The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »I can't believe you guys are still entertaining this crowd. I can't wait for the day when this whole crowd cruelly puts up progress pictures to show the application of all their awesome beliefs.
Stay tune for July when I have another physical with bod pod. I will gladly post my results. I want to see how much more I can naturally increase my testosterone.
I think for my next thread, I am going to post my lab results and watch all the clean eaters heads explode.
In your picture it seems you are basically a young healthy guy..why would you lab results be bad? Your young and often times the result of our bad behavior shows up in the later years of our life...where is your habits leading you...to age well or deteriorate...for the most part we all can go without sleep...drink to much, eat lousy food when we are young...that is not the barometer we use to measure our healthy behaviors and habits.
That is incorrect. I guess I will ask my doctor for my previous blood work(almost weighed 50 more pounds). I was in shape on the outside but not on the inside. The age really doesn't make a difference. That why I said I will post my July stats to show that even at a young age blood work can improve from a non clean diet.
Yep-my husband is 33 yrs old, plays hockey and stays pretty active, but he was over weight about 25lbs and the results were high cholesterol and pre-hypertension. He just got done losing the extra weight while continuing to eat a very SAD diet, but being mindful of his calories/eating at a deficit, and his blood pressure is normal now (have to get blood work done yet for the cholesterol). Age really hasn't been a factor for us.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »I can't believe you guys are still entertaining this crowd. I can't wait for the day when this whole crowd cruelly puts up progress pictures to show the application of all their awesome beliefs.
Stay tune for July when I have another physical with bod pod. I will gladly post my results. I want to see how much more I can naturally increase my testosterone.
I think for my next thread, I am going to post my lab results and watch all the clean eaters heads explode.
In your picture it seems you are basically a young healthy guy..why would you lab results be bad? Your young and often times the result of our bad behavior shows up in the later years of our life...where is your habits leading you...to age well or deteriorate...for the most part we all can go without sleep...drink to much, eat lousy food when we are young...that is not the barometer we use to measure our healthy behaviors and habits.
I'm not who you're quoting, but I'm not young (will be 37 this year), and I used to be overweight and unhealthy (glucose number in the pre-diabetic range). By focusing on CICO, and continuing to eat all the foods that I enjoy, my weight and health improved, including having a normal glucose number every single time I get it tested now. So I actually went in the opposite direction that you say will happen.
I've also been able to maintain my weigh loss and good health for over two years now. I eat the foods I enjoy, don't box myself in with arbitrary rules, and I'm doing something I can keep doing pretty easily over the next 40+ years. I will adjust my calorie goals as I age, and as my fitness goals change (right now I'm doing a whole lot, but that may change down the road), and I will continue to maintain successfully my good weight and good health
lol. 37 IS young.
You're right right 37 ain't old.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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?!
http://paleofoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Our-Services.pdf
Hilarious. This is my favorite part:
"In a recent poll in the largest online Paleo Community group [conveniently not identified], 100% of paleo adherents said they would try a new product simply because it displayed a Paleo Foundation label..."annaskiski wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
OMG there is a Paleo Foundation?!
They've spoken to the cavemen personally.
I don't follow the Paleo WOE, but I looked at that site just out of interest, and their ideals and mission statment seem to be very principled, i.e. they envisage a healthier world and campaign for sustainable farming practices and help for small-scale farmers. Surely these are things we all believe in?
Oh, but never mind that... let's get back to the scorn and ridicule....
Even assuming we all agree with the core mission of the Paleo Foundation, why does that mean that some of their actions or statements can't be critiqued?
Like claiming 100% of people who eat paleo will buy something based on a label.
Weren't we told a while back that "clean" means no label?
Also, nice to know that the Paleo Foundation's success percentage is up there with your average dictator after "free" elections. Well, even they usually only get like 98%.
Presumably the label you're referring to is a certification so people don't have to personally visit every supplier who gets their custom to check that the food they're buying meets certain Paleo standards... whatever those may be. I think I read something about grass-feeding, perhaps that's one of them.
Similarly I buy stuff that has a Fairtrade label; does that mean I'm an idiot or should I fly to Costa Rica personally every time I buy coffee to check out the working conditions on the plantation myself?
Critique is good if it's constructive, so why don't we try that rather than jokes about cave men? How would you improve the 'clean eating' movement? I think one thing that's come out of all this is people would like a more definitive guide on what does/doesn't qualify as clean.
But (presumably) you wouldn't buy a new product simply BECAUSE it had a Fairtrade label.
If I was buying coffee I might try a brand I hadn't purchased before for that reason. I wouldn't go out just buying any old thing willy nilly just because it said Fairtrade on it, but I don't think that's what they mean.
Or if something was labelled Free Range, I would try something I'd never had before, because the range of stuff I can get in that category is so limited.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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?!
http://paleofoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Our-Services.pdf
Hilarious. This is my favorite part:
"In a recent poll in the largest online Paleo Community group [conveniently not identified], 100% of paleo adherents said they would try a new product simply because it displayed a Paleo Foundation label..."annaskiski wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
OMG there is a Paleo Foundation?!
They've spoken to the cavemen personally.
I don't follow the Paleo WOE, but I looked at that site just out of interest, and their ideals and mission statment seem to be very principled, i.e. they envisage a healthier world and campaign for sustainable farming practices and help for small-scale farmers. Surely these are things we all believe in?
Oh, but never mind that... let's get back to the scorn and ridicule....
Even assuming we all agree with the core mission of the Paleo Foundation, why does that mean that some of their actions or statements can't be critiqued?
Like claiming 100% of people who eat paleo will buy something based on a label.
Weren't we told a while back that "clean" means no label?
Also, nice to know that the Paleo Foundation's success percentage is up there with your average dictator after "free" elections. Well, even they usually only get like 98%.
Presumably the label you're referring to is a certification so people don't have to personally visit every supplier who gets their custom to check that the food they're buying meets certain Paleo standards... whatever those may be. I think I read something about grass-feeding, perhaps that's one of them.
Similarly I buy stuff that has a Fairtrade label; does that mean I'm an idiot or should I fly to Costa Rica personally every time I buy coffee to check out the working conditions on the plantation myself?
Critique is good if it's constructive, so why don't we try that rather than jokes about cave men? How would you improve the 'clean eating' movement? I think one thing that's come out of all this is people would like a more definitive guide on what does/doesn't qualify as clean.
If your food has labels, it can't be "clean."
We've been told this.
Coffee, btw, is obviously processed and not local, and thus not "clean."
(I love it, though, and am drinking some right this very minute.)0 -
Justygirl77 wrote: »I eat clean. And it matters.
What does it matter for and how do you define clean?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
If your food has labels, it can't be "clean."
We've been told this.
That has to be a mistake, because even the organic fruit and veg here have labels and barcodes on them.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Or if something was labelled Free Range, I would try something I'd never had before, because the range of stuff I can get in that category is so limited.
Seriously? I buy pastured meat all the time. It doesn't have a special label, since I buy it from the farm.
Labels in the grocery store for stuff like that tend to be questionable, although I do like WF's system if I bought my meat from them. (If I don't get it from the farm I usually go to my local butcher shop and a fish market I like, although I have bought on occasion from WF and Mariano's and occasionally get fish from TJ's too, since it's cheaper.)
Once again, I don't claim to be a "clean" eater, though.
I actually think the claim made by the Paleo Foundation would be embarrassing to paleo eaters if actually true. I know lots of people who sort of eat that way, and I don't think it is true, though. But it might be true for that particular unnamed community, who knows.
0 -
My two, unscientifically-founded cents:
If you weigh 350 and have 100+ pounds of fat to lose, calories are calories and the composition is not very important.
If you weigh 180 and have 15% body fat and you're trying to lose 10 pounds to get yourself to 10% body fat, composition is going to be much more important.
I have no facts to support this, although I have a lot of experience being really overweight and losing some of it. It comes off faster if I try to eat cleaner, but the deficit is what matters when you've got a lot of fat to lose.
All that being said, if you hit your calorie goals and are at or near good macro levels while you do it, you can't be eating a very dirty diet. Can't eat mostly junk food and hit good macros.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
If your food has labels, it can't be "clean."
We've been told this.
That has to be a mistake, because even the organic fruit and veg here have labels and barcodes on them.
Take it up with the "clean" eater who claimed that.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »I can't believe you guys are still entertaining this crowd. I can't wait for the day when this whole crowd cruelly puts up progress pictures to show the application of all their awesome beliefs.
Stay tune for July when I have another physical with bod pod. I will gladly post my results. I want to see how much more I can naturally increase my testosterone.
I think for my next thread, I am going to post my lab results and watch all the clean eaters heads explode.
In your picture it seems you are basically a young healthy guy..why would you lab results be bad? Your young and often times the result of our bad behavior shows up in the later years of our life...where is your habits leading you...to age well or deteriorate...for the most part we all can go without sleep...drink to much, eat lousy food when we are young...that is not the barometer we use to measure our healthy behaviors and habits.
I'm not who you're quoting, but I'm not young (will be 37 this year), and I used to be overweight and unhealthy (glucose number in the pre-diabetic range). By focusing on CICO, and continuing to eat all the foods that I enjoy, my weight and health improved, including having a normal glucose number every single time I get it tested now. So I actually went in the opposite direction that you say will happen.
I've also been able to maintain my weigh loss and good health for over two years now. I eat the foods I enjoy, don't box myself in with arbitrary rules, and I'm doing something I can keep doing pretty easily over the next 40+ years. I will adjust my calorie goals as I age, and as my fitness goals change (right now I'm doing a whole lot, but that may change down the road), and I will continue to maintain successfully my good weight and good health
lol. 37 IS young.
Sorry I was reading your post wrong, then read someone elses who also responded and figured out what you were trying to say (I think), so I edited my post.....I think you're saying when you're young you can get away with eating 'junk' but eventually how you eat will catch up to you somehow. But, I was overweight and unhealthy when I was younger, while eating the foods I enjoy, but at a calorie surplus/gaining weight. Same with my husband-younger, active, eating whatever, eating at a calorie surplus, gained weight and developed health problems.
Fast forward-I've lost almost 60lbs, and improved my health, even as I'm aging and creeping towards 40. I continue to eat all the foods I enjoy, but I'm now mindful of CICO. Same with my husband-he's improved his health, while still continuing to eat what he likes (a more SAD than what I eat actually).0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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?!
http://paleofoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Our-Services.pdf
Hilarious. This is my favorite part:
"In a recent poll in the largest online Paleo Community group [conveniently not identified], 100% of paleo adherents said they would try a new product simply because it displayed a Paleo Foundation label..."annaskiski wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
OMG there is a Paleo Foundation?!
They've spoken to the cavemen personally.
I don't follow the Paleo WOE, but I looked at that site just out of interest, and their ideals and mission statment seem to be very principled, i.e. they envisage a healthier world and campaign for sustainable farming practices and help for small-scale farmers. Surely these are things we all believe in?
Oh, but never mind that... let's get back to the scorn and ridicule....
Even assuming we all agree with the core mission of the Paleo Foundation, why does that mean that some of their actions or statements can't be critiqued?
Like claiming 100% of people who eat paleo will buy something based on a label.
Weren't we told a while back that "clean" means no label?
Also, nice to know that the Paleo Foundation's success percentage is up there with your average dictator after "free" elections. Well, even they usually only get like 98%.
Presumably the label you're referring to is a certification so people don't have to personally visit every supplier who gets their custom to check that the food they're buying meets certain Paleo standards... whatever those may be. I think I read something about grass-feeding, perhaps that's one of them.
Similarly I buy stuff that has a Fairtrade label; does that mean I'm an idiot or should I fly to Costa Rica personally every time I buy coffee to check out the working conditions on the plantation myself?
Critique is good if it's constructive, so why don't we try that rather than jokes about cave men? How would you improve the 'clean eating' movement? I think one thing that's come out of all this is people would like a more definitive guide on what does/doesn't qualify as clean.
But (presumably) you wouldn't buy a new product simply BECAUSE it had a Fairtrade label.
If I was buying coffee I might try a brand I hadn't purchased before for that reason. I wouldn't go out just buying any old thing willy nilly just because it said Fairtrade on it, but I don't think that's what they mean.
Or if something was labelled Free Range, I would try something I'd never had before, because the range of stuff I can get in that category is so limited.
are you going to address your ridiculous twinkie and dying young comment, or just gloss over that like it never happened?0 -
My two, unscientifically-founded cents:
If you weigh 350 and have 100+ pounds of fat to lose, calories are calories and the composition is not very important.
If you weigh 180 and have 15% body fat and you're trying to lose 10 pounds to get yourself to 10% body fat, composition is going to be much more important.
I have no facts to support this, although I have a lot of experience being really overweight and losing some of it. It comes off faster if I try to eat cleaner, but the deficit is what matters when you've got a lot of fat to lose.
All that being said, if you hit your calorie goals and are at or near good macro levels while you do it, you can't be eating a very dirty diet. Can't eat mostly junk food and hit good macros.
I don't think anyone is arguing with the part that I bolded.
What are you defining as eating "mostly junk food" ..25% of diet, 50%, etc?
I hit macros and micros, but some of the clean eating purists would call my diary dirty, which is open for anyone to review by the way ...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 should really look at my diary then (i generally hit 160g of protein, 30g of fiber), but I still eat sausages, eggs, bagels, dairy but I also love veggies.
0 -
My two, unscientifically-founded cents:
If you weigh 350 and have 100+ pounds of fat to lose, calories are calories and the composition is not very important.
If you weigh 180 and have 15% body fat and you're trying to lose 10 pounds to get yourself to 10% body fat, composition is going to be much more important.
I have no facts to support this, although I have a lot of experience being really overweight and losing some of it. It comes off faster if I try to eat cleaner, but the deficit is what matters when you've got a lot of fat to lose.
All that being said, if you hit your calorie goals and are at or near good macro levels while you do it, you can't be eating a very dirty diet. Can't eat mostly junk food and hit good macros.
I don't think anyone is arguing with the part that I bolded.
What are you defining as eating "mostly junk food" ..25% of diet, 50%, etc?
I hit macros and micros, but some of the clean eating purists would call my diary dirty, which is open for anyone to review by the way ...
Agreed with the bold as well. I would surmise that the majority of us who are down at the 15% levels are more conscience of their diets because there is much less room for error. But that is all part of the learning process. I started with calories, then started focusing on macros and now focus on macros and types of food.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.My two, unscientifically-founded cents:
If you weigh 350 and have 100+ pounds of fat to lose, calories are calories and the composition is not very important.
If you weigh 180 and have 15% body fat and you're trying to lose 10 pounds to get yourself to 10% body fat, composition is going to be much more important.
I have no facts to support this, although I have a lot of experience being really overweight and losing some of it. It comes off faster if I try to eat cleaner, but the deficit is what matters when you've got a lot of fat to lose.
All that being said, if you hit your calorie goals and are at or near good macro levels while you do it, you can't be eating a very dirty diet. Can't eat mostly junk food and hit good macros.
But clean isn't supposed to be just about avoiding junk food, it's also avoiding processed foods, although no one has a clear definition on where to draw that line. I could eat nothing but carrots, but if they come precooked from a can, then it's not clean.0 -
0
-
My two, unscientifically-founded cents:
If you weigh 350 and have 100+ pounds of fat to lose, calories are calories and the composition is not very important.
If you weigh 180 and have 15% body fat and you're trying to lose 10 pounds to get yourself to 10% body fat, composition is going to be much more important.
I have no facts to support this, although I have a lot of experience being really overweight and losing some of it. It comes off faster if I try to eat cleaner, but the deficit is what matters when you've got a lot of fat to lose.
All that being said, if you hit your calorie goals and are at or near good macro levels while you do it, you can't be eating a very dirty diet. Can't eat mostly junk food and hit good macros.
I don't think anyone is arguing with the part that I bolded.
What are you defining as eating "mostly junk food" ..25% of diet, 50%, etc?
I hit macros and micros, but some of the clean eating purists would call my diary dirty, which is open for anyone to review by the way ...
Agreed with the bold as well. I would surmise that the majority of us who are down at the 15% levels are more conscience of their diets because there is much less room for error. But that is all part of the learning process. I started with calories, then started focusing on macros and now focus on macros and types of food.
yup, same here.
I struggle to get below 12% body fat, because I like good food too much ....maybe one day...LOL0 -
I don't eat clean, and I still lose wight! In fact lose more weight than the individuals who do eat clean.0
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions