The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
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.
Odds are yes. I have inflated it with a broad generalization that it just could occur to anyone. Obviously, that's just not the case. Good point.0 -
FunkyTobias 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.
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.
Well put
0 -
Chrysalid2014 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.
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.
that study had nothing to do with long term metabolic adaptation.0 -
Chrysalid2014 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.
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.
At 50% of maintenance (which is a much larger deficit than 500kcal). Furthermore, there is a huge difference between metabolic adaptation and downregulation.
0 -
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.0 -
C is my answer.
All I know is I eat approx. 80% healthy foods and 20% delicious sugary foods and no longer have heart disease!!
0 -
Okay, fair point. I hadn't considered all of those things about metabolic adaptation. But even taking that out of the equation I still don't see how it would be possible to keep everything else the same for M's proposed experiment.0
-
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Okay, fair point. I hadn't considered all of those things about metabolic adaptation. But even taking that out of the equation I still don't see how it would be possible to keep everything else the same for M's proposed experiment.
That's the thing about hypotheticals. They are theoretical. They don't have to be possible.
Now just answer the question.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Okay, fair point. I hadn't considered all of those things about metabolic adaptation. But even taking that out of the equation I still don't see how it would be possible to keep everything else the same for M's proposed experiment.
See my above post about crossover design.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
Are you going to one day decide to show us your weight loss progress?
What progress?
You know what all the clean eating fanatics on here have in common? Not one of them has a level of athletic or physical performance that I would ever want. Yet they always claim to be "healthier."0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Okay, fair point. I hadn't considered all of those things about metabolic adaptation. But even taking that out of the equation I still don't see how it would be possible to keep everything else the same for M's proposed experiment.
Amazing how rigorous your standard is here that you would require every possible variable to be controlled... somehow I doubt you apply this standard to studies that support your views.
What are your thoughts on the crossover design specified by Tobias?
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Okay, fair point. I hadn't considered all of those things about metabolic adaptation. But even taking that out of the equation I still don't see how it would be possible to keep everything else the same for M's proposed experiment.
See my above post about crossover design.
Yeah, that would be good experiment, probably as close to accurate as you could get on this subject. (Would it be unethical to keep someone in a metabolic chamber for six months, though?) 0 -
Chrysalid2014 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.
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.
that study had nothing to do with long term metabolic adaptation.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2007.354/full
one group did calorie restriction and one did calorie restriction + exercise, it took three to six months for resting metabolism to be affected.
0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
Are you going to one day decide to show us your weight loss progress?
What progress?
You know what all the clean eating fanatics on here have in common? Not one of them has a level of athletic or physical performance that I would ever want. Yet they always claim to be "healthier."
or get the shakes from eating one donut...0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Okay, fair point. I hadn't considered all of those things about metabolic adaptation. But even taking that out of the equation I still don't see how it would be possible to keep everything else the same for M's proposed experiment.
See my above post about crossover design.
Yeah, that would be good experiment, probably as close to accurate as you could get on this subject. (Would it be unethical to keep someone in a metabolic chamber for six months, though?)
Some, including myself, would have to be locked in a chamber, ethical or not, in order to remain consistent on a diet.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.
if you did not do it then why do you keep telling everyone else to do it?
The twinkie diet guy lost weight AND had improved blood panels, so not sure how he was not healthier post twinkie diet...
The problem with discussions like these is that people want to use ridiculous comparison points like 1500 calories of cake VS 1500 calories of clean food.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Okay, fair point. I hadn't considered all of those things about metabolic adaptation. But even taking that out of the equation I still don't see how it would be possible to keep everything else the same for M's proposed experiment.
See my above post about crossover design.
Yeah, that would be good experiment, probably as close to accurate as you could get on this subject. (Would it be unethical to keep someone in a metabolic chamber for six months, though?)jessupbrady wrote: »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
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
- 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
- 96.2K 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