and potatoes (and assume they should count as clean), but they have more calories than, say, some Fage 0%, which clearly is "unclean" under the usual definition. Neither has all that much fiber.
Although it would depend on the definition of clean certainly (that is still up for debate)
I'd think if you averaged out a list of fruit, veggies and meat (non processed meats) anything traditionally considered "clean" or unprocessed and lined it up with a list of the foods traditionally considered "processed" foods. On average they would be much lower in calories, carbohydrates,salt, artificial sugars and weird chemicals. Yes some foods like potatoes have lots of carbs. But there's no sodium in them or chemicals like you'd find in a box of instant potatoes. Yes roast chicken has calories. But not like KFC.)
Pretty much any meat most people eat is processed, unless you hunt and process it yourself or we are talking about fish you caught. Like I said above, I get my meat from a local farm, but I don't "process" it. I buy it processed for me.
But I just wish people would get over the stupid term "clean" and the general objection to "processing," as if that weren't an enormously broad category and be specific about what they object to. The reason they don't is (A) the real intent is to preen about how what they eat is "cleaner" than what others eat (however irrational that is usually, especially if you compare diaries); and (B) we are grouping together a whole bunch of different things--the benefits of a balanced diet, the benefits of not eating too much low nutrition/high calorie foods, and the ideological objection to certain additives, as well as some hippy-dippy anti corporation stuff, and depending on the particular "clean" eater some ideas about the badness of meat or modern life or whatever (depending on if one is paleo or vegan, etc.). I share in some of the knee jerk sentiments--there are reasons I prefer to get as much of my food as possible from local farms--but I try to be honest about the fact that this is more sentimental on my part than really an evidence-based health choice.
If you want to define "clean" as "not processed," you are excluding lots of foods that I happen to eat (like yogurt, smoked salmon, etc.) but which I also think aren't bad for any of the reasons usually alleged generally about "processed" or "unclean" foods. I include them in my diet not merely because they taste good, despite health considerations, but also BECAUSE OF health considerations. If someone told me I should cut them out (as clean eaters claim), I would ask why, and I've yet to get a good answer. (No, me not being a baby cow is not a good answer.)
Similarly, in that lots of "clean" types have a paleo POV, I hardly think eating "clean" protects you from sat fat. (I'm not worried about sat fat, but just noticed that above.)
And if I can get the ingredients for a pie from the green market (which I mostly can, but for the dreaded sugar), why could that not be "clean"? I am a good cook, I like making pie for holidays, it's kind of icky IMO that my pie is supposed to be "unclean" or a piece or two is supposed to be inconsistent with health. I can promise you that I didn't get fat because I occasionally bake pie for my friends and family.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions