The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
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.
How about MFP users?
Real life, sadly, I think most of the people who tend to eat a mostly junk food diet are living in urban deserts and near the poverty level. There are deeper issues involved here.
The "clean eater" in the general population is a product of privilege.
Among those striving for fitness, to assert they don't exist and come here on the regular flouting their superiority?
Dude, DYEMFP?
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »I thought about this late yesterday - Person A Clean, Person B Not Clean (meaning some level of junk food not all) - Person A eats more fiber technically - so for 1500 calories per person, Person A loses the most weight. Why? Insoluble fiber is not digestible - and it's proven metabolically that not all of a whole foods calories are digestible - but certainly the processed foods eaten by Person B would be digestible - that difference right there means Person A will always lose the most weight.
Not a clean eater. Sometimes my fiber tops out at 50 grams.
Filthy Quest bars, processed bean pasta... it'll get you every time.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »I thought about this late yesterday - Person A Clean, Person B Not Clean (meaning some level of junk food not all) - Person A eats more fiber technically - so for 1500 calories per person, Person A loses the most weight. Why? Insoluble fiber is not digestible - and it's proven metabolically that not all of a whole foods calories are digestible - but certainly the processed foods eaten by Person B would be digestible - that difference right there means Person A will always lose the most weight.
That is an assumption about B. I am not a clean eater and frequently have 30g of fiber a day.
Person A will always eat more fiber - because there won't be anything processed to eat - just whole foods. Person B will always be replacing something in their 1500 calories with processed food and we all know that most processed food will not contain the fiber equivalent to Person A.
Again - we have to know what Person A and Person B are eating and have to define what a typical day would be for each. Otherwise, this conversation is pointless.
You cannot know that. Fiber One bars are processed, for example.
As I said, I can majorly top out my fiber if I eat a Quest Bar and have Explore Asia Mung Bean and Edamame Fettuccine in the same day. That's just about 40 grams of fiber right there without my veggie intake.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »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
What, are you thinking this is going to be the rebuttal to Super Size Me? I confidently predict that McD's won't touch your proposal with a stick.
And why would you even put yourself through it? If you adhere to the 'rules' of the challenge (I believe it was specifically stated that you would be ordering typical McD meals not the salads) then you will become very unhealthy very quickly. The SSM guy gained 24lbs in 30 days as well as myriad other health problems and it took him over a year to recover.
The rules of the challenge weren't really flushed out but if I actually did it, I would make a point to order every single thing off of the menu. That includes everything from super sized fries and Big Macs, to their salads with regular dressing, to their desserts and fancy coffees (that would probably be the hardest part of the challenge for me because I hate coffee blech).
And no, not really a rebuttal to Super Size Me-that's already been done with the documentary Fat Head, where surprises surprise that guy lost weight and improved his blood panels on his all McDonalds diet. Because he was staying within calorie and macros parameters, which is what I'd do. Also, Spurlock and Naughtton only did it for a few weeks. To my knowledge no one's done it for a full year and documented it.
As I remember the blood panels of the author of Fat Head weren't stellar at the end of his McDonalds experiment (he improved afterwards, adopting a HFLC diet).
This other fellow ate at McDonalds for 6 months, and yes he lost weight and improved his health:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-eats-mcdonalds-every-meal-5684791
but he was eating a "healthy" menu.
To be fair, your experiment should be as dirty as possible
Well, isn't part of the argument against McDonalds and fast food, is that it's all dirty/bad/unhealthy/crap/junk etc, regardless of what you order? Their salads still come with processed chicken, salad dressings, croutons etc etc.
Anywhoo-I don't think McDs will actually take me up on my offer and I can't afford to do it on my own (besides the food there would be costs involved in setting up a blog, paying for extra blood work panels etc etc). But 'if' I did end up taking on the challenge, I'd order everything from their menu throughout the challenge, and I would not focus on salads, anymore than I would, say cheeseburgers. Every day I'd chose foods that 1. fit into my calorie/macros goals for the day and then 2. what sounds good that day. I also do 16:8IF, and I don't think I'd give that up, so it would be interesting to see how that would come into play. My current eating window is 11am-7pm, which bypasses their breakfast menu. I'd have to adjust it to 10am-6pm or something, in order to include all their menu options.
The more I think about it, the more I really want to do the challenge-I love taking on whacky projects, and this challenge definitely falls into that category
eta: thanks for the link, I'll have to check it out!0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Sure, and as I said I think those people are probably overrepresented in the camp of those on MFP who blather on about eating clean.
But for the most part people in the US who eat 90% fast food don't think that's a great thing to do, they just like it and don't care. It's like how I used to eat more calories than I needed (reasonably "clean" under some definitions, though) and not think that was great or healthy or to be recommended, I just didn't care.
Among people who discuss nutrition on MFP, there are those who say it's good to eat mostly nutrient dense foods and get your macros and micros covered, but it's fine to have some treats and processed foods (and even highly processed foods) are fine if they help you meet your goals. In other words, person B.
And there are people who claim that's NOT Healthy (we see them in this thread) and the only way to be healthy is to "eat clean." Of course, they don't agree on what they mean and I also suspect they don't eat that way any more than I do (even though I'm not trying to) or have coherent standards (see, e.g., Ted and his claim to avoid processed foods while eating boxed almond milk and protein powder and Chipotle, as well as who knows what else).
So long as there are claims that Person B is at a nutritional and weight loss disadvantage and the better thing to do is to aspire to be Person A, it's worth discussing.
For the record, I personally do believe that it can be harmful to aspire to be Person A and think of yourself as "not being good" or the like when failing, even though I don't think many actually are Person A. And I think the talk about nutrition that surrounds us due to the elevation of being Person A actually probably discourages many who are more like your 90% fast food person (although to be honest such people are rarer in my experience than people on weird diets, which I'm sure is a social circle thing) from making a serious effort to lose weight. The number of people who show up on MFP and think extreme measures or giving up all treats is necessary are legion, and I suspect that's discouraging--they think they have to learn complicated rules and ways of eating and not just eat a normal healthy diet with some extras.
Funny stuff. Chipotle is whole foods - what processing do you speak of? The menu is limited.
I log everything. You don't want to believe it, that's not my problem. That's yours.
Almond milk - I can make that at home - it would be the same thing - I don't want to, therefore, I outsource that to someone else.
Protein powder - Natural Force or Legion or AllMax - if you read the ingredients, it's pure stuff. Yeah is there a "process" absolutely. Natural Force is endorsed by the Paleo Foundation - the only endorsed supplement product on the market by that very foundation. They don't throw their name around.
Done with thread. Have fun. Hope you didn't stay up all night and lose sleep over this.
Ted. It's fine that you eat these things. It's the drive to label yourself that's the problem WHY?
I've made almond milk too when I was doing Paleo.
It had almonds and water.
This is what you're drinking.INGREDIENTS: Almondmilk (Filtered Water, Almonds), Sea Salt, Locust Bean Gum, Sunflower Lecithin, Gellan Gum, Natural Flavor.
VITAMINS & MINERALS: Calcium Carbonate, Vitamin E Acetate, Vitamin A Palmitate, Vitamin D2.
Not the same thing.
Just ... the label thing falls flat on its face. Why is it so important?
I buy commercial almond milk too. It tastes better than what I made, it's cheaper, and it's more convenient.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So long as there are claims that Person B is at a nutritional and weight loss disadvantage and the better thing to do is to aspire to be Person A, it's worth discussing.
Person B is either at a nutritional disadvantage or a weight loss disadvantage, not necessarily both.
If he chooses to match Person A's nutrition, he will have to consume more calories than Person A because he's including foods that are less nutrient dense. So he will be at a weight loss disadvantage.
If he chooses to match Person A's weight loss, he will not be getting the same amount of nutrition as Person A, for the same reason as above. So in that case he will be at a nutritional disadvantage.
Ted also raised the point about the amount of fibre in the foods, and how the same number of calories in does not necessarily equate to the same amount of calories being available to utilize as energy, so that also has to be factored into the weight loss equation.
The better thing to do depends on (a) how quickly you want to lose the excess weight and (b) whether you feel your life won't be worth living if you can't have your nightly Twinkie for a certain period of time. Now, I've been accused of disordered thinking in relation to food but to me statement (b) surely qualifies as the same thing.
The problem with the nutrition argument (in your departure from the hypothetical which stipulated that they both met their micros) is that person A is likely EXCEEDING his nutritional needs. Person B can meet his nutritional needs under his calorie goal then fit in a treat.
Person B doesn't NEED to "match" person A's nutrition. Person B just needs to fulfill his own requirements.
There's nothing wrong with exceeding your nutritional needs, but there's no fairy that comes down from on high that pats you on the back for doing it. You just excrete the waste.
As for your Twinkie comment? You are projecting. Again. I don't think anyone ever feels like statement (b) is a part of their thinking when they have their treats. Enjoyment while dieting is not "my life is not worth living". You DO have issues.
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »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
What, are you thinking this is going to be the rebuttal to Super Size Me? I confidently predict that McD's won't touch your proposal with a stick.
And why would you even put yourself through it? If you adhere to the 'rules' of the challenge (I believe it was specifically stated that you would be ordering typical McD meals not the salads) then you will become very unhealthy very quickly. The SSM guy gained 24lbs in 30 days as well as myriad other health problems and it took him over a year to recover.
The rules of the challenge weren't really flushed out but if I actually did it, I would make a point to order every single thing off of the menu. That includes everything from super sized fries and Big Macs, to their salads with regular dressing, to their desserts and fancy coffees (that would probably be the hardest part of the challenge for me because I hate coffee blech).
And no, not really a rebuttal to Super Size Me-that's already been done with the documentary Fat Head, where surprises surprise that guy lost weight and improved his blood panels on his all McDonalds diet. Because he was staying within calorie and macros parameters, which is what I'd do. Also, Spurlock and Naughtton only did it for a few weeks. To my knowledge no one's done it for a full year and documented it.
As I remember the blood panels of the author of Fat Head weren't stellar at the end of his McDonalds experiment (he improved afterwards, adopting a HFLC diet).
This other fellow ate at McDonalds for 6 months, and yes he lost weight and improved his health:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-eats-mcdonalds-every-meal-5684791
but he was eating a "healthy" menu.
To be fair, your experiment should be as dirty as possible
Well, isn't part of the argument against McDonalds and fast food, is that it's all dirty/bad/unhealthy/crap/junk etc, regardless of what you order? Their salads still come with processed chicken, salad dressings, croutons etc etc.
Anywhoo-I don't think McDs will actually take me up on my offer and I can't afford to do it on my own (besides the food there would be costs involved in setting up a blog, paying for extra blood work panels etc etc). But 'if' I did end up taking on the challenge, I'd order everything from their menu throughout the challenge, and I would not focus on salads, anymore than I would, say cheeseburgers. Every day I'd chose foods that 1. fit into my calorie/macros goals for the day and then 2. what sounds good that day. I also do 16:8IF, and I don't think I'd give that up, so it would be interesting to see how that would come into play. My current eating window is 11am-7pm, which bypasses their breakfast menu. I'd have to adjust it to 10am-6pm or something, in order to include all their menu options.
The more I think about it, the more I really want to do the challenge-I love taking on whacky projects, and this challenge definitely falls into that category
eta: thanks for the link, I'll have to check it out!
Probably they won't accept simply because you are already lean and healthy, so your story wouldn't be so interesting.
0 -
Someone did the McDonald's rebuttual already:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/05/teacher-loses-37-pounds-after-three-month-mcdonalds-diet/
0 -
we will never know because it is just too much trouble, time consuming and many variables to interfere with the results. That said I will go with C, about the same. One thought I had was if the clean eater is more efficient at building and retaining muscle mass there could be a small difference from that.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Sure, and as I said I think those people are probably overrepresented in the camp of those on MFP who blather on about eating clean.
But for the most part people in the US who eat 90% fast food don't think that's a great thing to do, they just like it and don't care. It's like how I used to eat more calories than I needed (reasonably "clean" under some definitions, though) and not think that was great or healthy or to be recommended, I just didn't care.
Among people who discuss nutrition on MFP, there are those who say it's good to eat mostly nutrient dense foods and get your macros and micros covered, but it's fine to have some treats and processed foods (and even highly processed foods) are fine if they help you meet your goals. In other words, person B.
And there are people who claim that's NOT Healthy (we see them in this thread) and the only way to be healthy is to "eat clean." Of course, they don't agree on what they mean and I also suspect they don't eat that way any more than I do (even though I'm not trying to) or have coherent standards (see, e.g., Ted and his claim to avoid processed foods while eating boxed almond milk and protein powder and Chipotle, as well as who knows what else).
So long as there are claims that Person B is at a nutritional and weight loss disadvantage and the better thing to do is to aspire to be Person A, it's worth discussing.
For the record, I personally do believe that it can be harmful to aspire to be Person A and think of yourself as "not being good" or the like when failing, even though I don't think many actually are Person A. And I think the talk about nutrition that surrounds us due to the elevation of being Person A actually probably discourages many who are more like your 90% fast food person (although to be honest such people are rarer in my experience than people on weird diets, which I'm sure is a social circle thing) from making a serious effort to lose weight. The number of people who show up on MFP and think extreme measures or giving up all treats is necessary are legion, and I suspect that's discouraging--they think they have to learn complicated rules and ways of eating and not just eat a normal healthy diet with some extras.
Funny stuff. Chipotle is whole foods - what processing do you speak of? The menu is limited.
I log everything. You don't want to believe it, that's not my problem. That's yours.
Almond milk - I can make that at home - it would be the same thing - I don't want to, therefore, I outsource that to someone else.
Protein powder - Natural Force or Legion or AllMax - if you read the ingredients, it's pure stuff. Yeah is there a "process" absolutely. Natural Force is endorsed by the Paleo Foundation - the only endorsed supplement product on the market by that very foundation. They don't throw their name around.
Done with thread. Have fun. Hope you didn't stay up all night and lose sleep over this.
Ted. It's fine that you eat these things. It's the drive to label yourself that's the problem WHY?
I've made almond milk too when I was doing Paleo.
It had almonds and water.
This is what you're drinking.INGREDIENTS: Almondmilk (Filtered Water, Almonds), Sea Salt, Locust Bean Gum, Sunflower Lecithin, Gellan Gum, Natural Flavor.
VITAMINS & MINERALS: Calcium Carbonate, Vitamin E Acetate, Vitamin A Palmitate, Vitamin D2.
Not the same thing.
Just ... the label thing falls flat on its face. Why is it so important?
I buy commercial almond milk too. It tastes better than what I made, it's cheaper, and it's more convenient.
I don't drink almond milk, but I see nothing wrong with the store bought kind. I just think it's absurd to claim that the product above is not processed. How are we drawing lines, then? I would assume that the processed (or highly processed, which I also think that product qualifies as) products that we choose to include in our diets are worth it to us. I know that's the case for me--I also think that they contribute to my overall nutrition (through protein or fiber, in various cases), as well as make my diet more sustainable.
It would be easier to debate this topic if there were some clear definition of what "clean" eating is even supposed to be. Other than the fact that I'm pretty sure ice cream disqualifies me--although like Ted's almond milk, I'm perfectly capable of making that too, with farm fresh fruit and milk--I really have no idea whether I'm a "clean" eater or not given that all the things I'd assume disqualify me are subject to the same kinds of excuses Ted et al. make about their own choices.
Isn't it easier just not to worry about claiming to be a "clean" eater up on a pedestal and better than others?
(I also love that now we NEED nightly Twinkies. Yeah, I'm not the one who wrote about licking frosting off a donut wrapper, ugh.)0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
Protein powder - Natural Force or Legion or AllMax - if you read the ingredients, it's pure stuff. Yeah is there a "process" absolutely. Natural Force is endorsed by the Paleo Foundation - the only endorsed supplement product on the market by that very foundation. They don't throw their name around.
Done with thread. Have fun. Hope you didn't stay up all night and lose sleep over this.
OMG there is a Paleo Foundation?!0 -
I need to go start the IIFYM foundation... Or, just eat food and stop caring foundation.0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »I thought about this late yesterday - Person A Clean, Person B Not Clean (meaning some level of junk food not all) - Person A eats more fiber technically - so for 1500 calories per person, Person A loses the most weight. Why? Insoluble fiber is not digestible - and it's proven metabolically that not all of a whole foods calories are digestible - but certainly the processed foods eaten by Person B would be digestible - that difference right there means Person A will always lose the most weight.
That is an assumption about B. I am not a clean eater and frequently have 30g of fiber a day.
Person A will always eat more fiber - because there won't be anything processed to eat - just whole foods. Person B will always be replacing something in their 1500 calories with processed food and we all know that most processed food will not contain the fiber equivalent to Person A.
As others have pointed out, lots of whole foods don't have fiber. Meat, eggs, dairy, almond milk made at home (the kind you drink is not a whole food, of course). In fact, I've seen plenty of people who proclaimed they were "eating clean" and didn't seem to eat very many veggies at all (I also often couldn't see why they thought they were eating in some special "clean" way, but as deaniac and others have pointed out that's so often the case, so I always wonder why they think they should assume some special label).
Plenty of processed foods--like canned beans, whole grain pasta and steel cut oats from a package (both of which I eat pretty regularly), and of course Quest bars--have fiber. I routinely eat spinach and kale from a bag, since I dislike having to deal with dirt on greens when I can avoid it. It means I eat greens more than I otherwise would (once or twice a day at minimum).
I actually pointed out many, many posts ago that although it was likely to be a relatively small difference that the fact that calories in meat and high fiber foods tends to be underreported that it was possible Person A would really be eating fewer calories, which might affect the results. But then the same would be true between two different "clean" eaters with different preferences (say a meat-oriented paleo type vs. a McDougall's starch diet type), as well as two different moderate eaters with different preferences.
You have to assume that the actual calories are equal for the thought experiment to work.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
OMG there is a Paleo Foundation?!
They've spoken to the cavemen personally.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »I thought about this late yesterday - Person A Clean, Person B Not Clean (meaning some level of junk food not all) - Person A eats more fiber technically - so for 1500 calories per person, Person A loses the most weight. Why? Insoluble fiber is not digestible - and it's proven metabolically that not all of a whole foods calories are digestible - but certainly the processed foods eaten by Person B would be digestible - that difference right there means Person A will always lose the most weight.
Not a clean eater. Sometimes my fiber tops out at 50 grams.
Filthy Quest bars, processed bean pasta... it'll get you every time.
I am another "not clean" eater who often gets more than 50 grams of fiber a day. My diet includes white flour, products with added sugar, and other "clean eating" bugaboos, but I have no problem exceeding the recommendations for fiber.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »
Protein powder - Natural Force or Legion or AllMax - if you read the ingredients, it's pure stuff. Yeah is there a "process" absolutely. Natural Force is endorsed by the Paleo Foundation - the only endorsed supplement product on the market by that very foundation. They don't throw their name around.
Done with thread. Have fun. Hope you didn't stay up all night and lose sleep over this.
OMG there is a Paleo Foundation?!
paleolithic people had protein powder?????????????????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.
How long have you been reading the forums? You clearly don't know. Stick around and you will see that people do advocate 100% clean eating.
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »
Protein powder - Natural Force or Legion or AllMax - if you read the ingredients, it's pure stuff. Yeah is there a "process" absolutely. Natural Force is endorsed by the Paleo Foundation - the only endorsed supplement product on the market by that very foundation. They don't throw their name around.
Done with thread. Have fun. Hope you didn't stay up all night and lose sleep over this.
OMG there is a Paleo Foundation?!
paleolithic people had protein powder?????????????????
Yeah, for the smoothies they made in their Vitamixes.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »This thread is like the Energizer bunny. It just keeps going, and going, and going. I really don't understand how in this scenario, the amount of weight loss would be much different. I don't think either example would be "healthier". As long as they are eating a balanced diet, meeting their macros and micros, same result.
I have a penchant for creating 30+ page threads..
it is either a gift or a curse, I am not sure which one...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