"Clean" vs. "unclean" eating studies?

I know this is going to sound silly but today is the first time I have heard macro. Can you explain what they are to me?

All the answers you need can be found here:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=macronutrients

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?

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.

Well I guess you took it as throwing a tantrum. That is what people think sometimes but its a reflected objective discussion where the question was not relatively precise (New Form New Question). Since we are taking about fresh veggies and canned ones OR processed and unprocessed lets say this.

The question as stated is does fresh vegetables have the same nutrients and health impact as canned ones?

Since this is a two part and one one part was answered in the study you provided here is the Nutrients one.

Many ultra-processed food products are accurately
termed ‘fast’ foods or ‘convenience’ foods. Many have
long or very long shelf-lives, often because they are
relatively devoid of perishable nutrients, or are even
practically imperishable, in contrast to all fresh foods.

The impact on health was undetermined with the subset of data predictors. Now however since the questions was direct this time and not general like clean or unclean.

I will state this research which provides little more information for you in comparison on health impact.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224499000230

Preservation methods are generally believed to be responsible for a depletion of naturally occurring antioxidants in food. Processed fruit and vegetables are expected to have a lower health protecting capacity than fresh ones.

So don't get your red hair ruffled on this when someone disagrees or does not understand the full perspective when it comes to two forums (I am not reading the other) and this one which asks a generalized question. IN MFP please be more direct and we can determine the objective together and find the solution so people that are new or don't have internet or know what they are looking for can find informed discussions here so they can make better choices.

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.

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.

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/

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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)

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.