CI/CO vs Clean Eating

jennifer_417 wrote: »

half_moon wrote: »

IsaackGMOON wrote: »

Thread is gonna go off in 3... 2... 1...

No, your weight would not suffer. Because losing weight and gaining boils down to calories in vs calories out. It doesn't come down to whether you eat 'clean'.

• If you eat in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight
• If you eat in a caloric surplus, you will gain weight

I suppose to extend that answer -- what about body composition? Scale aside, would a clean CI/CO eater look fit and active while a non clean CI/CO eater look frumpy and heavier?

I know that every person is different, etc. ( eg, I am lactose intolerant and any dairy would make me appear frumpy!) but generally, are the affects of a cleaner eater obvious externally?

Nope. Body fat percentage has nothing at all to do with what types of food you eat, only how much.

Assuming you get enough protein of course.

syndeo wrote: »

If anyone wants to argue that eating lots of fruits and vegetables, lean meats, and complex carbs is good for your, I will not argue. If these same people want to argue that such a diet contains more micro-nutrients, I will not argue. If these people want to argue that is increases satiety and is therefore easier to follow, I will not argue.

These are my reasons, bolded being immediately relevant to me personally

syndeo wrote: »

If anyone wants to argue that eating lots of fruits and vegetables, lean meats, and complex carbs is good for your, I will not argue. If these same people want to argue that such a diet contains more micro-nutrients, I will not argue. If these people want to argue that is increases satiety and is therefore easier to follow, I will not argue.

However, if these people propose that it is better for CICO, and do not caveat their assertions, or back it up with science, well then, it is the Internet and I will argue :)recovery[/url].

This makes no sense to me.

If it's more nutritious and makes it easier to stick a caloric deficit because it provides more satiety, how can it not be "better for CICO"?

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

You will more likely not find stats on anonymous things like AA or OA. From someone who has been to AA and NA it does work from what I saw. I hated AA though. A bunch of horrors stories to stop people from drinking. Scared straight approach does not work for some.

tomatoey wrote: »

syndeo wrote: »

If anyone wants to argue that eating lots of fruits and vegetables, lean meats, and complex carbs is good for your, I will not argue. If these same people want to argue that such a diet contains more micro-nutrients, I will not argue. If these people want to argue that is increases satiety and is therefore easier to follow, I will not argue.

These are my reasons, bolded being immediately relevant to me personally

All of it is relevant to me and why I do it.

I think OP's question, rephrased, comes down to: does the nutritional content of my diet make a difference to my results, specifically success at recomposition and maintaining lean body mass. If so, I think the answer is yes, to some extent, probably. The reasons are that getting adequate protein (for sure) and adequate micronutrients (I would think) are probably going to result in more success at building/maintaining muscle and also may have an effect on how effectively she can pursue her exercise (although she also may be someone who is more successful at those things if she includes a certain amount of carbs, including the oft-defamed quick carbs in her diet).

However, none of this has to do with "eating clean" as usually defined. You can eat lots of fruits and veggies, lean meats, and complex carbs without eating clean and for some people it might even be easier to do so in some ways if you rely to some extent on foods often claimed as "unclean" (processed and convenience foods).

For example, some people might enjoy veggies more or be more apt to eat them (if they hate to cook) if they buy them precooked or even in a cheese sauce or some such. Years ago I liked to make those Vigo beans and rice packages and add veggies to that--easy, and IMO plenty healthy, but not "clean." Others may rely on protein bars or powders to reach some of their protein needs or go to Chipotle (there's a so-called "clean eater" poster around here who does that) or use smoked or tinned fish and various processed dairy products (like greek yogurt and cottage cheese). Personally I find prepackaged greens useful to have around for a quick salad, although I don't only eat those, and same with the occasional baby cut carrots and canned tomatoes, whole wheat pasta, etc.

(I don't think OP really meant to ask about eating "clean," though.)

jmule24 wrote: »

I left this post alone ALL weekend like a good boy! I said to myself, "This thing will be dead before I know it!!"....wrong.....

I see we've moved on from Sugar vs. Cocaine to Food Addiction vs. Alcohol Addiction....... seriously??????

Oh....so I don't derail......

CI > CO = Weight gain , CI < CO = weight loss , CI=CO = boring!!!! :-) (CI = any food you want to cram down your gullet!)

partial derail???? ......

@senecarr AA is founded on spirituality....... spirituality =/= religion.

So recomposition is boring to you?

lemurcat12 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

syndeo wrote: »

If anyone wants to argue that eating lots of fruits and vegetables, lean meats, and complex carbs is good for your, I will not argue. If these same people want to argue that such a diet contains more micro-nutrients, I will not argue. If these people want to argue that is increases satiety and is therefore easier to follow, I will not argue.

These are my reasons, bolded being immediately relevant to me personally

All of it is relevant to me and why I do it.

I think OP's question, rephrased, comes down to: does the nutritional content of my diet make a difference to my results, specifically success at recomposition and maintaining lean body mass. If so, I think the answer is yes, to some extent, probably. The reasons are that getting adequate protein (for sure) and adequate micronutrients (I would think) are probably going to result in more success at building/maintaining muscle and also may have an effect on how effectively she can pursue her exercise (although she also may be someone who is more successful at those things if she includes a certain amount of carbs, including the oft-defamed quick carbs in her diet).

However, none of this has to do with "eating clean" as usually defined. You can eat lots of fruits and veggies, lean meats, and complex carbs without eating clean and for some people it might even be easier to do so in some ways if you rely to some extent on foods often claimed as "unclean" (processed and convenience foods).

For example, some people might enjoy veggies more or be more apt to eat them (if they hate to cook) if they buy them precooked or even in a cheese sauce or some such. Years ago I liked to make those Vigo beans and rice packages and add veggies to that--easy, and IMO plenty healthy, but not "clean." Others may rely on protein bars or powders to reach some of their protein needs or go to Chipotle (there's a so-called "clean eater" poster around here who does that) or use smoked or tinned fish and various processed dairy products (like greek yogurt and cottage cheese). Personally I find prepackaged greens useful to have around for a quick salad, although I don't only eat those, and same with the occasional baby cut carrots and canned tomatoes, whole wheat pasta, etc.

(I don't think OP really meant to ask about eating "clean," though.)

I agree that most of the foods people call "clean" undergo some amount of processing. However, when people say they want to eat "clean" I think what most mean by it is just more veg, fruit, meat, complex carbs, etc. There are some outliers to that who have some funny ideas but there is a common-sense understanding of "clean food", just like there is of "junk food", and the reality is that eating more of the former than the latter is likely to lead to greater long-term success at weight loss and maintenance.

I feel like some of the arguments around this debate miss the usefulness of pragmatic rules of thumb. I'm not bothered if someone calls spinach in a bag clean vs processed, know what I mean? End result is that spinach has some helpful stuff in it . And if thinking about it as "clean" helps people make more health-serving choices, it's fine, as far as I'm concerned

OdesAngel wrote: »

draznyth wrote: »

knock knock

open up the door

it's real

Wit the non-stop

pop pop and

stainless steel

uh yea this is why we're friends

yopeeps025 wrote: »

draznyth wrote: »

yopeeps025 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

if they work then yes you are def right

This question of 12 step programs working depends on the individual.

that may be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread

you cannot determine the success of ANYTHING based on the results of a single individual

which is why I asked how effective they are

as in, overall success rate

Let me be more clear. One the only way you would get a stat on the 12 step programs working is by the individual saying that it has work. What is the success we talking about? Lets just assume it is true alcoholism to no drinking. That rarely happens. Also not every person in AA is an alcoholic. I was one of those who was not an alcoholic. Alcohol treatment is a requirement at least in the state of MD with some alcoholic infractions (DUI is a must for alcohol treatment in MD). The places I went to almost requirement you go to some for on AA. I can tell you the amount of stories I have heard on relapse as to the ones who pick up more chips to show your sobriety.

Lets just say for my outpatient treatment the counselors told me to stop telling the group that I had a sober night at the bar. My program you were pissed tested for alcohol. I think it can be shown in your system for up to 72 hours if I remember. Then the what I felt were true alcoholics would put me aside and tell me how they felt I was correct to not associate myself as alcoholic.

Will there be a stat on AA and the success rate? I don't think this stat will ever exist.

@Mr_Knight mentioned an epidemiological study on this

asked him for a source (and more info) but he didn't provide it yet because he hates us apparently