The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
How much science has been done on gut bacteria? Isn't this research still in its infancy? It's certainly not enough to say that elimination of food types is necessary?
I think people are jumping on the latest buzz in the media on this one. I can't find much balanced information on the topic on a quick google search.
I'll keep eating my yogurt and eating in moderation.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »How much science has been done on gut bacteria? Isn't this research still in its infancy? It's certainly not enough to say that elimination of food types is necessary?
I think people are jumping on the latest buzz in the media on this one. I can't find much balanced information on the topic on a quick google search.
I'll keep eating my yogurt and eating in moderation.
Exactly, that's why we need research studies
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »The gut microbiome stuff is super interesting. Probably a good idea to actually do the crossover design and see over time if you get a difference, perhaps measuring inflammation levels along the way.
As a tangent, I agree. This is an area of study that I've started following closely. I think that your gut flora has a lot more to do with weight/food preferences/metabolism/cravings and even immune system health than we ever suspected.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »How much science has been done on gut bacteria? Isn't this research still in its infancy? It's certainly not enough to say that elimination of food types is necessary?
I think people are jumping on the latest buzz in the media on this one. I can't find much balanced information on the topic on a quick google search.
I'll keep eating my yogurt and eating in moderation.
Exactly, that's why we need research studies
You can always tell where some people get their information, because the health bloggers and the quacks with letters after their names like Mercola latch onto preliminary stuff and start touting it like gospel. And it spreads over the internet like wildfire.
0 -
Quinnstinct wrote: »Read more carefully, I'm talking about people who use extreme examples of CICO like eating 1200 calories of twinkies.
Actually no, that's not what you said at all- "I find it interesting the CICO people who think eating Twinkies within their calorie goals are completely ignoring long term health effects. What we eat directly relates to gut health and overall wellness. Just because you weigh less doesn't mean you are healthier."
Nowhere in your post do you say or infer 'extreme' cases. You clearly state that you believe people who eat Twinkies are somehow negatively affecting their health. And that's utter woo. Would you like to try again?0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »How much science has been done on gut bacteria? Isn't this research still in its infancy? It's certainly not enough to say that elimination of food types is necessary?
I think people are jumping on the latest buzz in the media on this one. I can't find much balanced information on the topic on a quick google search.
I'll keep eating my yogurt and eating in moderation.
Exactly, that's why we need research studies
You can always tell where some people get their information, because the health bloggers and the quacks with letters after their names like Mercola latch onto preliminary stuff and start touting it like gospel. And it spreads over the internet like wildfire.
Exactly, and act as though they have found the one magic thing to solve obesity/aging, etc. The truth is the body is very complicated. Weight is complicated. If gut bacteria play a role, I can almost guarantee that it does not supercede other things such as psychology, food availability, genetics, inherent daily activity, education, etc.
One of the things we know very clearly is that if you can achieve a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. So, it makes sense to focus on this. There may be many factors that make it easier or harder, faster or slower, more or less sustainable, and these also will vary by individual. But if you don't have a calorie deficit, guaranteed that you are not losing.
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »The gut microbiome stuff is super interesting. Probably a good idea to actually do the crossover design and see over time if you get a difference, perhaps measuring inflammation levels along the way.
As a tangent, I agree. This is an area of study that I've started following closely. I think that your gut flora has a lot more to do with weight/food preferences/metabolism/cravings and even immune system health than we ever suspected.
Have there been studies where food preferences/cravings/metabolism changed with a shift in gut flora? I need to start following this more myself.0 -
BTW, I said in my post that more research was needed, and didn't say anything about completely eliminating food types!
We definitely don't know enough about gut bacteria to effectively develop a weight loss program solely on that. My point was just there is (scientific, research-backed) evidence suggesting that WHAT (not just HOW MUCH) you eat might make a difference in weight loss, and definitely does in overall health and well-being.
I think (hope) that most people intuitively know that it's probably better for you to drink OJ than soda, even though both of them can make you fat if you overdo it. So that's why I said I hedge my bets by trying to focus on minimally-processed foods that are full of all kinds of beneficial compounds while not letting that interfere with me living my life and eating foods I enjoy.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »How much science has been done on gut bacteria? Isn't this research still in its infancy? It's certainly not enough to say that elimination of food types is necessary?
I think people are jumping on the latest buzz in the media on this one. I can't find much balanced information on the topic on a quick google search.
I'll keep eating my yogurt and eating in moderation.
Exactly, that's why we need research studies
You can always tell where some people get their information, because the health bloggers and the quacks with letters after their names like Mercola latch onto preliminary stuff and start touting it like gospel. And it spreads over the internet like wildfire.
Exactly, and act as though they have found the one magic thing to solve obesity/aging, etc. The truth is the body is very complicated. Weight is complicated. If gut bacteria play a role, I can almost guarantee that it does not supercede other things such as psychology, food availability, genetics, inherent daily activity, education, etc.
One of the things we know very clearly is that if you can achieve a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. So, it makes sense to focus on this. There may be many factors that make it easier or harder, faster or slower, more or less sustainable, and these also will vary by individual. But if you don't have a calorie deficit, guaranteed that you are not losing.
I've said this before: it IS simple, but getting to the point where it seems that way is really hard.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
0 -
Quinnstinct wrote: »I find it interesting the CICO people who think eating Twinkies within their calorie goals are completely ignoring long term health effects. What we eat directly relates to gut health and overall wellness. Just because you weigh less doesn't mean you are healthier.So the question has been asked a million times, maybe you will be the one to finally answer it! Please explain how one item in an overall "good" day, like a Twinkie, ruins your health. Yesterday I ate eggs, whole grain bread, chicken breast, rice and vegetables. Last night my husband took me out for frozen yogurt. Please tell me how the frozen yogurt ruined the effects of all those other foods I ate.Quinnstinct wrote: »Read more carefully, I'm talking about people who use extreme examples of CICO like eating 1200 calories of twinkies.Quinnstinct wrote: »If anyone would like to pose a well constructed question I'm happy to put together a thorough search of the medical literature.
First of all, no one needs to "read more carefully." You didn't mention extremity.
Second of all, I guess I'm to take it that you won't be answering the question then, blaming it on other people's poorly constructed questions. Please let me know what it is in my question that confuses you.
0 -
I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
You're talking about people you see in your school, not MFP. Also remember you are going what a random statement they make. We are talking about the people here on MFP that people are claiming eat 1200 calories in Twinkies. Where are they? Of course there are people in this world that have all kind of days.There are people that will eat a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel for breakfast, a 20 oz Pepsi and a Boston cream donut for breakfast or a dinner that was Chinese food, pizza and McDonald's. I know that because that's what I used to do in my fat days. But that doesn't mean that is done here.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
You are doing the things you are saying others do. The same things in that article.
And ignoring the fact that not everyone follows everything off that site as you claim.
I never stated that everyone followed the site. I'm just saying it would be interesting to do a word usage summary for the term "straw man" on MFP before and after that IIFYM site emailed that debate link and study the results.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
I didn't ask you to define clean eating. I asked you to define anti-clean eating. Although it would be hard to do one without the other, I'm sure you're up for the challenge.0 -
I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
You're talking about people you see in your school, not MFP. Also remember you are going what a random statement they make. We are talking about the people here on MFP that people are claiming eat 1200 calories in Twinkies. Where are they? Of course there are people in this world that have all kind of days.There are people that will eat a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel for breakfast, a 20 oz Pepsi and a Boston cream donut for breakfast or a dinner that was Chinese food, pizza and McDonald's. I know that because that's what I used to do in my fat days. But that doesn't mean that is done here.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
You are doing the things you are saying others do. The same things in that article.
And ignoring the fact that not everyone follows everything off that site as you claim.
I never stated that everyone followed the site. I'm just saying it would be interesting to do a word usage summary for the term "straw man" on MFP before and after that IIFYM site emailed that debate link and study the results.
I believe a moderator asked that this nonsense be dropped and to please stay on topic.0 -
I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
You're talking about people you see in your school, not MFP. Also remember you are going what a random statement they make. We are talking about the people here on MFP that people are claiming eat 1200 calories in Twinkies. Where are they? Of course there are people in this world that have all kind of days.There are people that will eat a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel for breakfast, a 20 oz Pepsi and a Boston cream donut for breakfast or a dinner that was Chinese food, pizza and McDonald's. I know that because that's what I used to do in my fat days. But that doesn't mean that is done here.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
You are doing the things you are saying others do. The same things in that article.
And ignoring the fact that not everyone follows everything off that site as you claim.
I never stated that everyone followed the site. I'm just saying it would be interesting to do a word usage summary for the term "straw man" on MFP before and after that IIFYM site emailed that debate link and study the results.
Do you actually think that there's some secret IIFYM society that emails each other these talking points?0 -
shaynataggart wrote: »Both will lose weight. A deficit is still a deficit. The quality of the food will impact each on a cellular level. Obviously the non clean eater will be filling their body with much more artificial ingredients.
Can you tell me why it's bad to ingest artificial ingredients? And what affect they have on a cellular level?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.
I wouldn't make too much of it. I'd never seen that page before, and "strawman" is a common term, especially but not only on the internet. The idea that it comes from that page (doesn't when I use it) seems far-fetched to me.
The more important question is if it's actually applicable or not when the accusation is leveled. That's where logic should be beneficial.
That nonsense about 100% cake diets were immediately brought up here despite how person B is defined explains quite well why it's a common accusation in "clean eating" discussions.
I would REALLY like to have a discussion of what's wrong with eating like person B not based on complete made up nonsense about 100% cake diets or the like, because (1) I don't think there is anything wrong with it; and (2) I think essentially everyone who claims to be a "clean" eater ALSO eats that way. I know lots of paleo eaters offline (through CF), and they generally do. They just don't pretend otherwise, like some of the holy than thou types on MFP.0 -
BTW, I said in my post that more research was needed, and didn't say anything about completely eliminating food types!
We definitely don't know enough about gut bacteria to effectively develop a weight loss program solely on that. My point was just there is (scientific, research-backed) evidence suggesting that WHAT (not just HOW MUCH) you eat might make a difference in weight loss, and definitely does in overall health and well-being.
I think (hope) that most people intuitively know that it's probably better for you to drink OJ than soda, even though both of them can make you fat if you overdo it. So that's why I said I hedge my bets by trying to focus on minimally-processed foods that are full of all kinds of beneficial compounds while not letting that interfere with me living my life and eating foods I enjoy.
BUT that's not relevant to the thread. Dieter B eats nutritious foods and still enjoys treats. He's not eating a diet comprised only of highly processed, sugary food.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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.
This is rich, from you.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions