Flexible Dieters (80/20, IIFYM) vs. Clean Eaters

My thought process is to eat a diet of foods I enjoy utilizing whole natural foods as much as I find feasible. I would like to eat a diet of only 'clean' (minimally processed, natural) foods, but I find it impractical. I like to limit added sugar and low fiber grain products. I try to eat more fish and poultry than land mammal meat. My rationale is that this allows me to limit calories while being happy and sated. And it allows room for wine without putting me in a surplus too often.

It's everything I can do to hit my cals and macros on a consistent basis. Worrying about micros or where food was sourced or how it was raised/grown or the process by which it was made or how it came to be on my dinner plate... ugh, kill me now. I've got too much other stuff to worry about. Health, energy levels, etc have never been a problem for me, so at this point, I'm keeping it simple.

I do iifym but when i look at the things I eat I guess I'm more of a "clean" eater. Unless cheese is considered dirty.

I get a serving of oreos, ice cream, or cereal every so often but I prefer my sweet potato, oatmeal, and fruits cause I find them much more satisfying to eat.

I'm more of a 50/50 IIFYM eater. Maybe more like 40/60.

bianca_gardiner wrote: »

I understand that eating clean is irrelevant for weight loss, but surely trying to eat unprocessed, fresh food can't be a bad thing?

I don't think it's a bad thing at all. I try to do it on average, although eating fresh food isn't always possible or the ideal, IMO. For example, it's early March, which means the fresh veggies and fruits where I live are extremely limited. Sure, they bring them in from wherever and I buy them because IMO they cook easier/better than frozen, but frozen veggies are probably more nutritious and canned tomatoes taste better than the non local off season tomatoes--at least enough to make my once upon a time belief that pasta sauce should always start with whole tomatoes silly (even apart from the fact that some canned tomatoes are really good).

Similarly, dried beans don't seem to me to be worse than fresh, and even canned if you can avoid the sodium can be fine and a huge time saver.

I like to get local pastured meat and eggs (and some dairy), but I also really like Fage 2% and think it's probably better than any yogurt I might make myself. I love trout which is available sort of locally (but still frozen), but also plenty of fish that isn't remotely local, and sometimes I like my salmon smoked or some sardines/kippers from a tin.

Why are these bad things, or things that should be considered less nutritiously desirable than meeting some "fresh and unprocessed only" standard.

And that's not even getting to the fact that ice cream is sometimes tasty and when I want to I can make a mean fruit pie or cobbler, and don't see why the dietary problem with that is supposed to be that it contains sugar and flour rather than simply that the calories (including from butter, locally acquired or not) can be high.

The food looks amazing and seems to be generally lower calorie, so allows for eating more.

Eh. I think this is one reason I push back. I was pretty into the all natural thing before and WHILE I was gaining weight, and it's certainly possible to gain weight eating that way. Processing or not doesn't prevent it, and I kind of resent the idea that people only get fat because they eat lots of processed foods or fast food, since I didn't.

And while I think full fat dairy are great, I find some lower calorie options, like low fat or skim milk, or even (sigh) lean ground beef or skinless, boneless chicken breast make losing weight easier than sticking to the cuts of meat easiest to get from the farm I usually buy from.

I wonder if the clean eating camp gets so much stick because people are annoyed that they don't want to prioritize their nutrition in such a full on way, and the mockery of people who have a very Idealistic standard makes them feel justified in not taking that on themselves.

I tend to get into these discussions for a few reasons:

(1) I used to do a version of the clean eating thing (although I didn't call it by that dumb term) and am mocking myself of old.

(2) I find it irritating that "clean" is not clear in its meaning and that many people who seem to be putting on airs about how they eat "nonprocessed" in fact eat lots of processed foods and basically the same as everyone else, but just seem unaware of it.

(3) Some versions of "clean" eating involve claims that eating processed foods (like yogurt, smoked salmon, baby cut carrots, etc.) is inherently worse for you, when in fact I think a lot of these things are good for nutrition, convenience, in a world where many of us don't have fresh local produce much of the year, etc.

(4) Some versions of "clean" eating posit that eating ANY flour or sugar, etc., is less healthy than eating some in moderation and I think that's setting up false ideas that make things harder for many--much like being scared of fat used to make dieting harder a few years ago.

(5) This is petty, but often at MFP the most pushy "clean" eaters seem to have just recently stopped eating every meal at McD's and to assume that everyone who doesn't self-identify as "clean" still does and that bugs me. I don't think cooking your food deserves special congratulations, I think it's just normal. Similarly, I think it's weird when people ask for special "clean" cookbooks when what are regular cookbooks--you'd think people had never actually seen one.

(6) I think the "clean" thing tends to segregate good conversations about cooking and eating well and stuff like that that interest me, since clean eaters seem to think that they can't ask about recipes or cooking ideas from those who haven't sworn off ice cream or whatever. Which is sort of weird, since I've never suggested that Brussels sprouts could be better cooked by adding some ice cream.

(7) Most important, probably: I dislike the "clean" approach to nutrition, as I think it's false. Eating in a way that encourages health does not require all or nothing attitudes toward food, and eating cake once a month or a few grams of dark chocolate every day or ice cream when you have the calories or the like is not inconsistent with health. AND, focusing on not eating things does nothing to promote what I consider eating healthy, which is about getting a well-balanced diet that actively includes what you need from food. IMO, if you do that you won't have room to be eating the 24/7 Twinkies that some "clean" eaters claim the rest of us do.

(8) Again petty, but also important to why I get into these arguments: I find the attitude by "clean" eaters that they are the only ones who care about health and that everyone else eats McDonald's only, so long as it fits in our calories, to be willfully ignorant of what everyone else here actually says about their goals and ways of eating and, frankly, like the term "clean" intentionally rude and insulting.

Thoughts?

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

My thought process is to eat a diet of foods I enjoy utilizing whole natural foods as much as I find feasible. I would like to eat a diet of only 'clean' (minimally processed, natural) foods, but I find it impractical. I like to limit added sugar and low fiber grain products. I try to eat more fish and poultry than land mammal meat. My rationale is that this allows me to limit calories while being happy and sated. And it allows room for wine without putting me in a surplus too often.

^^^That! Plus, I grow a lot of my own veggies and fruit, can, dry and freeze. I like knowing where most of my food is coming from, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying a nice meal at a restaurant or even fast food, on occasion.

I really don't get this debate. I haven't really been on here long, but is there really any one on this site that advocates "clean eating" as it has been described above? I don't know how that is even possible unless you live on a farm and only eat what you grow, etc.

I don't think my diet has a label, which is fine by me. I eat a balanced diet and stay away from foods with lots of stuff I can't pronounce or understand.

Personally, I don't think that eating clean vs. not clean is going to have an impact on weight loss except if one diet or the other meshes better with the person's lifestyle who is trying to lose weight. I see it more as a health issue, but one that can affect some folks more than others. Like, those who are more vulnerable, health-wise, might have more problems 'unclean' food, while those who are very healthy may be able to eat just fine.

I'd agree that there's some looseness to the definition, though. For me, eating 'clean' is simply about trying to eat food with as few contaminants (that may be edible but I wouldn't say we'd normally consider 'food') added to it as possible. Artificially added chemicals, pesticide residues, preservatives, or ground silica would be some examples (ground silica is added as an anti-caking agent added to foods, often in things that have powdered dairy, so that it doesn't gum up in the processing machines.).

In the beginning, I started to do this because the FDA's policy about many of these substances used on our food seems to boil down to 'prove it does harm' before they will ban it. The UK tends toward 'prove it's safe' before it's allowed to be used. Knowing that, and seeing some of the things that are allowed to be used in and on our food, I started to feel like I didn't really want to be exposed to these substances. Not because they are dangerous, but because we honestly don't know if they are or not. I'd rather aim for food that I feel had a higher likelihood of being 'safe,' especially because I'm not that healthy, so any problematic additions in our food might have more impact on me.

Since I'm looking at contaminants, I don't necessarily view clean eating as only eating fresh foods, though, because plenty of fresh foods have just as many chemicals as processed ones. Apples are a great example. Most apples we get in the store are over 12 months old, and have chemicals used on them during the long cold storage to keep them looking fresh, and this is a chemical banned in the UK because they didn't think that it's safety had been proven well enough (http://rt.com/usa/154676-us-apples-chemical-ban/ )

All things being equal, I'd probably try to cut down on contaminants in my food in a general sense, with the foods that contain the most adulteration, and indulge every once in a while anyway. But I have a disorder where I react to many chemicals and such that contaminate food, and so eating 'clean' has become a necessity for me. So, I just do a lot of research into my food, and choose carefully.

I honestly don't know that my definition of 'eating clean' matches anyone else's. Personally, I think in the end, everybody just needs to eat what works for them and their health and their lifestyle, really.

ndj1979 wrote: »

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

sjohnson__1 wrote: »

I know where I stand on this - I'm a clean eater if by clean eating you mean cleaning out the inside of my cereal/poptart/icecream containers once I've satisfied my micronutrient needs and have room in my macros. So it's not a personal matter but rather, a discussion topic that I (along with many others, I'm sure) would enjoy partaking in and hearing rational arguments from both POV's.

So...Here's your opportunity to explain your thought process with regards to your nutrition.

GO!

What micros are you logging, and how? Ie how do you know you're meeting your micro needs?

the phone app shows your micros when you click on the pie chart

All of them?