CI/CO vs Clean Eating

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.

Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?

You are comparing apples to oranges. This argument has been debated before in these types of threads and I'm not going to engage in this discussion with you.

You know full well eating too much food and substance abuse are two different things.

I went there because you said "everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything."

Also:

Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes.

Contemporary research has shown that a high number of alcohol-dependent and other drug-dependent individuals have a sweet preference, specifically for foods with a high sucrose concentration. Moreover, both human and animal studies have demonstrated that in some brains the consumption of sugar-rich foods or drinks primes the release of euphoric endorphins and dopamine within the nucleus accumbens, in a manner similar to some drugs of abuse. The neurobiological pathways of drug and "sugar addiction" involve similar neural receptors, neurotransmitters, and hedonic regions in the brain. Craving, tolerance, withdrawal and sensitization have been documented in both human and animal studies. In addition, there appears to be cross sensitization between sugar addiction and narcotic dependence in some individuals. It has also been observed that the biological children of alcoholic parents, particularly alcoholic fathers, are at greater risk to have a strong sweet preference, and this may manifest in some with an eating disorder. In the last two decades research has noted that specific genes may underlie the sweet preference in alcohol- and drug-dependent individuals, as well as in biological children of paternal alcoholics. There also appears to be some common genetic markers between alcohol dependence, bulimia, and obesity, such as the A1 allele gene and the dopamine 2 receptor gene.

kshama2001 wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.

Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?

You are comparing apples to oranges. This argument has been debated before in these types of threads and I'm not going to engage in this discussion with you.

You know full well eating too much food and substance abuse are two different things.

I went there because you said "everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything."

Also:

Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes.

Contemporary research has shown that a high number of alcohol-dependent and other drug-dependent individuals have a sweet preference, specifically for foods with a high sucrose concentration. Moreover, both human and animal studies have demonstrated that in some brains the consumption of sugar-rich foods or drinks primes the release of euphoric endorphins and dopamine within the nucleus accumbens, in a manner similar to some drugs of abuse. The neurobiological pathways of drug and "sugar addiction" involve similar neural receptors, neurotransmitters, and hedonic regions in the brain. Craving, tolerance, withdrawal and sensitization have been documented in both human and animal studies. In addition, there appears to be cross sensitization between sugar addiction and narcotic dependence in some individuals. It has also been observed that the biological children of alcoholic parents, particularly alcoholic fathers, are at greater risk to have a strong sweet preference, and this may manifest in some with an eating disorder. In the last two decades research has noted that specific genes may underlie the sweet preference in alcohol- and drug-dependent individuals, as well as in biological children of paternal alcoholics. There also appears to be some common genetic markers between alcohol dependence, bulimia, and obesity, such as the A1 allele gene and the dopamine 2 receptor gene.

Sugar = drug addiction comparison.

draznyth wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.

Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?

what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?

I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily

if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though

My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.

zyxst wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.

Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?

You are comparing apples to oranges. This argument has been debated before in these types of threads and I'm not going to engage in this discussion with you.

You know full well eating too much food and substance abuse are two different things.

I went there because you said "everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything."

Also:

Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes.

Contemporary research has shown that a high number of alcohol-dependent and other drug-dependent individuals have a sweet preference, specifically for foods with a high sucrose concentration. Moreover, both human and animal studies have demonstrated that in some brains the consumption of sugar-rich foods or drinks primes the release of euphoric endorphins and dopamine within the nucleus accumbens, in a manner similar to some drugs of abuse. The neurobiological pathways of drug and "sugar addiction" involve similar neural receptors, neurotransmitters, and hedonic regions in the brain. Craving, tolerance, withdrawal and sensitization have been documented in both human and animal studies. In addition, there appears to be cross sensitization between sugar addiction and narcotic dependence in some individuals. It has also been observed that the biological children of alcoholic parents, particularly alcoholic fathers, are at greater risk to have a strong sweet preference, and this may manifest in some with an eating disorder. In the last two decades research has noted that specific genes may underlie the sweet preference in alcohol- and drug-dependent individuals, as well as in biological children of paternal alcoholics. There also appears to be some common genetic markers between alcohol dependence, bulimia, and obesity, such as the A1 allele gene and the dopamine 2 receptor gene.

Sugar = drug addiction comparison.
[deleted snarky picture]

As someone who used to do many things to excess, I can tell you that the cravings felt exactly the same.

Thank God for yoga. Signing off to go practice.

kshama2001 wrote: »

draznyth wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.

Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?

what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?

I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily

if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though

My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.

I guess I should've put a disclaimer: "Unless you are a victim of substance abuse". Sorry for thinking that would be common sense.

On a side note, I think that arguing semantics in that way and saying that suggesting moderation is "irresponsible and unkind" is rather pedantic and overly sensitive.

Just my two cents there.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Annie_01 wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

TrailBlazinMN wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

The answer is no, no they will not.

If someone eats healthily all day long, meets their macro- and micro-nutrient goals for the day, and lives an active and healthy lifestyle, a bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies at the end of the day is going to have zero effect on health or performance.

@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt -I think it's pretty awesome you know how food affects every single person in this world. By the way, not everyone can just have one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies. There is reason why some people need to eat "super clean", just like alcoholics can't have a sip and drug users can't just have one hit/line/etc.

slideaway1 wrote: »

On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.

This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.

That's not what I said.

Also, if someone can't have just one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies, then their problem is with the ability to moderate their intake. That is something that they need to learn to do, and cutting those foods out completely forever is likely not going to teach them anything. Are we really expected to go the rest of our lives without eating another piece of birthday cake? Without eating out at a restaurant with friends or on a date? That's just not realistic.

I guarantee you that anyone (barring a medical reason that requires them to avoid any particular food/ingredient) who is healthy, active, and who eats mostly nutrient-dense foods is not going to have any negative effects from having something sweet or some "junk" food evrery now and then. You don't get extra credit for eating nothing but "clean" foods 100% of the time.

Why to the above bolded...

Why do you think that everyone has to learn to moderate a certain food if they are willing to give it up.

I have never and probably never will be able to moderate peanut butter M&Ms...I have given the up. I am okay with that. I still think about them sometimes but it has been over two years since I have eaten them.

I can live without them...I can not however learn to just eat 1 of those little guys.

Just my opinion. If I enjoy something that much, I'd like to be able to fit them in from time to time for my own mental health rather than give them up completely. I think it's a healthy approach, and it proves that a specific food does not control you. You have the power to eat the food, and you alone have the power to stop eating the food. I don't want to give that food the power.

Plus, moderation is a handy skill to have for every aspect in life. I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.

The M&M didn't control me...I walked away from it.

Simply because someone chooses to give up a certain food doesn't mean that they don't have control of other aspects of their life. I control my spending...I can walk away from a sale rack. There are more than enough things in life to moderate besides one food.

Simply because you choose to moderate a food doesn't make you somehow better than someone who doesn't. It takes will power in either case. Besides...most of us on this site aren't experts at moderating...or we probably wouldn't be on this site counting every little morsel of food that enters our mouth.

draznyth wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

draznyth wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

draznyth wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.

Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?

what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?

I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily

if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though

My point in bringing up 12 step programs was that the suggestion that people learn moderation for everything is irresponsible and unkind.

it's not really irresponsible and unkind if 12 step programs don't actually work

that's why I'm wondering just how effective they are

They have huge failure rates. However...

...they still have higher success rates than any form of weight loss plan.

lol nice

I just live in this universe, I didn't design it.

:drinker:

While CI/CO is the main tenet of weight loss/gain, if you are hitting your macros solely on McDonalds and Pop-Tarts, I assure you, you *will* feel like crap. Your insulin and hormones will be all out of whack, and you'll feel like utter garbage. That being said, "eating clean" is a meme that circulates any given fitness board that just needs to die already. I've adopted and try to adhere to the 80/20 rule: 80% of my food comes from wholesome sources, such as brown rice, tilapia, etc., and the other 20% is trash that I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about eating.

Annie_01 wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Annie_01 wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

TrailBlazinMN wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

The answer is no, no they will not.

If someone eats healthily all day long, meets their macro- and micro-nutrient goals for the day, and lives an active and healthy lifestyle, a bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies at the end of the day is going to have zero effect on health or performance.

@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt -I think it's pretty awesome you know how food affects every single person in this world. By the way, not everyone can just have one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies. There is reason why some people need to eat "super clean", just like alcoholics can't have a sip and drug users can't just have one hit/line/etc.

slideaway1 wrote: »

On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.

This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.

That's not what I said.

Also, if someone can't have just one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies, then their problem is with the ability to moderate their intake. That is something that they need to learn to do, and cutting those foods out completely forever is likely not going to teach them anything. Are we really expected to go the rest of our lives without eating another piece of birthday cake? Without eating out at a restaurant with friends or on a date? That's just not realistic.

I guarantee you that anyone (barring a medical reason that requires them to avoid any particular food/ingredient) who is healthy, active, and who eats mostly nutrient-dense foods is not going to have any negative effects from having something sweet or some "junk" food evrery now and then. You don't get extra credit for eating nothing but "clean" foods 100% of the time.

Why to the above bolded...

Why do you think that everyone has to learn to moderate a certain food if they are willing to give it up.

I have never and probably never will be able to moderate peanut butter M&Ms...I have given the up. I am okay with that. I still think about them sometimes but it has been over two years since I have eaten them.

I can live without them...I can not however learn to just eat 1 of those little guys.

Just my opinion. If I enjoy something that much, I'd like to be able to fit them in from time to time for my own mental health rather than give them up completely. I think it's a healthy approach, and it proves that a specific food does not control you. You have the power to eat the food, and you alone have the power to stop eating the food. I don't want to give that food the power.

Plus, moderation is a handy skill to have for every aspect in life. I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.

The M&M didn't control me...I walked away from it.

Simply because someone chooses to give up a certain food doesn't mean that they don't have control of other aspects of their life. I control my spending...I can walk away from a sale rack. There are more than enough things in life to moderate besides one food.

Simply because you choose to moderate a food doesn't make you somehow better than someone who doesn't. It takes will power in either case. Besides...most of us on this site aren't experts at moderating...or we probably wouldn't be on this site counting every little morsel of food that enters our mouth.

I'm glad that you've found something that works for you, truly. I have already established in this thread that I have nothing against people who choose to cut out certain foods. My issue comes when people preach that everyone should give up certain foods to be somehow healthier, which you have not done.

Perhaps my wording was not the best choice (I'm half asleep today with a wine hangover), but I stand by the point that I was trying to make: the person in @TrailBlazinMN 's argument had an issue with moderation, and in that case, eating "clean" isn't necessarily going to be the answer. People can still enjoy the foods that they love within reason and still be healthy and lose weight. There are exceptions to this rule, such as people with BED, diabetes, insulin resistance, food allergies, etc. I am not referring to the exceptions to the rule - I am talking in very general terms.

And you're right, I had trouble moderating ALL foods before I found MFP. I was ecstatic when I learned that I don't have to give up foods like ice cream, or cookies, or Lucky Charms in order to lose weight. I've learned to moderate my intake and developed a healthier attitude towards food.

TrailBlazinMN wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

That's not what I said.

Also, if someone can't have just one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies, then their problem is with the ability to moderate their intake. That is something that they need to learn to do, and cutting those foods out completely forever is likely not going to teach them anything. Are we really expected to go the rest of our lives without eating another piece of birthday cake? Without eating out at a restaurant with friends or on a date? That's just not realistic.

I guarantee you that anyone (barring a medical reason that requires them to avoid any particular food/ingredient) who is healthy, active, and who eats mostly nutrient-dense foods is not going to have any negative effects from having something sweet or some "junk" food evrery now and then. You don't get extra credit for eating nothing but "clean" foods 100% of the time.

You are right. Some people do have that problem with moderation whether it's "dirty" food or a sip of beer. That piece of cake or that sip of beer can set off a chain reaction and people go spiraling downward. There is nothing wrong with eating cake for a lot of people but for other people, it can cause them to binge.

You are right that people don't get extra credit for eating 100% "clean" foods but some people realize, like I said before, one little treat turns into a bingefest. Maybe not you but there are people out there who have an eating disorder.

Bottom line is people should do what they want. Live and let live. There is nothing wrong with people who want to eat 100% clean (whether it's for a month, a year, or their whole life) and see how far they can take their body, mind, and performance. It's all a big experiment. I just go by my own experiments and testimonies of people who are open-minded and like to see how controllable variables (such as diet) can affect their recovery, heart rate at certain intensities, etc.

Yet you (and others) still insist that eating "clean" somehow results in improved performance. So how much time do you think could I take off my 5K if I ate 400 calories of carrots before instead of 400 calories of twix bars?