The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
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.
Please re-read my original post, I specifically said that Person B hits their macros/micros, eats some nutrient dense foods, and fills in rest with treats like ice cream.
0 -
GoPerfectHealth wrote: »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."
Clean eating doesn't have anything to do with macronutrients, as PSulemon pointed out. For example, bacon is low carb but not clean. Apples are high-carb but clean.0 -
Is it worth going back through the 10 pages?
Can someone cliff's?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?
Great question - are we assuming that both individuals are eating with the same macro allotment? One eats a more processed foods diet and the other eats clean but the macros come out equivalent and the calories the same? If that is true, then I would suggest the metabolics with regard to digesting processed foods over time would serve to cause insulin issues and create an imbalance between the two parties - thereby creating the very medical issue(s) that was avoided from the start.
But that's part of my problem in interpreting the question - if I take it at face value without degradation on metabolics on the individual - then it's an obvious answer - both would lose the weight at the same rate. But that's part of my (bang my head at my work desk) issue in answering the question - and why @Chrysalid2014 et al is approaching their answers (or my assumption that person is) as such.
So - to answer the original OP post - both would lose the weight at the same pace - assuming no other variances ever are introduced (or exist - pre-exist etc).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 guess I'm out of the running too, because of my own medical history with having a glucose number up in the pre-diabetic range as well. Oddly enough though, we both improved our health-one by eating 'clean' and the other eating SAD, with a focus on CICO.
I think you've said that you're in maintenance? I've been in maintenance for two years now as well
We should make a pact to come back here in 10 years and post updates, to compare how we're doing lol.
0 -
Its CICO. Period.
Different diets with different macros can affect satiety, ease of adherence, NEAT, etc, but its all CICO. I am too lazy to find it know, but I believe all controlled ward studies (ie not self-reported but food/exercise strictly controlled) showed no significant difference.
Clean eating is for all intents and purposes myth with regards to weight loss. Body recomp is different.
Sure it's CICO. Bolded are all aspects of CICO that matter hugely for any given individual, though.
I won't disagree, but we are talking about two individuals, with "clean" or "unclean" diets with the same 500 cal deficit. We are not talking which diet is better for adherence, satiety, nutrition, etc.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 ...
Furthermore, in crossover studies there is usually a "reset period" between interventions. I.e.
Stage 1: Baseline for 1 month.
Stage 2: "Clean" diet for 2 months. (500kcal deficit)
Stage 3: Baseline for 1 month (recalculate maintenance level)
Stage 4: "Dirty" diet for 2 months (500kcal deficit).
In a crossover-designed trial, there would be two groups. Group A would follow the above protocol, while Group B would have Stages 2 & 4 reversed.
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...
My answer is that it would be more useful to think of the subject of clean eating in terms that actually have some relevance to real life.
0 -
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »GoPerfectHealth wrote: »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."
Clean eating doesn't have anything to do with macronutrients, as PSulemon pointed out. For example, bacon is low carb but not clean. Apples are high-carb but clean.
I'm confused - if clean eating has nothing to do with macro nutrients why are you telling us the macro nutrient of a "clean food"0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Clean eating doesn't have anything to do with macronutrients, as PSulemon pointed out. For example, bacon is low carb but not clean. Apples are high-carb but clean.
Why is poor bacon unclean? (I mean besides bacon's religious persuasion)0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
Great question - are we assuming that both individuals are eating with the same macro allotment? One eats a more processed foods diet and the other eats clean but the macros come out equivalent and the calories the same? If that is true, then I would suggest the metabolics with regard to digesting processed foods over time would serve to cause insulin issues and create an imbalance between the two parties - thereby creating the very medical issue(s) that was avoided from the start.
But that's part of my problem in interpreting the question - if I take it at face value without degradation on metabolics on the individual - then it's an obvious answer - both would lose the weight at the same rate. But that's part of my (bang my head at my work desk) issue in answering the question - and why @Chrysalid2014 et al is approaching their answers (or my assumption that person is) as such.
So - to answer the original OP post - both would lose the weight at the same pace - assuming no other variances ever are introduced (or exist - pre-exist etc).
As NJD pointed out, both are eating the same calories, both are hitting macro and micronutrient goals, but one eats processed stuff (like bacon), while other is eating clean.
And realistically, insulin issues are only an issue for a small amount of people who have it from a medical condition or obese. Weight loss generally would improve insulin sensitivity issues. So even if you ate some processed foods and lose weight, insulin would generally respond favorably.
0 -
annaskiski wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Clean eating doesn't have anything to do with macronutrients, as PSulemon pointed out. For example, bacon is low carb but not clean. Apples are high-carb but clean.
Why is poor bacon unclean? (I mean besides bacon's religious persuasion)
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.
the "non-clean" eater is still eating healthy - macros/micros. They ain't livin off of donuts alone.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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...
My answer is that it would be more useful to think of the subject of clean eating in terms that actually have some relevance to real life.
Ok - then please define what "clean' is, as there about a million definitions....0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »jessupbrady wrote: »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."
I get people lose differently.... but, how does this study answer the original question about clean eating vs non-clean eating.
I would make the assumption that this would just mean the original question would assume that both people had the "thrifty" phenotype?
It doesn't answer the question. The question is impossible to answer due to all the uncontrollable variables. Unless theoretically you put the same person in a metabolic chamber, maintained the same calorie defict, did clean and non clean eating and repeated several times and then compared the weight loss.
But even then it wouldn't be accurate because his metabolism and other variables may change in accordance with the amount of weight he loses over time.
You still don't understand what "deficit" means. He controlled the variables in his hypothetical by stating that each had created a 500 calorie deficit.
That simple statement is deceptive, because it covers all of the complexities you keep trying to add on to it.
It presumes all of the variables are the same.
Now will you just answer the question?
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »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 guess I'm out of the running too, because of my own medical history with having a glucose number up in the pre-diabetic range as well. Oddly enough though, we both improved our health-one by eating 'clean' and the other eating SAD, with a focus on CICO.
I think you've said that you're in maintenance? I've been in maintenance for two years now as well
We should make a pact to come back here in 10 years and post updates, to compare how we're doing lol.
I agree. Yeah maintenance and to be honest hell-bent on creating some muscle before I lose that ability permanently as well. Still able to do it - so eating a higher volume of food - just keeping the same eating pattern.0 -
Calories are calories.0
-
annaskiski wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Clean eating doesn't have anything to do with macronutrients, as PSulemon pointed out. For example, bacon is low carb but not clean. Apples are high-carb but clean.
Why is poor bacon unclean? (I mean besides bacon's religious persuasion)
In all fairness, I am the one who said bacon isn't clean.
And with all of the definitions of clean I have seen, stuff like bacon or sausages wouldn't follow in the clean category.
Just more reason I would never eat "clean".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 ...
I won't link you to the study (again), but the one I mentioned earlier about “thrifty” vs “spendthrift” metabolisms was conducted over a space of six weeks. So I think you might be mistaken there.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions