The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »OP I think next time when you explain yourself which I really thought you did pretty well that people know what terms you use mean. Half the nonsense in this thread is hilarious. It like people really do not know what a calorie deficit really is.
it was going well for the first four pages, but like all other MFP threads it took a nose dive on page five and never recovered.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »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.
He admitted that the long-term ramifications for his diet were very inconclusive - he did so in interviews. Short-term, yes - long-term, not so fast. That assumes he would have to maintain his diet by increasing his caloric intake to a "maintenance" level - which is where I go and suggest that anyone doing so is just putting themselves in a no-win position health-wise - it's not sustainable.
I am making a point by positing the above - no one in their right mind would ever eat 1500 calories of cake and only cake for one year because of the health ramifications of doing so.
That's why I tie good dietary nutrition to CICO. Inevitably, people will flee choices like the one I am made above for a more rounded dietary profile.
I am doing so to make a point. You validate the point that you (or anyone) would ever do that - or has done it. That's the point.
Here we go again with the "nothing but cake" strawman. Hate to break it to you, Ted, but nobody in the IIFYM camp ever recommended that.
Why don't we just add "excluding the middle" to your logical fallacy BINGO card?
Oh the irony! Most people in the "clean eating" camp never advocated eating 100% clean all the time. Yet here you guys go with that strawman!
Um, yes they do. That's been the past 12 pages. The argument is that person A eats mostly "clean-ish" (hard to define obviously but nutritious foods) and fills in the blanks with stuff like ice cream. The clean eating people aren't saying that's OK, in fact they're arguing that it's not.
We're not talking about what's "OK", we're discussing which approach might lead to more weight loss. It's OK for anyone to eat what they damn well please, as long as they're not harming someone else by doing so.
And in any case, I've never seen any clean eaters, paleo follwers, or low carbers on this forum telling anyone else it's the "only way". However I have seen lots of junk-food eaters (for want of a better label) jumping onto threads where the OP has specifically stated he/she wants to try aforementioned eating plans and telling them not to bother.
You missed the point. Clean eaters are not saying that including some small percentage of non-clean food is ok to be considered clean. It's the non-clean eaters who are saying that they eat mostly healthy, but include some small percentage of treats and processed foods. Clean eaters tend to be tee-totallers...if you eat anything processed, you are not eating clean.0 -
-
I think, and this is JMHO, that the clean eater would lose more in the long run because they are eating enough protein to maintain lean muscle mass. If you are losing muscle and fat equally, you're metabolism is going to slow down0
-
Holy hell.0
-
mommyvalarie wrote: »I think, and this is JMHO, that the clean eater would lose more in the long run because they are eating enough protein to maintain lean muscle mass. If you are losing muscle and fat equally, you're metabolism is going to slow down
Read the OP again. The macro percentage is the same.
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
You missed the point. Clean eaters are not saying that including some small percentage of non-clean food is ok to be considered clean. It's the non-clean eaters who are saying that they eat mostly healthy, but include some small percentage of treats and processed foods. Clean eaters tend to be tee-totallers...if you eat anything processed, you are not eating clean.
It's the non-clean eaters who always seem intent on telling others who choose to follow a more defined plan that they're doing it all wrong.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
then why use it as an example of intake for someone else?????????????0 -
mommyvalarie wrote: »I think, and this is JMHO, that the clean eater would lose more in the long run because they are eating enough protein to maintain lean muscle mass. If you are losing muscle and fat equally, you're metabolism is going to slow down
the example controlled for macros and said they were the same.0 -
mommyvalarie wrote: »I think, and this is JMHO, that the clean eater would lose more in the long run because they are eating enough protein to maintain lean muscle mass. If you are losing muscle and fat equally, you're metabolism is going to slow down
If they're eating the same macros, then both are eating the same amount of protein.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »OP I think next time when you explain yourself which I really thought you did pretty well that people know what terms you use mean. Half the nonsense in this thread is hilarious. It like people really do not know what a calorie deficit really is.
it was going well for the first four pages, but like all other MFP threads it took a nose dive on page five and never recovered.
Are you ready for this though. So for people who eat clean do you wonder if they consume for example too many fat soluble vitamins? There is a such thing as too much micro nutrients. So for you example. Lets leave weight loss out of your example because it is clear as day the results. Would person A technically be more healthier than person B?0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
then why use it as an example of intake for someone else?????????????
Because it's a logical extension to make if someone really wants to prove that the only thing that counts for weight-loss is calories.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
You missed the point. Clean eaters are not saying that including some small percentage of non-clean food is ok to be considered clean. It's the non-clean eaters who are saying that they eat mostly healthy, but include some small percentage of treats and processed foods. Clean eaters tend to be tee-totallers...if you eat anything processed, you are not eating clean.
It's the non-clean eaters who always seem intent on telling others who choose to follow a more defined plan that they're doing it all wrong.
I think you need to re read some of those response. What people say is your way to create a calories deficit is unnecessary.0 -
jessupbrady wrote: »Chrysalid2014 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.
I'm curious about this. I thought (for good health) it wasn't safe to have too high of a calorie deficit?
It's not--or for the maintenance of muscle.
Chrys is invested in the idea that really aggressive deficits are okay (to an extent that seems disordered to me) and sees "eating clean" (or in some cases eating low carb, which is often reported as a technique that prevents hunger even on really low calories) as a way to justify really low calories.
I eat a nutritious diet whether I "eat clean" or not--indeed, a lot of what I eat that's "processed" is part of how I get lower calorie protein, which is important to a nutritious diet, as well as omega 3s (smoked salmon). So I don't think that within a reasonable calorie deficit it matters a hoot whether I "eat clean" or not. Sure, if I wanted to eat 900 calories or even, say, 1200 with the activity I do (I'm training for a half ironman and also try to fit in strength training), that would be more possible on a really strict diet that COULD be a clean one (I actually think it would be easier if I included stuff like egg whites from the carton and skinless chicken breast and protein powder, and clearly I'd need coffee). But the fact is it would be extremely unhealthy and counterproductive to my goals.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Ah, but he did, tho.tedboosalis7 wrote: »Okay - eat 1500 calories of cake - and I will eat 1500 calories of pure nutritious food (as I do now but MORE) and I will flat out not only lose fat pounds but I will retain my muscle mass over the course of one year.
I did the above - it doesn't work. DOESN'T WORK.
You can't outrun a bad diet.
Several people even questioned him on the cake and only today did he come back and admit it wasn't all cake.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
then why use it as an example of intake for someone else?????????????
Because it's a logical extension to make if someone really wants to prove that the only thing that counts for weight-loss is calories.
Only if that person then limits the "clean" eater to eating only one item. And then, guess what? The cake would most likely have a better nutritional profile, considering it's made of multiple ingredients.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
then why use it as an example of intake for someone else?????????????
Because it's a logical extension to make if someone really wants to prove that the only thing that counts for weight-loss is calories.
so a 1500 intake of only cake is logical, really??????????0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
Forget about the 500 calorie deficit for a minute. I said the clean eater could have a higher defict (i.e. greater than 500 calories) than the non clean eater, whilst maintaining his nutritional needs . In other words he can eat fewer calories and still be healthy; the junk eater needs more calories to get his macro/micronutrients in because he is eating stuff that doesn't have a good calorie to nutrient ratio. 'Empty calories', dare I use the term.
Or the clean eater could eat more than the dirty eater based on volume and calories and still retain the fabled 500 calorie deficit. So a 1500 calorie diet of "dirty" foods would be equivalent to let's say 1800 in a clean eater because of the metabolics involved. Either way - you are right - the clean eater wouldn't have to eat 1500 to obtain the nutrients that a dirty eater would obtain at 1500. Nice point.
What? Do you even math?
If your TDEE is 2000 calories per day, and you have a 500 calorie deficit...you believe that it's possible to...eat...1800 calories?
It's a matter of equivalency - which relates to an earlier post about what is considered to be a pound in caloric terms - anywhere between 1500 and 3000 or something like that.
Point being - a 500 caloric deficit for a clean eater could amount to eating more in calories and still obtain the same result - than the person eating 1500 calories of processed foods. Metabolics would support this - eating protein requires 1/3 of the protein to be used to digest and synthesize - so really only 2/3rds of the protein's calories are available for tabulation into caloric totals.
This is all part of the variances available.
Doesn't matter - what matters to me is this - I lost the weight eating more calories and volume and I was doing it eating clean - versus eating dirty as I had done before. I have all the proof on that. That would mean there's a significant metabolic difference in my body when it relates to how my body interprets the types of food I am eating.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
You missed the point. Clean eaters are not saying that including some small percentage of non-clean food is ok to be considered clean. It's the non-clean eaters who are saying that they eat mostly healthy, but include some small percentage of treats and processed foods. Clean eaters tend to be tee-totallers...if you eat anything processed, you are not eating clean.
It's the non-clean eaters who always seem intent on telling others who choose to follow a more defined plan that they're doing it all wrong.
example please ...0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
You missed the point. Clean eaters are not saying that including some small percentage of non-clean food is ok to be considered clean. It's the non-clean eaters who are saying that they eat mostly healthy, but include some small percentage of treats and processed foods. Clean eaters tend to be tee-totallers...if you eat anything processed, you are not eating clean.
It's the non-clean eaters who always seem intent on telling others who choose to follow a more defined plan that they're doing it all wrong.
Because those on restrictive diets have shown time and time again a higher fail rate. Secondly, it's typically used under the thought process that "it'll burn more fat", which isn't the case.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 902 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions