The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
If all you are looking at is weight loss, you may be correct, they will lose roughly the same weight. If you want to talk about nutrition and long term health, the guy with the doughnut will not do as well. I am concerned with health, not just weight loss. Stay away from processed foods.0
-
isulo_kura wrote: »The thing is not even the 'Clean eating' people can decide what eating clean actually is. I see many so called clean eaters eating cheese, protein powders and many other things that are the definition of processed in my mind.
This argument like many on MFP is just a fallacy because as normal it's one or the other. I eat a lot of foods the clean eaters would see as clean but hey I also sometimes eat 'non clean' foods. Why does it need to be one or the other? It's this obsession about putting labels on everything. Why do you have to be 'paleo', 'clean' or anything else why not just say I eat foods I like that fit in with my goals/lifestyle?
i tend to agree …
and I will stop bringing it up when the clean eaters agree to stop acting like their food choice is someone superior to everyone else's ….or when the Paleo people admit that the Paleo Diet has absolutely nothing to do with how Paleolitchic People eat.
I don't have a name for what I do, I just eat food and hit macro/micro/calorie targets.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
You. are. changing. the question. The stipulation was that they were both consuming the same amount of calories.
Answer the question as it was asked, not as it suits your presuppositions.
The answer to the question as it was asked is: Person A or Person B may lose more weight, or they may lose exactly the same amount of weight, but either way, it does not prove or disprove anything about eating clean.
it proves my point that clean eating is not superior and you lose just as much weight eating clean as you would by following a moderate approach.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Person A will eventually lose more because he has more energy to lift heavier weights/be more active. Person A will also be smarter, per all the studies that show a relationship between clean eating and cognitive performance.
Oh, please post those studies.
You are also changing the question. It stipulated that they had the same level of activity.
Also, did you note the upthread mention that the clean eating bodybuilders had improved performance after cheat days?
And ... look up the way Michael Phelps eats.
yes, please post those studies….0 -
rossinator63 wrote: »If all you are looking at is weight loss, you may be correct, they will lose roughly the same weight. If you want to talk about nutrition and long term health, the guy with the doughnut will not do as well. I am concerned with health, not just weight loss. Stay away from processed foods.
why not?
I specifically said that Person B will hit their micros and macros, so that means they are getting their essential nutrients.
So one donut a day is going to impact your health negatively?
That is news to me as I eat about 200 calories of ice cream a day and my lab work comes back nearly perfect every year...0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »The thing is not even the 'Clean eating' people can decide what eating clean actually is. I see many so called clean eaters eating cheese, protein powders and many other things that are the definition of processed in my mind.
This argument like many on MFP is just a fallacy because as normal it's one or the other. I eat a lot of foods the clean eaters would see as clean but hey I also sometimes eat 'non clean' foods. Why does it need to be one or the other? It's this obsession about putting labels on everything. Why do you have to be 'paleo', 'clean' or anything else why not just say I eat foods I like that fit in with my goals/lifestyle?
i tend to agree …
and I will stop bringing it up when the clean eaters agree to stop acting like their food choice is someone superior to everyone else's ….or when the Paleo people admit that the Paleo Diet has absolutely nothing to do with how Paleolitchic People eat.
I don't have a name for what I do, I just eat food and hit macro/micro/calorie targets.
How are people going to feel special and holier-than-thou then?0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »The thing is not even the 'Clean eating' people can decide what eating clean actually is. I see many so called clean eaters eating cheese, protein powders and many other things that are the definition of processed in my mind.
This argument like many on MFP is just a fallacy because as normal it's one or the other. I eat a lot of foods the clean eaters would see as clean but hey I also sometimes eat 'non clean' foods. Why does it need to be one or the other? It's this obsession about putting labels on everything. Why do you have to be 'paleo', 'clean' or anything else why not just say I eat foods I like that fit in with my goals/lifestyle?
i tend to agree …
and I will stop bringing it up when the clean eaters agree to stop acting like their food choice is someone superior to everyone else's ….or when the Paleo people admit that the Paleo Diet has absolutely nothing to do with how Paleolitchic People eat.
I don't have a name for what I do, I just eat food and hit macro/micro/calorie targets.
How are people going to feel special and holier-than-thou then?
IDK ..
can't they just eat and be merry?0 -
Good post op.. and In for clean zealots0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The answer to the question as it was asked is: Person A or Person B may lose more weight, or they may lose exactly the same amount of weight, but either way, it does not prove or disprove anything about eating clean.
it proves my point that clean eating is not superior and you lose just as much weight eating clean as you would by following a moderate approach.
It doesn't prove anything. To prove it you need to keep all the variables constant and change only one thing: eating clean or not. Right from the off you've used two different people so you're not keeping the variables constant. As I said, it would be impossible to prove this one way or the other.
The closest thing we have in this thread to a proper example (i.e. someone who has tried both methods and lost more weight using the clean eating method, with documentation to prove it) is @tedboosalis7. Obviously his results weren't done in the same time period so even that isn't a true experiment, but it's the closest thing anyone can offer. All the people posting saying they've lost or maintainted weight eating junk don't prove anything because how do they know how much they would have lost or how healthy they would be if they didn't eat the junk?
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »Hi Guys, sorry if I missed this being mentioned in the slew of acronyms but, from my understanding, the reason why 'clean' eating tends to result in better results than 'processed' eating is to do with how the food is metabolised.
Exhibit A - Raw carrot - 120cal (clean example)
Exhibit B - Cooked and mashed carrot - 120cal (processed example)
Person eats raw carrot. Digesting raw carrot burns 25cal.
Person eats cooked and mashed carrot. Digesting burns10cal.
Actual calories entering the system for A is 95cal.
Actual calories entering the system for B is 110cal.
Therefore, on a diet of raw carrots a person would loose weight faster than if they ate cooked and mashed carrot.
I have no idea what exactly the differences are between digesting one over the other are only that a processed food is easier and quicker to digest while the raw requires more activity to burn and is more likely to pass through undigested (corn vs pop corn anyone?).
It really has nothing to do with toxins and warm and fuzzies. This is also the basis of the Atkins diet funnily enough. Meat takes alot more calories to digest than a carrot.
HOWEVER, in my opinion, if you are on a CICO diet with processed food which is resulting in weight loss and you are able to stick to it I say go for it. Its better to do something slow and steady and stick to it then go too hard and not be able to see it through.
If you want to get healthy though, that's another story
I did CICO/IF and continued to eat a very SAD diet (fast food several times a week, 'processed' foods etc). Not only did I lose the weight, but I also IMPROVED my health in the process. My glucose number went from the pre-diabetic range, down into the normal range. My cholesterol numbers improved etc etc. I've been maintaining for over two years now and continue to have great blood panels-glucose number still in the normal range, cholesterol is great, blood pressure excellent etc. I have no health issues, am successfully maintaining an almost 60lb loss and I eat 'dirty'. I've very curious to know how you define 'get healthy'?
Yup. The simple fact is that the biggest health problem most of have is being over an ideal weight.
I think a lot of people LIKE the idea that they can hold off the bogeyman of bad health by doing this or that, but a lot of it will still be down to genes and luck.
0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »The thing is not even the 'Clean eating' people can decide what eating clean actually is. I see many so called clean eaters eating cheese, protein powders and many other things that are the definition of processed in my mind.
This argument like many on MFP is just a fallacy because as normal it's one or the other. I eat a lot of foods the clean eaters would see as clean but hey I also sometimes eat 'non clean' foods. Why does it need to be one or the other? It's this obsession about putting labels on everything. Why do you have to be 'paleo', 'clean' or anything else why not just say I eat foods I like that fit in with my goals/lifestyle?
i tend to agree …
and I will stop bringing it up when the clean eaters agree to stop acting like their food choice is someone superior to everyone else's ….or when the Paleo people admit that the Paleo Diet has absolutely nothing to do with how Paleolitchic People eat.
I don't have a name for what I do, I just eat food and hit macro/micro/calorie targets.
I thought you were an IIFYMer
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »The thing is not even the 'Clean eating' people can decide what eating clean actually is. I see many so called clean eaters eating cheese, protein powders and many other things that are the definition of processed in my mind.
This argument like many on MFP is just a fallacy because as normal it's one or the other. I eat a lot of foods the clean eaters would see as clean but hey I also sometimes eat 'non clean' foods. Why does it need to be one or the other? It's this obsession about putting labels on everything. Why do you have to be 'paleo', 'clean' or anything else why not just say I eat foods I like that fit in with my goals/lifestyle?
i tend to agree …
and I will stop bringing it up when the clean eaters agree to stop acting like their food choice is someone superior to everyone else's ….or when the Paleo people admit that the Paleo Diet has absolutely nothing to do with how Paleolitchic People eat.
I don't have a name for what I do, I just eat food and hit macro/micro/calorie targets.
I thought you were an IIFYMer
eh, I guess ….I mean I hit my macros and fill in from there …but I have never considered what I do IIFYM, I guess I am ...0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The answer to the question as it was asked is: Person A or Person B may lose more weight, or they may lose exactly the same amount of weight, but either way, it does not prove or disprove anything about eating clean.
it proves my point that clean eating is not superior and you lose just as much weight eating clean as you would by following a moderate approach.
It doesn't prove anything. To prove it you need to keep all the variables constant and change only one thing: eating clean or not. Right from the off you've used two different people so you're not keeping the variables constant. As I said, it would be impossible to prove this one way or the other.
The closest thing we have in this thread to a proper example (i.e. someone who has tried both methods and lost more weight using the clean eating method, with documentation to prove it) is @tedboosalis7. Obviously his results weren't done in the same time period so even that isn't a true experiment, but it's the closest thing anyone can offer. All the people posting saying they've lost or maintainted weight eating junk don't prove anything because how do they know how much they would have lost or how healthy they would be if they didn't eat the junk?
I don't think you should be posting in threads like this until you get your issues with food under control. You always go off on a tangent about junk food and bla, bla, bla…it is very tiresome..
Actually, if you read my OP I said two males, same height, same weight, same activity level, and same deficit, so they were the same.
later in the thread I changed the example for fun to a male and a female.
Please read the entire thread before making comments about things you do not understand.
ETA - to the part I bolded. I eat ice cream every day and other "unclean" foods and my blood work is nearly perfect at my yearly physical every year, thank you very much. So my blood work proves you can eat unclean and be "healthy"…
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The answer to the question as it was asked is: Person A or Person B may lose more weight, or they may lose exactly the same amount of weight, but either way, it does not prove or disprove anything about eating clean.
it proves my point that clean eating is not superior and you lose just as much weight eating clean as you would by following a moderate approach.
It doesn't prove anything. To prove it you need to keep all the variables constant and change only one thing: eating clean or not. Right from the off you've used two different people so you're not keeping the variables constant. As I said, it would be impossible to prove this one way or the other.
The closest thing we have in this thread to a proper example (i.e. someone who has tried both methods and lost more weight using the clean eating method, with documentation to prove it) is @tedboosalis7. Obviously his results weren't done in the same time period so even that isn't a true experiment, but it's the closest thing anyone can offer. All the people posting saying they've lost or maintainted weight eating junk don't prove anything because how do they know how much they would have lost or how healthy they would be if they didn't eat the junk?
Oh no, he is by far the only example. And his results are specious because there's no evidence he was accurately counting calories.
We can pull in @lemurcat12, and there's also me. I've eaten just like Ted and gained weight.
In fact, since clean eaters keep mentioning health... I was eating "clean" and developed a progressive autoimmune disease.
0 -
I don't think you should be posting in threads like this until you get your issues with food under control. You always go off on a tangent about junk food and bla, bla, bla…it is very tiresome..
Actually, if you read my OP I said two males, same height, same weight, same activity level, and same deficit, so they were the same.
later in the thread I changed the example for fun to a male and a female.
Please read the entire thread before making comments about things you do not understand.
I've read it all and I understand it completely, but you don't seem to. It doesn't matter if the two people are the same height, weight, activity etc. There's still no way you can guarantee that the CO is the same for both people , so the experiment is a dud from the off. Of course there are already studies showing that different people with the same calorie deficits lose different amounts of weight. (And no, I'm not going to look them up for you.)
My comments about junk food do not qualify as "going off on a tangent" in a thread about eating clean. And if no-one with food issues was allowed to post this forum would be entirely empty.-1 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
Oh no, he is by far the only example. And his results are specious because there's no evidence he was accurately counting calories.
We can pull in @lemurcat12, and there's also me. I've eaten just like Ted and gained weight.
In fact, since clean eaters keep mentioning health... I was eating "clean" and developed a progressive autoimmune disease.
The difference is that Ted was in a calorie deficit, assuming his calorie counting was accurate (we have no reason to think it wasn't.) If I've understood you correctly from previous posts, you weren't. You said that you ate clean but ate too many calories and therefore gained weight.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The answer to the question as it was asked is: Person A or Person B may lose more weight, or they may lose exactly the same amount of weight, but either way, it does not prove or disprove anything about eating clean.
it proves my point that clean eating is not superior and you lose just as much weight eating clean as you would by following a moderate approach.
It doesn't prove anything. To prove it you need to keep all the variables constant and change only one thing: eating clean or not. Right from the off you've used two different people so you're not keeping the variables constant. As I said, it would be impossible to prove this one way or the other.
The closest thing we have in this thread to a proper example (i.e. someone who has tried both methods and lost more weight using the clean eating method, with documentation to prove it) is @tedboosalis7. Obviously his results weren't done in the same time period so even that isn't a true experiment, but it's the closest thing anyone can offer. All the people posting saying they've lost or maintainted weight eating junk don't prove anything because how do they know how much they would have lost or how healthy they would be if they didn't eat the junk?
I lost the weight and improved my health because I ate at a calorie deficit. The same would have happened if I had eaten 'clean' but also ate at a calorie deficit. As for health-my blood panels are great, so don't see how eating 'clean' would really make a difference there. Looking at my last blood panel results-there's not really anything I could improve on.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »
I lost the weight and improved my health because I ate at a calorie deficit. The same would have happened if I had eaten 'clean' but also ate at a calorie deficit. As for health-my blood panels are great, don't know how they could improve anymore by changing what I eat?
That's nice but it doesn't prove anything related to this discussion. You don't know what "would have happened" if you'd eaten clean, or in what other ways your health might have improved. Normal blood panels are not the be-all and end-all of good health.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions