The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
lol thats being wicked lol
me trying to make something clear here and explain and explain now you are going to make it even more difficult for some...
wanders off to her work files ( still lots to do) and wait till the fun starts all over again rofl
0 -
zomg this debate n e v e r e n d s
reasons clean eating might work
- may help some with adherence. rule-based eating is easier for some than others (different reasons for that - "no junk in the house" is easy to follow)
- is usually more satiating for fewer calories
- may unintentionally address undiagnosed or subclinical metabolic issues
reasons clean eating might not work
- overly rigid. rule-based eating is terrible for some (different reasons for that - feeling deprived, etc.)
- not particularly sociable way of eating; eating food with others is important
- people with no metabolic issues to speak of may not need it or see a difference
- may counter familiar preferences (may be boring, etc)0 -
Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
lol thats being wicked lol
me trying to make something clear here and explain and explain now you are going to make it even more difficult for some...
wanders off to her work files ( still lots to do) and wait till the fun starts all over again rofl
my bad ..did not mean to throw a monkey wrench into the thread...0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
0 -
zomg this debate n e v e r e n d s
reasons clean eating might work
- may help some with adherence. rule-based eating is easier for some than others (different reasons for that - "no junk in the house" is easy to follow)
- is usually more satiating for fewer calories
- may unintentionally address undiagnosed or subclinical metabolic issues
reasons clean eating might not work
- overly rigid. rule-based eating is terrible for some (different reasons for that - feeling deprived, etc.)
- not particularly sociable way of eating; eating food with others is important
- people with no metabolic issues to speak of may not need it or see a difference
- may counter familiar preferences (may be boring, etc)
that really was not even in the ball park of my OP …..0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
lol thats being wicked lol
me trying to make something clear here and explain and explain now you are going to make it even more difficult for some...
wanders off to her work files ( still lots to do) and wait till the fun starts all over again rofl
my bad ..did not mean to throw a monkey wrench into the thread...
but you did....hope it is clean
0 -
zomg this debate n e v e r e n d s
reasons clean eating might work
- may help some with adherence. rule-based eating is easier for some than others (different reasons for that - "no junk in the house" is easy to follow)
- is usually more satiating for fewer calories
- may unintentionally address undiagnosed or subclinical metabolic issues
reasons clean eating might not work
- overly rigid. rule-based eating is terrible for some (different reasons for that - feeling deprived, etc.)
- not particularly sociable way of eating; eating food with others is important
- people with no metabolic issues to speak of may not need it or see a difference
- may counter familiar preferences (may be boring, etc)
that really was not even in the ball park of my OP …..
sure it is.0 -
zomg this debate n e v e r e n d s
reasons clean eating might work
- may help some with adherence. rule-based eating is easier for some than others (different reasons for that - "no junk in the house" is easy to follow)
- is usually more satiating for fewer calories
- may unintentionally address undiagnosed or subclinical metabolic issues
reasons clean eating might not work
- overly rigid. rule-based eating is terrible for some (different reasons for that - feeling deprived, etc.)
- not particularly sociable way of eating; eating food with others is important
- people with no metabolic issues to speak of may not need it or see a difference
- may counter familiar preferences (may be boring, etc)
that really was not even in the ball park of my OP …..
sure it is.
where did I ask for pros and cons of clean eating????0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »The question was
Two identical people ( notice the keyword identical)
Who do you believe loses more, person (A) who eat clean 1500 calories or the other person (B) who eats 1500 calories and eat not clean.
Just to clarify, I don't think the OP actually stated a calorie intake, rather that both people are eating at a 500 cal deficit (which would factor in any discrepancies in TDEE). Two people eating the same number of calories will only lose the same amount of weight if they also have the same deficit. (Owl, I know you know this
)
yes he did
look here from his first post
" The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement."
Ah, right you are Owl. I was wanting to emphasise the fact their deficit is the same in the scenario, before someone came along and said 'but one's TDEE may be higher and then so is their deficit'. 0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
Well I think the hormones are acting in some way on the CICO equation, so on the CO for example. So at least how I interpret it, if you are saying there is a 500 kcal deficit that is incorporating any hormonal effects.
0 -
zomg this debate n e v e r e n d s
reasons clean eating might work
- may help some with adherence. rule-based eating is easier for some than others (different reasons for that - "no junk in the house" is easy to follow)
- is usually more satiating for fewer calories
- may unintentionally address undiagnosed or subclinical metabolic issues
reasons clean eating might not work
- overly rigid. rule-based eating is terrible for some (different reasons for that - feeling deprived, etc.)
- not particularly sociable way of eating; eating food with others is important
- people with no metabolic issues to speak of may not need it or see a difference
- may counter familiar preferences (may be boring, etc)
that really was not even in the ball park of my OP …..
sure it is.
where did I ask for pros and cons of clean eating????
a) you don't have to ask me anything in particular for me to respond
b) your thread title is "myths of clean eating". i offered some reasons it might work (or not work)
correction title is not exactly that, same diff0 -
all right night crew…play nice while I go to la la land aka bed…
I look forward to reading this thread while drinking my AM coffee tomorrow….0 -
Hormonal issues would fall in the medical issues category i believe so if both your test subjects have no 'medical issues' then they should lose the same, no?0
-
girlviernes wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
Well I think the hormones are acting in some way on the CICO equation, so on the CO for example. So at least how I interpret it, if you are saying there is a 500 kcal deficit that is incorporating any hormonal effects.
I agree ..
I was being sarcastic 0 -
usernameenvy wrote: »Hormonal issues would fall in the medical issues category i believe so if both your test subjects have no 'medical issues' then they should lose the same, no?
yes. …
Again, I was being a bit of an wise *kitten*..
because you know, woman are so hormonal and all, so I wanted to know about the hormonal impact < that is a joke people…I am just messing around… LOL
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
Assuming no medical conditions affecting hormones, that's surely taken into account in TDEE is it not? Therefore, if their deficit is the same, their weight loss will be the same.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
Well I think the hormones are acting in some way on the CICO equation, so on the CO for example. So at least how I interpret it, if you are saying there is a 500 kcal deficit that is incorporating any hormonal effects.
I agree ..
I was being sarcastic
Ah the joys of online sarcasm
0 -
I see ! lol i haven't read enough of your posts to gauge your sense of humor !0
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »Person A will lose more, as person B will retain toxinz that make them fat.
Toxins huh....maybe a cleanse would help with that.
(sarcasm)0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?0 -
No medical issues where mentoined in the second example. So no results wouldn't be the same, and keep in mind, he's saying "weight" which is also not correct. Women obviously have more water weight issues than men. But I'll ignore that fact and assume he's talking about pure fat.usernameenvy wrote: »Hormonal issues would fall in the medical issues category i believe so if both your test subjects have no 'medical issues' then they should lose the same, no?
The issue I was trying to point out, is there are many people that aren't aware of their hormonal situation which can have a negative effect on weight loss, even if the proper calorie deficit is in place.
bam. truth.
also: you can be within the "normal" range for values re test x (e.g. on the low end of the average normal range), yet still not be in an optimal hormonal situation for you. this often comes up for people with thyroid issues.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
But we're assuming for the purposes of this discussion that there are no medical issues. An undiagnosed medical issue is still a medical issue.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
But in the OP's example, the OP clearly stated no medical conditions.
Rather than conflate things, let's all just assume that every aspect of Persons A and B is the same...height, weight, hormones, body composition, caloric intake, macro breakdown, etc.
The ONLY difference is whether or not the food is "clean."
0 -
Also, I have PCOS. Pretty sure eating 'clean' would make squat all difference to my weight loss. Moderating my carb intake, however, was necessary when my weight was higher. You can do that without 'clean' eating.0
-
This is an "All Things Being Equal" scenario. When it exists, then FINE! If all you are measuring is the one-dimensional result of losing weight, and are satisfied and get those results, Bravo!I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
For a many people, All Things Are Not Equal! There are other factors (whether they are measuring/tracking them or not) which are weighing into the scenario, causing this simplistic model to NOT WORK.
It's because the body is not simple math. If CICO is all you are interested in, then you are not interested in physiology, or else you don't really care enough when other signs of problems (showing up as symptoms a person is having) are causing people to fail with the CICO mindset.
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
But in the OP's example, the OP clearly stated no medical conditions.
Rather than conflate things, let's all just assume that every aspect of Persons A and B is the same...height, weight, hormones, body composition, caloric intake, macro breakdown, etc.
The ONLY difference is whether or not the food is "clean."
They can't be different genders, then.0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
But in the OP's example, the OP clearly stated no medical conditions.
Rather than conflate things, let's all just assume that every aspect of Persons A and B is the same...height, weight, hormones, body composition, caloric intake, macro breakdown, etc.
The ONLY difference is whether or not the food is "clean."
They can't be different genders, then.
I must have missed the part where it was suggested that they were different genders. The question is regarding clean vs. unclean food. Gender should have nothing to do with it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions