The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »This is only my second thread and the first one I started. I don't know how anyone but me defines "clean food." Would someone be so kind as to link me to some threads that epitomize the positions of the "clean food crew?"
I posted this list a while back, but I'll bring it forward again. These are all definitions that have been given on these boards when people are asked what clean eating really is:
Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
Nothing at all with a barcode.
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
No added sugar.
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown.
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »That Paleo Foundation certification document is so telling... it's just a big advertising campaign.
Yup. And frankly, the Paleo Foundation's goals, for sounding so lofty? All part of the pitch to get businesses to use the service. Marketing, from top to bottom, the whole site. That's what they do, that's who they are, that's all they're about. Someone with a good head for business saw a great opportunity and ran with it.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »This is only my second thread and the first one I started. I don't know how anyone but me defines "clean food." Would someone be so kind as to link me to some threads that epitomize the positions of the "clean food crew?"
Did you read this one in its entirety? Their position is pretty clear. Either they're not actually clean by any stretch of the imagination but like the special label and vehemently defend it or they think that even one "infraction" per day will destroy your health. "Twinkies probably lead to early death."0 -
Let me start by saying I'm not a clean eater....
If the caloric deficit is the same they will lose approximately the same amount.
The difference might be in how well they feel or how well they are able to maintain the program. For example I know that if I eat too many carbs and not enough protein I will be hungry, even if the total calories are the same. If I am full on protein I am more likely to be able to keep to my calorie goal than if I'm hungry after too many carbs.
I have lost over 100 lbs eating a lot of frozen meals and other convenience foods that the clean eaters say are evil. I choose what I eat based more on my personal calorie and macro goals. There are no forbidden or evil foods. I eat what I want as long as it fits in my calorie goals. Some days I may be off on my macros, but I am amazed at how I consistently reach my macro goals on a weekly basis.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
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.
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors0 -
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?????????????????
According to Ted, having the ingredients necessary back then already makes it paleo. Even if the ingredient was poisonous at the time.0 -
Thanks diannethegeek!0
-
@ maidentl - nope, just the first page and the last few pages, which may have erroneously given me the idea that the "clean food crew" posts were on other threads, not earlier in this one.0
-
I'm kind of baffled too by the contention that eating 'clean' (whatever that is) makes you healthier.
People have been eating 'clean' for millennia, and died of a host of diseases by 40.
Were your grandparents really so much healthier than you?
The Iceman Otzi was found to have hardening of the arteries, though he was fit, exercised a lot and never ate french fries.....
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-genetic-analysis-reveals-otzi-iceman.html0 -
That's impossible to know just because of modern healthcare and the abundance of food in the western world. Just because they died earlier does not mean there diets were more unhealthy. In the same way just because we live longer does not mean ours are healthier. People died of many things that were totally non diet related disease wise that are now curable or preventable.annaskiski wrote: »
People have been eating 'clean' for millennia, and died of a host of diseases by 40.
Were your grandparents really so much healthier than you?l
0 -
nevermind. i tried to quote then messed up the post and cant delete it now.
0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »
That's impossible to know just because of modern healthcare and the abundance of food in the western world. Just because they died earlier does not mean there diets were more unhealthy. In the same way just because we live longer does not mean ours are healthier. People died of many things that were totally non diet related disease wise that are now curable or preventable.annaskiski wrote: »
People have been eating 'clean' for millennia, and died of a host of diseases by 40.
Were your grandparents really so much healthier than you?l
Her point was that the disease in Iceman was genetic.
A lot of what the clean eaters are presuming to prevent, sadly, comes down to genetics.
0 -
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
lol I remember when my logic instructor told us, "if you present an argument logically, any rational person will be compelled to accept it"
g'luck finding rational people on the internets0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
That's the one I was trying to quote/reply to! What a revelation to find that the repeated terms and methods I see in these threads actually has a source and an outline. It's like cult follower training! Even so, it was pretty educational as far as teaching effective ways to debate.0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
That's the one I was trying to quote/reply to! What a revelation to find that the repeated terms and methods I see in these threads actually has a source and an outline. It's like cult follower training! Even so, it was pretty educational as far as teaching effective ways to debate.
Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2201280/Calories-Dont-count-calories-itll-just-make-FATTER-Which-foods-really-make-fat.html ok its the daily mail but this discusses that more calories would be burned by digesting food that has not been as processed so this would affect cico?0
-
You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
I was disappointed that "moving the goalposts" wasn't in that debating guide, it is so relentlessly repeated I am sure that it was inspired by a similar "Debating 101" source. It just shows that sometimes jargon can be mistaken for substance.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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions