The Clean Eating Myth

psulemon wrote: »

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.

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

MrM27 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.

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!!

LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

MrM27 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.

You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?

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.

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.

MrM27 wrote: »

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

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.

Please explain how earlier you said the person eating clean would lose more weight in a hypothetical situation but now when certain variables are eliminated you say it would be better to have some relevance to real life, how convenient. You're trying to wiggle out of a situation because it doesn't benefit you.

You're not making sense again (surprise surprise). I said that in a real-life situation the person eating clean would be able to have a higher calorie deficit whilst maintaining optimum nutrition for good health, and would therefore lose more weight.
But that observation was deemed to be off topic.

LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

MrM27 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.

You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?

I have no response to that.

How ironic that you are questioning someone's honesty by yourself making an allegation that is untrue.

jim9097 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

jim9097 wrote: »

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.

That does not change my answer. I have done a clean diet and I have done a somewhat clean diet with some level of crap. I can state without repudiation that I cannot workout with the same intensity and focus when there is crap even in smallish quantities. I am not saying that is bad or good; because I certainly enjoy my crap food; but I do know without doubt; I feel more sluggish and unable to perform at the same level; which mean I burn less calories.

Re-read the OP again. I think you missed the part about activity level being the same.

jessupbrady wrote: »

jim9097 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

jim9097 wrote: »

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.

That does not change my answer. I have done a clean diet and I have done a somewhat clean diet with some level of crap. I can state without repudiation that I cannot workout with the same intensity and focus when there is crap even in smallish quantities. I am not saying that is bad or good; because I certainly enjoy my crap food; but I do know without doubt; I feel more sluggish and unable to perform at the same level; which mean I burn less calories.

Curious, are you never able to have a crap food - whether a rest day, 8 hours before your next workout, or ever, ever, ever because you know you will feel differently the next time you do get to a work out?

I call shenanigans on this as well.