The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
Since we're talking hypothetically... and we're saying two people have the exact same CI and the exact same CO the answer is C both will lose the same.
But we live in the real world where nothing is exactly the same... If Clean-eating person miss-measures their Green Beans or Spinach they are adding 2 or 3 calories. If Junk-food man miss-measure his chocolate cake he's adding 50 or 60.
So obviously you should lean more towards the "Clean" side. But I believe in moderation in all things, including moderation. We can't be "Good" all the time. It's ok to go off the rails occasionally as long as you get back on track.
so clean eaters only eat spinach; thus, that is there only measuring error? A tablespoon of olive oil is 120 calories, if you measure that as a one tablespoon and it is really a tablespoon and a half there is the 60 calories in your cake example….
0 -
No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
0 -
As you just admitted, the people whose claims you are going by to create the 100% "clean" dieter example exist on the Internet with closed diaries. You don't actually know anyone in real life who eats 100% "clean", do you? I don't. When you do find someone who claims to, I guarantee you a little pushing and prodding will reveal occasional departures from the strictest protocols 9 time out of 10.
Yes. McDonald's. The only difference between 100% McDonald's "dieters" and "clean" dieters is that the clean dieters do so consciously while most people eating McDonald's for all or most of their meals aren't conscious about their choice (or their caloric intake).
With the assumptions exactly as they are stated in your question, of course they would both lose at roughly the same rate.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….
The question, though, is whether those assumptions are reasonable. It is far easier to maintain a balanced diet than any kind of a fad diet; be that fad diet all junk food or all "clean" food. Over time, if one doesn't balance one's own likings and cravings with health and nutrition, one is less likely to be able to maintain either the caloric intake or the "cleanliness" of the diet. If you love ice cream but your "clean" diet requires you to shun it, your body will most likely find a way to beat you and make you binge eat that ice cream. If on the other hand you have something to prove and just eat McDonald's all the time, over the long run it is also likely that you will increase your intake of that food, adding calories. It will also make you feel stressed, less energetic, and and thus make you less likely to keep up with your workout regimen. A "clean" dieter who is actively denying themselves things they like may experience stress and depression to give up as well.
So the right answer, I think, is that while a caloric deficit is the only relevant question in terms of weight loss, certain diets, given the individual, may make it more likely they would stick to such deficit while others may make it more likely they won't.
can you please name the fad diet that calls for eating 100% mcdonalds?
While your point is valid that I intentionally picked an extreme example that isn't true in the real world, so did you. Most people who eat "clean" only do so for only a majority of their diet. They allow treats now and then, and they will satisfy their cravings with moderate amounts of junk food now and then too. I'm actually agreeing with you that it's a balanced diet that incorporates our individual choices of pleasure foods is important in order to stick to a habit long term.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
So between us, we can't find real data on the prevalence on 100% adherence to either a strict clean-only diet or a strict junkfood only diet. Hence, both examples are extreme.
so the moderate eater is an extreme example too?
i dont agree with your premise, so we can just agree to disagree….
No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
So clean eating is a straw man argument, really??
That's what I said, yes.
interesting, given the amount of people that advocate for it….
yet, I can't find anyone that advocates for your mcdonalds diet….
Deciding whether an example is extreme/straw man is not related to the existence of the practice's advocates, it's related to the practice's actual adherents. And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that there are actually more people who eat a primarily fast food diet in the US than there are people who eat a primarily clean diet.
Just because a practice has advocates doesn't mean it's a prevalent practice, and just because a practice lacks advocates doesn't mean it isn't prevalent. In fact, the more ubiquitous a practice is, the fewer advocates it needs, since it's a generally accepted practice. I don't know a lot of smoking advocates, but I do know a lot of smokers.0 -
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.0 -
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
0 -
No one on MFP ever claims they eat 100% clean?
As you just admitted, the people whose claims you are going by to create the 100% "clean" dieter example exist on the Internet with closed diaries. You don't actually know anyone in real life who eats 100% "clean", do you? I don't. When you do find someone who claims to, I guarantee you a little pushing and prodding will reveal occasional departures from the strictest protocols 9 time out of 10.
Yes. McDonald's. The only difference between 100% McDonald's "dieters" and "clean" dieters is that the clean dieters do so consciously while most people eating McDonald's for all or most of their meals aren't conscious about their choice (or their caloric intake).
With the assumptions exactly as they are stated in your question, of course they would both lose at roughly the same rate.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….
The question, though, is whether those assumptions are reasonable. It is far easier to maintain a balanced diet than any kind of a fad diet; be that fad diet all junk food or all "clean" food. Over time, if one doesn't balance one's own likings and cravings with health and nutrition, one is less likely to be able to maintain either the caloric intake or the "cleanliness" of the diet. If you love ice cream but your "clean" diet requires you to shun it, your body will most likely find a way to beat you and make you binge eat that ice cream. If on the other hand you have something to prove and just eat McDonald's all the time, over the long run it is also likely that you will increase your intake of that food, adding calories. It will also make you feel stressed, less energetic, and and thus make you less likely to keep up with your workout regimen. A "clean" dieter who is actively denying themselves things they like may experience stress and depression to give up as well.
So the right answer, I think, is that while a caloric deficit is the only relevant question in terms of weight loss, certain diets, given the individual, may make it more likely they would stick to such deficit while others may make it more likely they won't.
can you please name the fad diet that calls for eating 100% mcdonalds?
While your point is valid that I intentionally picked an extreme example that isn't true in the real world, so did you. Most people who eat "clean" only do so for only a majority of their diet. They allow treats now and then, and they will satisfy their cravings with moderate amounts of junk food now and then too. I'm actually agreeing with you that it's a balanced diet that incorporates our individual choices of pleasure foods is important in order to stick to a habit long term.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
So between us, we can't find real data on the prevalence on 100% adherence to either a strict clean-only diet or a strict junkfood only diet. Hence, both examples are extreme.
so the moderate eater is an extreme example too?
i dont agree with your premise, so we can just agree to disagree….
No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
There's a difference between claim and truth. OP himself admitted that no one claiming so has actually backed up their claim by opening their diary (even if you could trust that). I also have known people in real life who claim to be clean eaters and with fairly moderate amount of picking at them I have been able to reveal occasional departures from the practice. Picking examples that are reasonable are about the actual prevalence of a habit, not its "claimed" adherents. I can guarantee you that if you took a snapshot of the general US population, far more people eat 90%+ fast food than eat 90%+ "clean" food.
So pretty much what you're saying is that when people come into threads and start saying that you need to eat clean and healthy and not eat "junk" our response to them should be "You say people should eat clean and avoid junk but we know you're lying, you don't eat that way. You know you also eat junk or processed food"?
that is a straw man argument because locked diarys….0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I think we all agree with that and that's why you will see so many requests for the purported 100% clean eaters to open their diaries. Never happens though...
0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I have yet to find the mythical person that is eating 100% cake every day …..0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I think we all agree with that and that's why you will see so many requests for the purported 100% clean eaters to open their diaries. Never happens though...
true, but that does not make clean eating a straw man argument...0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I think we all agree with that and that's why you will see so many requests for the purported 100% clean eaters to open their diaries. Never happens though...
true, but that does not make clean eating a straw man argument...
Agreed. I've seen plenty of examples (2 in this thread that I can think of) of proclaimed 100% clean eaters. As I pointed out earlier I think it's unfair that in the "which is better" argument they always offer me a single "dirty" food for the rest of my days while they get a balanced and varied "clean" diet. That's the straw man.
0 -
Yes. McDonald's. The only difference between 100% McDonald's "dieters" and "clean" dieters is that the clean dieters do so consciously while most people eating McDonald's for all or most of their meals aren't conscious about their choice (or their caloric intake).
With the assumptions exactly as they are stated in your question, of course they would both lose at roughly the same rate.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….
The question, though, is whether those assumptions are reasonable. It is far easier to maintain a balanced diet than any kind of a fad diet; be that fad diet all junk food or all "clean" food. Over time, if one doesn't balance one's own likings and cravings with health and nutrition, one is less likely to be able to maintain either the caloric intake or the "cleanliness" of the diet. If you love ice cream but your "clean" diet requires you to shun it, your body will most likely find a way to beat you and make you binge eat that ice cream. If on the other hand you have something to prove and just eat McDonald's all the time, over the long run it is also likely that you will increase your intake of that food, adding calories. It will also make you feel stressed, less energetic, and and thus make you less likely to keep up with your workout regimen. A "clean" dieter who is actively denying themselves things they like may experience stress and depression to give up as well.
So the right answer, I think, is that while a caloric deficit is the only relevant question in terms of weight loss, certain diets, given the individual, may make it more likely they would stick to such deficit while others may make it more likely they won't.
can you please name the fad diet that calls for eating 100% mcdonalds?
While your point is valid that I intentionally picked an extreme example that isn't true in the real world, so did you. Most people who eat "clean" only do so for only a majority of their diet. They allow treats now and then, and they will satisfy their cravings with moderate amounts of junk food now and then too. I'm actually agreeing with you that it's a balanced diet that incorporates our individual choices of pleasure foods is important in order to stick to a habit long term.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
One of the 'clean' eaters posted a challenge yesterday (Pu?), challenging someone to eat only Mcds for one year. I'd do it in a heartbeat, and my husband is on board with the idea. I actually sent McDs corporate an email yesterday pitching the challenge-I'd blog about eating only Mcds for 365 days, they'd get some publicity and in return-they pay for all the food. It it goes further, MFP will be the first to know
0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I have yet to find the mythical person that is eating 100% cake every day …..
If I didn't think my body would go into sugar shock I would defining be that person for you...if you could add pie to that.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »
Yes. McDonald's. The only difference between 100% McDonald's "dieters" and "clean" dieters is that the clean dieters do so consciously while most people eating McDonald's for all or most of their meals aren't conscious about their choice (or their caloric intake).
With the assumptions exactly as they are stated in your question, of course they would both lose at roughly the same rate.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….
The question, though, is whether those assumptions are reasonable. It is far easier to maintain a balanced diet than any kind of a fad diet; be that fad diet all junk food or all "clean" food. Over time, if one doesn't balance one's own likings and cravings with health and nutrition, one is less likely to be able to maintain either the caloric intake or the "cleanliness" of the diet. If you love ice cream but your "clean" diet requires you to shun it, your body will most likely find a way to beat you and make you binge eat that ice cream. If on the other hand you have something to prove and just eat McDonald's all the time, over the long run it is also likely that you will increase your intake of that food, adding calories. It will also make you feel stressed, less energetic, and and thus make you less likely to keep up with your workout regimen. A "clean" dieter who is actively denying themselves things they like may experience stress and depression to give up as well.
So the right answer, I think, is that while a caloric deficit is the only relevant question in terms of weight loss, certain diets, given the individual, may make it more likely they would stick to such deficit while others may make it more likely they won't.
can you please name the fad diet that calls for eating 100% mcdonalds?
While your point is valid that I intentionally picked an extreme example that isn't true in the real world, so did you. Most people who eat "clean" only do so for only a majority of their diet. They allow treats now and then, and they will satisfy their cravings with moderate amounts of junk food now and then too. I'm actually agreeing with you that it's a balanced diet that incorporates our individual choices of pleasure foods is important in order to stick to a habit long term.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
One of the 'clean' eaters posted a challenge yesterday (Pu?), challenging someone to eat only Mcds for one year. I'd do it in a heartbeat, and my husband is on board with the idea. I actually sent McDs corporate an email yesterday pitching the challenge-I'd blog about eating only Mcds for 365 days, they'd get some publicity and in return-they pay for all the food. It it goes further, MFP will be the first to know
well you would be the first person that I know that does it …
0 -
As you just admitted, the people whose claims you are going by to create the 100% "clean" dieter example exist on the Internet with closed diaries. You don't actually know anyone in real life who eats 100% "clean", do you? I don't. When you do find someone who claims to, I guarantee you a little pushing and prodding will reveal occasional departures from the strictest protocols 9 time out of 10.
Yes. McDonald's. The only difference between 100% McDonald's "dieters" and "clean" dieters is that the clean dieters do so consciously while most people eating McDonald's for all or most of their meals aren't conscious about their choice (or their caloric intake).
With the assumptions exactly as they are stated in your question, of course they would both lose at roughly the same rate.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….
The question, though, is whether those assumptions are reasonable. It is far easier to maintain a balanced diet than any kind of a fad diet; be that fad diet all junk food or all "clean" food. Over time, if one doesn't balance one's own likings and cravings with health and nutrition, one is less likely to be able to maintain either the caloric intake or the "cleanliness" of the diet. If you love ice cream but your "clean" diet requires you to shun it, your body will most likely find a way to beat you and make you binge eat that ice cream. If on the other hand you have something to prove and just eat McDonald's all the time, over the long run it is also likely that you will increase your intake of that food, adding calories. It will also make you feel stressed, less energetic, and and thus make you less likely to keep up with your workout regimen. A "clean" dieter who is actively denying themselves things they like may experience stress and depression to give up as well.
So the right answer, I think, is that while a caloric deficit is the only relevant question in terms of weight loss, certain diets, given the individual, may make it more likely they would stick to such deficit while others may make it more likely they won't.
can you please name the fad diet that calls for eating 100% mcdonalds?
While your point is valid that I intentionally picked an extreme example that isn't true in the real world, so did you. Most people who eat "clean" only do so for only a majority of their diet. They allow treats now and then, and they will satisfy their cravings with moderate amounts of junk food now and then too. I'm actually agreeing with you that it's a balanced diet that incorporates our individual choices of pleasure foods is important in order to stick to a habit long term.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
So between us, we can't find real data on the prevalence on 100% adherence to either a strict clean-only diet or a strict junkfood only diet. Hence, both examples are extreme.
so the moderate eater is an extreme example too?
i dont agree with your premise, so we can just agree to disagree….
No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
So clean eating is a straw man argument, really??
That's what I said, yes.
interesting, given the amount of people that advocate for it….
yet, I can't find anyone that advocates for your mcdonalds diet….
Deciding whether an example is extreme/straw man is not related to the existence of the practice's advocates, it's related to the practice's actual adherents. And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that there are actually more people who eat a primarily fast food diet in the US than there are people who eat a primarily clean diet.
Just because a practice has advocates doesn't mean it's a prevalent practice, and just because a practice lacks advocates doesn't mean it isn't prevalent. In fact, the more ubiquitous a practice is, the fewer advocates it needs, since it's a generally accepted practice. I don't know a lot of smoking advocates, but I do know a lot of smokers.
Methinks you don't understand what a straw man is.
A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man
It has everything to do with the claims made, and nothing to do with actual practices.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 395 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 957 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions