The Clean Eating Myth

1181921232450

Replies

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,147 Member
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    Again, you make no sense.

    How would clean eating make you able to have a higher deficit? If your TDEE is 2500 then a 500 calorie deficit is going to be 2000 regardless of clean eating or not.

    I don't think that poster understands what a calorie deficit means.

    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.

    so you put yourself in a calorie surplus and lost weight?
  • Eudoxy
    Eudoxy Posts: 391 Member
    edited May 2015
    ahamm002 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.

    The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.

    So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.

    Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.

    so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?

    My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.

    discuss….

    It's a loaded question because you didn't define "clean food" and there isn't any real definition. Furthermore your "moderate diet" could be almost anything. For the sake of argument, I'll just assume the person eating "clean" is eating mostly minimally processed foods. And I'll assume the moderate diet includes a lot of highly processed foods.

    In that case the person eating "clean" would lose slightly more weight. This is because calories are determined by "Atwater" calculations. Atwater tends to underestimate calories in highly processed foods and overestimate calories in minimally processed foods. The reason is that highly processed and cooked foods are absorbed more readily in your GI tract (nothing to do with "thermal effect").

    Yup
    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?ref=health&_r=1

    I'm not saying people need to eat "clean" to lose weight (I certainly don't). But it's a gross oversimplification to say all calories are equal (for weight loss).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    Oh no, he is by far the only example. And his results are specious because there's no evidence he was accurately counting calories.

    We can pull in @lemurcat12, and there's also me. I've eaten just like Ted and gained weight.

    In fact, since clean eaters keep mentioning health... I was eating "clean" and developed a progressive autoimmune disease.

    The difference is that Ted was in a calorie deficit, assuming his calorie counting was accurate (we have no reason to think it wasn't.) If I've understood you correctly from previous posts, you weren't. You said that you ate clean but ate too many calories and therefore gained weight.

    Oh, we do have reason to think he wasn't.

    Also, he claims he was eating basically 1500 calories of cake or some such (which is absurd), which is NOT the hypothetical.

    For the record, during my weight loss I've eaten in ways that would be categorized as "clean," I think, and ways that wouldn't (specifically because I gave up added sugar and grains for a time). My loss has not varied in rate based on whether I do one or the other.

    I do mostly eat from whole foods and get lots of protein and veggies, but that's consistent with OP's hypothetical of the non clean eater, as opposed to this nonsense about someone eating only "junk food."

    yea, but then he came back and admitted that he never ate 1500 calories of cake a day ...LOLZ

    Shocking!

    (How did I know that would be the case?)
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,205 Member

    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.

    Plus, I have seen more than one person who thinks they can eat as much as they want of "clean" food and they will still lose weight. They need to be disabused of that notion as quickly as possible. Yes, some people eat as much as they want and stay in a deficit but not everyone does.

  • Hollywood_Porky
    Hollywood_Porky Posts: 491 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    Again, you make no sense.

    How would clean eating make you able to have a higher deficit? If your TDEE is 2500 then a 500 calorie deficit is going to be 2000 regardless of clean eating or not.

    I don't think that poster understands what a calorie deficit means.

    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 ever make sense?

    Obviously discussing things in theoretical terms isn't something you like to do - or to just brainstorm and provide a brainstorming session without judgement. I love to brainstorm on the fly and be more vocal about it - and others have done the same on this thread.

    I think we can all agree to disagree. Your original post based upon hard and fast CICO rules would suggest that yes, they are one and the same and anyone without a medical condition would both lose the weight at the same rate provided all things remained constant between the two individuals.

    I add that variances will cause one to lose more than the other - those include the metabolic effects of eating one way versus another - and to what degree one is more sustainable than the other - depending on the person - again, assuming there's something going on that causes distress for the dirty eater versus nothing on the clean side.

    It's easy to answer when you don't introduce any variance into the mix - that's the reason there's so much study done on the topic and simply answering yes or no to the question is simply not the true answer - taken literally, sure I agree with you. But that's a context that isn't realistic or even true. It's a zero-sum game - everything we do has consequences - clean or dirty.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    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

    Why is person B not eating enough protein?

    In answering, please refer to the facts as stated in the hypothetical.
  • triciab79
    triciab79 Posts: 1,716 Member
    Person A will lose more, as person B will retain toxinz that make them fat.

    Was that a joke? LOL toxins make you fat. Forks make you fat, toxins might make you feel less energetic (maybe) but they do not add fuel to your body and therefor cannot make you gain weight. If you eat less than you burn you will lose weight - period. -500 calories = -500 calories no matter what those calories are. Now if you are eating 3 donuts a day instead of balanced meals you are making dieting way harder on yourself than you have to and you will be miserable but if you are eating +500 calories in carrots per day you will still gain 1lb per week. Clean eating is great but it is not the answer to weight loss. It is just a tool to make weight loss easier for some and improve the health of some others.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Pretty sure spelling it toxinz is the tip off that it's not serious. (Also, I am familiar with the poster's prior work.)
  • miriamtob
    miriamtob Posts: 436 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.

    The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.

    So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.

    Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.

    so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?

    My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.

    discuss….

    I see nothing wrong with how person A or B eats. Both are eating nutrient dense foods. There's nothing wrong with occasional treats in the absence of health issues. The problem is you labeling person A ridiculous. To each his own. Live and let live!
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,205 Member
    miriamtob wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.

    The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.

    So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.

    Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.

    so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?

    My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.

    discuss….

    I see nothing wrong with how person A or B eats. Both are eating nutrient dense foods. There's nothing wrong with occasional treats in the absence of health issues. The problem is you labeling person A ridiculous. To each his own. Live and let live!

    That's not what he said at all. Your reading comprehension is askew. He said the premise that person A would lose more weight is ridiculous.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,147 Member
    miriamtob wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.

    The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.

    So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.

    Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.

    so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?

    My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.

    discuss….

    I see nothing wrong with how person A or B eats. Both are eating nutrient dense foods. There's nothing wrong with occasional treats in the absence of health issues. The problem is you labeling person A ridiculous. To each his own. Live and let live!

    reading comprehension fail.

    I said that the premise that Person A will lose more weight is ridiculous.
  • kuriakos_chris
    kuriakos_chris Posts: 48 Member
    It depends on the food.

    For example person B will eat an ice cream at afternoon-> he will spike his insuline levels-> he ll be more likely to store fat from the nearby meal.

    Person A will eat complex carbs with low glycemic index -> less % to store fat from nearby meal.

    Furthermore Person A will have more Vitamins,etc from Person B.

    Not tested but in my opinion they will loose about the same weight.
    Its like IIFYM. As for me i would choose healthy vs unhealthy diet.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,147 Member
    It depends on the food.

    For example person B will eat an ice cream at afternoon-> he will spike his insuline levels-> he ll be more likely to store fat from the nearby meal.

    Person A will eat complex carbs with low glycemic index -> less % to store fat from nearby meal.

    Furthermore Person A will have more Vitamins,etc from Person B.

    Not tested but in my opinion they will loose about the same weight.
    Its like IIFYM. As for me i would choose healthy vs unhealthy diet.

    people store fat in calorie deficits, really?

    Also, what about the insulin spike from protein?

    So you are saying that a person that hits their micros/macros is unhealthy because of 200 calories of ice cream?

  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    The best part of threads like these is learning or reaffirming which people can safely be ignored.

    The answer is clearly C.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,456 Member
    It depends on the food.

    For example person B will eat an ice cream at afternoon-> he will spike his insuline levels-> he ll be more likely to store fat from the nearby meal.

    Person A will eat complex carbs with low glycemic index -> less % to store fat from nearby meal.

    Furthermore Person A will have more Vitamins,etc from Person B.

    Not tested but in my opinion they will loose about the same weight.
    Its like IIFYM. As for me i would choose healthy vs unhealthy diet.

    Your post is filled with contradictory statements. Also, I don't think you understand what the bolded part means. Lastly, please differentiate between a healthy and an unhealthy diet. Please list an entire days worth of food choices for what you are calling a healthy diet, and then an unhealthy diet.


  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Once upon a time I collected a list of definitions of clean eating from these forums. These were all given as off the cuff answers to a question about what clean eating is. I formatted a few of them to match others, but most of them are copy/pasted directly from the posts in which they were posted.

    Nothing but minimally processed foods.
    Absolutely no processed foods.
    Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
    Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
    Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
    Nothing at all with a barcode.
    Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
    No added preservatives.
    No added chemicals.
    No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
    No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
    No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
    Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
    Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
    No added sugar.
    No added refined sugar.
    Swap white sugar for brown.
    No "white" foods.
    Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
    Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
    Only pesticide-free foods.

    By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,205 Member
    By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.

    What? You don't remember the Frito Bandito? :wink:

  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,456 Member
    Once upon a time I collected a list of definitions of clean eating from these forums. These were all given as off the cuff answers to a question about what clean eating is. I formatted a few of them to match others, but most of them are copy/pasted directly from the posts in which they were posted.

    Nothing but minimally processed foods.
    Absolutely no processed foods.
    Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
    Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
    Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
    Nothing at all with a barcode.
    Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
    No added preservatives.
    No added chemicals.
    No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
    No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
    No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
    Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
    Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
    No added sugar.
    No added refined sugar.
    Swap white sugar for brown.
    No "white" foods.
    Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
    Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
    Only pesticide-free foods.

    By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.

    I love this!

    Yesterday someone in a thread had two scenarios, it may have been what prompted NDJ to post this thread.
    Scenario A - McDonalds Egg McMuffin
    Scenario B - Greek Yogurt, Navel Orange, Hard Boiled Egg, and Coffee with Coffeemate creamer

    I asked which one was the processed scenario and the poster thought I was being snarky in not being able to label one of those definitively clean and the other one definitively processed.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,456 Member
    maidentl wrote: »
    By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.

    What? You don't remember the Frito Bandito? :wink:

    Thank you - I will now be singing this all day!

    Ay ay ayayaiiiii


  • bbontheb
    bbontheb Posts: 718 Member
    RGv2 wrote: »
    Is it worth going back through the 10 pages?

    Can someone cliff's?

    Sure.

    Myths. Junk science. More myth. No bible of what clean eating is. Some arguing with statements that can't be backed up. No consensus. I feel like I'm reading something from a cover of a magazine..eat this, lose weight fast....lol