The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
Quinnstinct wrote: »Read more carefully, I'm talking about people who use extreme examples of CICO like eating 1200 calories of twinkies.
Who does that? Who even eats that way? What does that have to do with this discussion?
0 -
Quinnstinct wrote: »Read more carefully, I'm talking about people who use extreme examples of CICO like eating 1200 calories of twinkies.
Quote one, just one, who makes the claim that the majority of your calories can be obtained from the likes of Twinkies, from a health, and not a weight loss aspect. Ain't gonna happen, but nice try.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So, with what the lovely kgeyser said in mind, would any clean eater care to tackle the "healthy" argument they kept forwarding?
Remember, it was stipulated that both A and B were meeting their macro and micro goals.
Adding: I'd also like to know, since it was mentioned earlier in the thread, what barometer we're supposed to use for "healthy" since apparently fitness, good bloodwork, and a good body weight/composition aren't enough.
As a "non-clean eater", you're supposed to be able to prove that your life will be at least as long and healthy as it would have been if you'd been a "clean eater".
Good luck with that.
The logical fails keep on rolling, heh.
That's the subtext I keep getting from the "clean eating" posts, anyway.
I'm waiting for the "clean eater" to prove that their lives are longer and healthier than they would have been if they were a "non-clean eater", since they're the ones making the claim. But, I'm not holding my breath.0 -
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.
the question is "wtf are you talking about"
or
"who are these imaginary CICO-ers"
holla back lmk what you find on pubmed0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
Why did you introduce an all-Twinkie diet into the discussion?
Even Haub, the Twinkie diet guy, didn't eat all Twinkies.
Why don't you answer the questions put forth to you about your assertion so that you remain somewhat on topic.
The question was posed regarding two hypothetical dieters. A eats clean. B eats a balanced diet including unprocessed foods, processed foods, and treats. For the intents of this discussion, they are biologically the same on all levels. They each have no health problems. They are both maintaining the same 500 calorie caloric deficit. It is also stipulated that both are hitting their macro/micro targets.
It has been conceded by the clean eaters that they will both lose the same amount of weight, however, not happy to leave it stand there, they have left their remarks with the caveat that A will be healthier.
How so? What ill health will befall B from his modest treat/processed food consumption under the stipulation that he's meeting his nutritional needs?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
KrissyRawrz wrote: »I like to be a happy medium and eat a "normal" person diet with a deficit. However, I have had a friend who ate pure junk, seriously, only take outs for every meal, including breakfast. And they still managed to lose 35kg on their deficit. However, they stopped dead in their tracks then and I think if they switched to clean eating they would have been able to lose a lot more. So I guess it depends how your body reacts to it?
They might have just needed to take a break to eat at maintenance for a bit. Could have been a bit of metabolic adaptation going on or they might have just been eating too much.
0 -
Wow this is a crazy long thread. It is absolutely true that different foods have different effects on hormones and inflammation (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/gut-microbiome-bacteria-weight-loss). Researchers found that drinking sugar water increased markers of inflammation, while drinking OJ with the same amount of sugar in it did not. They go on to explain how they are beginning to think that inflammation, gut bacteria, and weight are all tied together, and argue that eating a wide variety of minimally processed foods can favorably change the gut microbiota as well as inflammation, and that in turn this MIGHT lead to better success with weight loss efforts (but more research is needed).
So, a calorie is a calorie, but the effect that calorie has on the body might matter. If you eat something that triggers inflammation and a rush of insulin, you are likely going to feel much hungrier a lot sooner than if you eat something that the body digests more slowly, and there might be more far-reaching consequences than we currently understand. I like the business analogy I saw earlier about how $10 spent is $10 spent, but if you spend it on something beneficial, it might help you out more down the road than if you spend it on something trivial. Likewise, 1200 calories is 1200 calories, whether it's made up of whole grains, fruits and veggies, and lean meats or junk food. But there is good reason to believe that the 1200 calories of healthy food is going to benefit you more (for a number of reasons) in the long run. Of course, if you are morbidly obese and eating junk food day in and day out now, and you cut down on the portions of junk food enough that you reach a healthy BMI, you are going to be healthier than you were; but that still doesn't mean that you are going to be as healthy as you could be.
All that said, I've followed some really strict diets in the past for both weight-loss and health reasons, and the bottom line is that you have to find something that works for you and that you can maintain life-long. For me, and probably for most people, that means making a serious effort to eat mostly healthy and minimally-processed foods day in and day out, but making room for hot dogs and cake at my niece's birthday party, or take-out when my husband and I both get home too late from work.0 -
I just ate a doughnut. The doughnut was made from scratch earlier today at a place within a block of my office. It has only fresh ingredients, although not organic. Still, I would most definitely consider that doughnut clean.
And delicious. And within my calorie goal.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »KrissyRawrz wrote: »I like to be a happy medium and eat a "normal" person diet with a deficit. However, I have had a friend who ate pure junk, seriously, only take outs for every meal, including breakfast. And they still managed to lose 35kg on their deficit. However, they stopped dead in their tracks then and I think if they switched to clean eating they would have been able to lose a lot more. So I guess it depends how your body reacts to it?
They might have just needed to take a break to eat at maintenance for a bit. Could have been a bit of metabolic adaptation going on or they might have just been eating too much.
Or they didn't recalculate their deficit after losing close to 80 lbs. A person 80 lbs lighter would need to eat quite a bit less than when they started in order to continue to lose weight. Cleanliness of diet matters not in relation to this.
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.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.
It was stipulated that the nutrient content was the same, so the sodium content would have been equal.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
It was stipulated that the nutrient content was the same, so the sodium content would have been equal.
For the sake of valid discussion, and not trying to extrapolate a possible underlying belief, it actually was not stipulated in the OP that the nutrient content was the same, only that micros and macros were met.0 -
^^Yes! Finally, someone mentioning gut bacteria! When I eat anti-inflammatory foods, I feel worlds better AND lose weight faster. Anyway, really great post, Mimi. Many good points there.Wow this is a crazy long thread. It is absolutely true that different foods have different effects on hormones and inflammation (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/gut-microbiome-bacteria-weight-loss). Researchers found that drinking sugar water increased markers of inflammation, while drinking OJ with the same amount of sugar in it did not. They go on to explain how they are beginning to think that inflammation, gut bacteria, and weight are all tied together, and argue that eating a wide variety of minimally processed foods can favorably change the gut microbiota as well as inflammation, and that in turn this MIGHT lead to better success with weight loss efforts (but more research is needed).
So, a calorie is a calorie, but the effect that calorie has on the body might matter. If you eat something that triggers inflammation and a rush of insulin, you are likely going to feel much hungrier a lot sooner than if you eat something that the body digests more slowly, and there might be more far-reaching consequences than we currently understand. I like the business analogy I saw earlier about how $10 spent is $10 spent, but if you spend it on something beneficial, it might help you out more down the road than if you spend it on something trivial. Likewise, 1200 calories is 1200 calories, whether it's made up of whole grains, fruits and veggies, and lean meats or junk food. But there is good reason to believe that the 1200 calories of healthy food is going to benefit you more (for a number of reasons) in the long run. Of course, if you are morbidly obese and eating junk food day in and day out now, and you cut down on the portions of junk food enough that you reach a healthy BMI, you are going to be healthier than you were; but that still doesn't mean that you are going to be as healthy as you could be.
All that said, I've followed some really strict diets in the past for both weight-loss and health reasons, and the bottom line is that you have to find something that works for you and that you can maintain life-long. For me, and probably for most people, that means making a serious effort to eat mostly healthy and minimally-processed foods day in and day out, but making room for hot dogs and cake at my niece's birthday party, or take-out when my husband and I both get home too late from work.
0 -
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.0
-
mantium999 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
It was stipulated that the nutrient content was the same, so the sodium content would have been equal.
For the sake of valid discussion, and not trying to extrapolate a possible underlying belief, it actually was not stipulated in the OP that the nutrient content was the same, only that micros and macros were met.
Well, that's sort of what I meant. Sodium is a micronutrient, yes?
0 -
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.0
-
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »i dont see anything to discuss about for me...i believe they eat 1500 calories so lose the same ( if they are identical)
Fitness wise or health wise is a whole other discussion.
^^^^^^
What they said
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
It was stipulated that the nutrient content was the same, so the sodium content would have been equal.
For the sake of valid discussion, and not trying to extrapolate a possible underlying belief, it actually was not stipulated in the OP that the nutrient content was the same, only that micros and macros were met.
Well, that's sort of what I meant. Sodium is a micronutrient, yes?
Absolutely it is. I just see the statement of micros being met as different from micros being equal, in the sense that I think the OP intended that as a statement of person A and B consuming the minimum amount of micronutrients for the body's functional needs. A variance in the actual amount of micros, and how it pertains to water retention, seems a valid hypothesis for a slight variance in total weight, while also implying that person A and B are of equal fat, lbm, and overall health.0 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions