The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Glad to return to this and see a healthy debate. Sleeping on it overnight also gave me one perspective (concern) with regard to how I answered the question and my interpretation of the original OP. Well a couple.
1) I was too negative in my response - the tone of my response was litigious. I apologize for that. I guess I have a very passionate view on this subject - and deeply personal - with many things about food validated over the years that make me respond in such a way that (after sleeping on it) is negative rather than positive. There is a bottom-line for me - and responding in a more objective and less emotional way would better serve the argument and discussion - even with all the proof in my medical file et al available.
2) If I took better time to read @ndj1979 OP more closely, he was discussing two people who would have negligible (or no) medical issues - not read in my estimation that medical issues were on the table.
For number 2 - I would say that either would lose the weight - but I must asterisk (*) this by stating the odds of one losing more weight than the other would definitely fall on the "clean" eater - that is, one who minimizes the intake of added sugar and processed food. Obviously, we have cases where that would not be true in the world - but since I am a data analyst, I focus on an "odds-based" approach. What's the most conservative method to lose weight and to lose fat over the long run? In my estimation, it would have to be a long-term "clean" eating approach - with an emphasis on making the diet as part of a lifestyle over the long haul.
@mamapeach910 made a great point earlier - there's really two things - one you can lose the weight fast (short-term fix) or you can think long-term about diet and lose the weight (fat) over the long haul. The body will adapt to the food you eat - hence my passion for sticking more with the "clean" approach rather than what I perceive to be an alternative that would increase the odds of gaining the fat pounds back over time. I would rather eat "clean" to preserve the outcome I reached than revert to a method that would increase the chances of regaining the fat.
@Chrysalid2014 and others - great contributions. I think this has been and always will be a great discussion. I consider it a timeless discussion - because this is a battle that will always be waged. The outcomes-based approach suggests eating a diet that is very nutritious to gain the best odds of success but that doesn't mean it's an end-all-be-all. Variances exist and must be accounted for in the process. Just glad to be part of it.
If both people, without medical conditions, both have the same 500 calorie deficit, how is it mathematically possible that the one who eats "cleaner" will lose more?
I am a financial analyst, so I love numbers. So I am trying to figure out how one can lose more if it's not mathematically possible?
Great question - if we look at it from a CICO perspective - without regard to metabolics - I would say the clean eater wouldn't - they would both lose the weight (pace and amount). I guess that's the crux of the issue, does all of this work in a vacuum?0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Person A - because I was Person B at one time and it didn't work.
You have medical issues.
0 -
So how about this, make believe, you take one person and put him on a diet for 2 months eating only "clean" then you change the hypothetical situation and make it that everything is the same except this time there is processed food included. Will he lose the same amount in both situations?
Please don't say that can't be answered because you can't turn back time or whatever it is. It's the same person 2 different examples. Critical thinking. There are no loop holes to try and find. It's a straight question.
It's simply not possible to keep everything the same. His metabolism, for a start, may have been affected by the first two months of dieting.
0 -
No person A will lose more weight ***Period*** What everyone fails to take into consideration is that person A who eats a balanced diet and probably has slow releasing complex carbs in their diet will be able to expend more energy than person B eating donuts. While person B will have a burst of energy up front that will be short lived and the workout will end quicker than person A's who is on a steady energy release path.0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
lOL typical..
reference study and then when asked for said study say "I don't have the time to find them" yet, you have all day to post on here but you don't have ten minutes to find a study?FunkyTobias wrote: »
Burden of proof falls on the claimant. If you want to claim they exist, then it's up to you to provide them.
Furthermore, you can't be "arsed [sic] to spend all day looking for them", but you expect us to?
Oh looky here, I found it. Article + link to study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/05/12/why-you-cant-lose-weight-but-your-best-friend-can-on-the-same-diet/
Forbes is not a peer reviewed source...
The link to the study itself is included in the article. Guess you didn't read that far (second paragraph):
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2015/05/06/db14-1881
Interesting quote from the article:
"Contrary to the popular idea that cutting 3,500 calories equates to losing a pound, the researchers found the loss of one pound equated to anywhere from 1,560 to 3,000 calories depending on the person."
First, that is sample size of 12 people which is ridiculously small.
Secondly, they do not list what the macro break down for the ensure group is. So we don't know what percent of protein they were consuming, and if they controlled for it.
Third, you neglected to include this gem:
“In general, as things currently stand, weight loss strategies should be the same for all: make smart food choices, practice portion control and increase movement and exercise,” Votruba said. She pointed out that every volunteer in the study lost a significant amount of weight, suggesting that “regardless of biological differences, weight loss is plausible with sustained effort.”
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So how about this, make believe, you take one person and put him on a diet for 2 months eating only "clean" then you change the hypothetical situation and make it that everything is the same except this time there is processed food included. Will he lose the same amount in both situations?
Please don't say that can't be answered because you can't turn back time or whatever it is. It's the same person 2 different examples. Critical thinking. There are no loop holes to try and find. It's a straight question.
It's simply not possible to keep everything the same. His metabolism, for a start, may have been affected by the first two months of dieting.
Uh, what?
Metabolism wouldn't have been effected because you're assuming the same circumstances and starting point. The only variable you are changing is introducing processed foods.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
If both people, without medical conditions, both have the same 500 calorie deficit, how is it mathematically possible that the one who eats "cleaner" will lose more?
I am a financial analyst, so I love numbers. So I am trying to figure out how one can lose more if it's not mathematically possible?
Great question - if we look at it from a CICO perspective - without regard to metabolics - I would say the clean eater wouldn't - they would both lose the weight (pace and amount). I guess that's the crux of the issue, does all of this work in a vacuum?
And even if the clean eater won't lose more, will his calorie intake be higher? (Not the original question, I know, but perhaps more pertinent to real life.)0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So how about this, make believe, you take one person and put him on a diet for 2 months eating only "clean" then you change the hypothetical situation and make it that everything is the same except this time there is processed food included. Will he lose the same amount in both situations?
Please don't say that can't be answered because you can't turn back time or whatever it is. It's the same person 2 different examples. Critical thinking. There are no loop holes to try and find. It's a straight question.
It's simply not possible to keep everything the same. His metabolism, for a start, may have been affected by the first two months of dieting.
as an example, you take two people. put person A on clean for a month, B on unclean. Then switch for next month. Repeat for several blocks. Then you can compare rates of fat loss between and within subjects. this design of course could be expanded to include more subjects.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So how about this, make believe, you take one person and put him on a diet for 2 months eating only "clean" then you change the hypothetical situation and make it that everything is the same except this time there is processed food included. Will he lose the same amount in both situations?
Please don't say that can't be answered because you can't turn back time or whatever it is. It's the same person 2 different examples. Critical thinking. There are no loop holes to try and find. It's a straight question.
It's simply not possible to keep everything the same. His metabolism, for a start, may have been affected by the first two months of dieting.
So, If I understand what you are saying; A hypothetical question was asked and your answers to these hypothetical questions are you cannot think hypothetically.0 -
Sorry, I haven't read the ten pages of responses. Generally speaking calories of "clean-eating" are the same as calories of other classifications of eating. The debate over whether a calorie is a calorie was summarized nicely by the Journal of Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr May 2004 vol. 79 no. 5 899S-906S):
"In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Person A - because I was Person B at one time and it didn't work.
You have medical issues.
That is true and my medical file proves that I do and I have stipulated to this on many occasions on here. So I am not a good example for the original post. I would qualify that an outcomes-based approach though would suggest that a clean eater has a better chance of succeeding over the long run than someone who eats processed foods as part of their diet - processed meaning the Frankenfood aisles in grocery stores - that contain all the necessary ingredients to getting Type II diabetes.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Glad to return to this and see a healthy debate. Sleeping on it overnight also gave me one perspective (concern) with regard to how I answered the question and my interpretation of the original OP. Well a couple.
1) I was too negative in my response - the tone of my response was litigious. I apologize for that. I guess I have a very passionate view on this subject - and deeply personal - with many things about food validated over the years that make me respond in such a way that (after sleeping on it) is negative rather than positive. There is a bottom-line for me - and responding in a more objective and less emotional way would better serve the argument and discussion - even with all the proof in my medical file et al available.
2) If I took better time to read @ndj1979 OP more closely, he was discussing two people who would have negligible (or no) medical issues - not read in my estimation that medical issues were on the table.
For number 2 - I would say that either would lose the weight - but I must asterisk (*) this by stating the odds of one losing more weight than the other would definitely fall on the "clean" eater - that is, one who minimizes the intake of added sugar and processed food. Obviously, we have cases where that would not be true in the world - but since I am a data analyst, I focus on an "odds-based" approach. What's the most conservative method to lose weight and to lose fat over the long run? In my estimation, it would have to be a long-term "clean" eating approach - with an emphasis on making the diet as part of a lifestyle over the long haul.
@mamapeach910 made a great point earlier - there's really two things - one you can lose the weight fast (short-term fix) or you can think long-term about diet and lose the weight (fat) over the long haul. The body will adapt to the food you eat - hence my passion for sticking more with the "clean" approach rather than what I perceive to be an alternative that would increase the odds of gaining the fat pounds back over time. I would rather eat "clean" to preserve the outcome I reached than revert to a method that would increase the chances of regaining the fat.
@Chrysalid2014 and others - great contributions. I think this has been and always will be a great discussion. I consider it a timeless discussion - because this is a battle that will always be waged. The outcomes-based approach suggests eating a diet that is very nutritious to gain the best odds of success but that doesn't mean it's an end-all-be-all. Variances exist and must be accounted for in the process. Just glad to be part of it.
If both people, without medical conditions, both have the same 500 calorie deficit, how is it mathematically possible that the one who eats "cleaner" will lose more?
I am a financial analyst, so I love numbers. So I am trying to figure out how one can lose more if it's not mathematically possible?
Great question - if we look at it from a CICO perspective - without regard to metabolics - I would say the clean eater wouldn't - they would both lose the weight (pace and amount). I guess that's the crux of the issue, does all of this work in a vacuum?
How you are defining metabolics?
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So how about this, make believe, you take one person and put him on a diet for 2 months eating only "clean" then you change the hypothetical situation and make it that everything is the same except this time there is processed food included. Will he lose the same amount in both situations?
Please don't say that can't be answered because you can't turn back time or whatever it is. It's the same person 2 different examples. Critical thinking. There are no loop holes to try and find. It's a straight question.
It's simply not possible to keep everything the same. His metabolism, for a start, may have been affected by the first two months of dieting.
as an example, you take two people. put person A on clean for a month, B on unclean. Then switch for next month. Repeat for several blocks. Then you can compare rates of fat loss between and within subjects. this design of course could be expanded to include more subjects.
AKA "crossover design".
0 -
I predict that they will both lose the same amount for the time that they are both eating this way.
But I also predict that after 1 year, person B is more likely to still be eating that way.....0 -
jessupbrady wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So how about this, make believe, you take one person and put him on a diet for 2 months eating only "clean" then you change the hypothetical situation and make it that everything is the same except this time there is processed food included. Will he lose the same amount in both situations?
Please don't say that can't be answered because you can't turn back time or whatever it is. It's the same person 2 different examples. Critical thinking. There are no loop holes to try and find. It's a straight question.
It's simply not possible to keep everything the same. His metabolism, for a start, may have been affected by the first two months of dieting.
So, If I understand what you are saying; A hypothetical question was asked and your answers to these hypothetical questions are you cannot think hypothetically.
so much this...0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So how about this, make believe, you take one person and put him on a diet for 2 months eating only "clean" then you change the hypothetical situation and make it that everything is the same except this time there is processed food included. Will he lose the same amount in both situations?
Please don't say that can't be answered because you can't turn back time or whatever it is. It's the same person 2 different examples. Critical thinking. There are no loop holes to try and find. It's a straight question.
It's simply not possible to keep everything the same. His metabolism, for a start, may have been affected by the first two months of dieting.
ummm do you even understand what metabolic adaptation is? It takes a sustained period of caloric deficit for one to have metabolic adaptation ..
and please don't link me to an article on forbes about what it is ...
0 -
No person A will lose more weight ***Period*** What everyone fails to take into consideration is that person A who eats a balanced diet and probably has slow releasing complex carbs in their diet will be able to expend more energy than person B eating donuts. While person B will have a burst of energy up front that will be short lived and the workout will end quicker than person A's who is on a steady energy release path.
Person B isn't just eating donuts. He's eating a varied diet that may include a donut or other treat upon occasion. Read the OP again.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Person A - because I was Person B at one time and it didn't work.
You have medical issues.
That is true and my medical file proves that I do and I have stipulated to this on many occasions on here. So I am not a good example for the original post. I would qualify that an outcomes-based approach though would suggest that a clean eater has a better chance of succeeding over the long run than someone who eats processed foods as part of their diet - processed meaning the Frankenfood aisles in grocery stores - that contain all the necessary ingredients to getting Type II diabetes.
I would agree that you are not a good example due to your medical issues (which don't apply to a ton of people).
And would disagree with your assumption. But keep in mind, all of us who eat the "frankenfoods" are also eating wholesome foods that are nutrients dense. Additionally, I would also like to point out the number of people in thread alone that have abs or flat stomach that eat "dirty" significantly outweighs those that eat clean with the same results.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions