CI/CO vs Clean Eating

tomatoey wrote: »

And you're right that the reality is very likely that "clean" eaters are really eating moderately, and moderate eaters are most likely eating nutritious foods. It's just a preference in terms of *ways of thinking about it*

And as we all know from Sunday school, it's more important to think the right way than it is to do the right thing.

:drinker:

tomatoey wrote: »

@lemurcat12 - first -Am on a phone, sorry.

People like you (and me) who eat moderately, and mostly nutritious foods, are not the issue, as far as I'm concerned. There really are people who lack nutritional and culinary knowledge and experience and are asking for substantive guidance on how to eat for health and weight loss. I saw one recent poster who asked about this, got a ton of "whatever you want as long as it fits" replies, and quit in frustration. She wanted to know *how* she might meet her goals, and there are some answers to that that are more than less helpful.

I agree that saying "don't eat this" is less helpful than "consider this and try to make it taste great". But a lot of people find it easy to think about food using heuristics and that's really how I see it.

I mean yes spinach is processed in a plant and placed into a bag but defining it as essentially processed is kind of disingenuous imo. It's a far cry from Doritos which is , I think its fair to say, the kind of thing ppl mean when they think of "junk" food that doesn't serve their goals. Then there's stuff like Lean Cuisine dinners or whatever that's somewhere in between ('re processing intensity, let's say).

I agree also that people benefit most when things are easy. The issue is what's easy for whom. For some it's a lean cuisine dinner, for someone else it's a rule of thumb. Which is why on here, say, Tailoring advice to the person asking a question is important.

But whatever you want to eat as long as it fits does work....
It is a matter of figuring out how many calories you can consume to either gain or lose weight.

Once you track that for a couple weeks and figure out what that number is, then you can fill your diary with whatever foods fill those calories.
And if your body composition is important then you want to hit your macros as well.....

half_moon wrote: »

Clean is indeed different to everybody. Does that mean no GMOs (haha) or does that mean no chemicals? Something straight from the ground -- or definitely no packages or plastic in sight?

When I think of clean food, I think of food grown from the ground. Whether or not it is in a bag, a box, a shelf, or you go out in the wild and pick it; it is in its natural state.

Doritos, canned chili, french fries, etc -- i would not consider those to be as they are from the ground.

I've heard too often that "lean proteins support strong muscles" etc., and despite the "All Foods Are Created Equal" way of thinking (which I take no issue with), there is indeed a type of diet where people stay away from anything "in the isles" at the store, as my sister says. Does MFP prefer the term Paleo? Please tell me how I can be more clear in my question.

True I heard that before and then I thought about the foods on the outside of the grocery stores aisle.

half_moon wrote: »

MityMax96 wrote: »

all foods have calories and all calories are energy......
But food being "equal".....I mean there is a lot you have to establish to determine what is equal, right?

I mean broccoli is a good veggie.....is it equal to chicken breast?
No, of course not.....but both are "healthy".....

All Foods Are Created Equal meaning that if you have 100 calories of broccoli or 100 calories of pizza, it doesn't matter. Only calories matter. Whatever makes you feel better and works for you.

Yes if just looking at calories only.....you are correct.
They are the same....
Macro and Micro nutrient make up of the foods will be different....
but purely from a CI/CO perspective, they are the same......so if you want to gain or lose weight, and you have 100 calories left in your daily intake, either will do.

It's like 100 lbs of feathers or a 100 lbs of rocks.
Both are 100 lbs. You just need a lot more feathers, than you do (most) rocks.

Mr_Knight wrote: »

draznyth wrote: »

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

I gave you the name of the study in my original post on this. If you can't Google it from there....you're beyond my powers of help.

:drinker:

haha hey man if you can bother to give the exact name of a study, but not also include a link to it

well that's just cruel

half_moon wrote: »

Clean is indeed different to everybody. Does that mean no GMOs (haha) or does that mean no chemicals? Something straight from the ground -- or definitely no packages or plastic in sight?

When I think of clean food, I think of food grown from the ground. Whether or not it is in a bag, a box, a shelf, or you go out in the wild and pick it; it is in its natural state.

Doritos, canned chili, french fries, etc -- i would not consider those to be as they are from the ground.

I've heard too often that "lean proteins support strong muscles" etc., and despite the "All Foods Are Created Equal" way of thinking (which I take no issue with), there is indeed a type of diet where people stay away from anything "in the isles" at the store, as my sister says. Does MFP prefer the term Paleo? Please tell me how I can be more clear in my question.

If you are looking for a way to clearly articulate what you mean by "clean" in a way that means the same thing to every person reading your words, that just won't happen. There are at least 20 commonly used interpretations of what "clean" means, just on MFP alone. Every single thread that starts discussing "Clean Eating" devolves into a debate about semantics.

I really think you got the answers to your questions OP, back in the beginning of the thread, about whether it matters if you eat "clean" vs IIFYM. The general consensus was for weight loss, no, it doesn't matter how you eat. Then you asked about body composition, and people said again, you can eat IIFYM, as long as you get enough protein, and incorporate strength training, you will probably get the definition you were looking for on your last go round with weight loss when you said you did primarily cardio and ate whatever you wanted.

I'm not sure what else you think you're going to hear differently, I actually think we have a pretty solid level of agreement for one of these threads, aside from the AA derailment, I think this one should probably just fade off before it turns into something that needs to be locked and/or deleted by mods.

half_moon wrote: »

Clean is indeed different to everybody. Does that mean no GMOs (haha) or does that mean no chemicals? Something straight from the ground -- or definitely no packages or plastic in sight?

When I think of clean food, I think of food grown from the ground. Whether or not it is in a bag, a box, a shelf, or you go out in the wild and pick it; it is in its natural state.

Doritos, canned chili, french fries, etc -- i would not consider those to be as they are from the ground.

I've heard too often that "lean proteins support strong muscles" etc., and despite the "All Foods Are Created Equal" way of thinking (which I take no issue with), there is indeed a type of diet where people stay away from anything "in the isles" at the store, as my sister says. Does MFP prefer the term Paleo? Please tell me how I can be more clear in my question.

Fatty meats can be helpful in promoting satiety; lean proteins are just easier to fit in a tight calorie budget when someone has a huge protein requirement. I personally prefer chicken with skin on than off.

tomatoey wrote: »

@lemurcat12 - first -Am on a phone, sorry.

People like you (and me) who eat moderately, and mostly nutritious foods, are not the issue, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I don't think so either, which is why I think the framing of the argument as "clean" vs. not clean isn't helpful. I'd say the issue is what does a good, balanced, nutritious diet consist of, and how do you get there if you aren't used to eating that way.

IMO--and maybe I am too optimist about the average person's ability to figure stuff out--most people know quite well what a good diet is, that they should eat veggies, and protein and probably less sweets if they are eating a ton or less deep fried stuff if that's the backbone of their diet, etc. Especially once you start looking at your diet and logging most of it is common sense and really requires nothing more complicated than what an elementary school student probably knows about nutrition.

There really are people who lack nutritional and culinary knowledge and experience and are asking for substantive guidance on how to eat for health and weight loss. I saw one recent poster who asked about this, got a ton of "whatever you want as long as it fits" replies, and quit in frustration. She wanted to know *how* she might meet her goals, and there are some answers to that that are more than less helpful.

I don't know, I know lots of people answer these helpfully and I try to. (And to a certain extent my answers include "it's just common sense, don't make it too complicated.")

I mean yes spinach is processed in a plant and placed into a bag but defining it as essentially processed is kind of disingenuous imo. It's a far cry from Doritos which is , I think its fair to say, the kind of thing ppl mean when they think of "junk" food that doesn't serve their goals. Then there's stuff like Lean Cuisine dinners or whatever that's somewhere in between ('re processing intensity, let's say).

My primary argument here is that people should say what they mean.

If they say "don't eat processed foods!" or "processed foods are bad!" they are creating rules that make things needlessly difficult that have NOTHING to do with anything about health or nutrition. As I like to point out, many of the processed foods I eat are foods I choose (like bagged spinach or greek yogurt or, say, boneless, skinless chicken breast or smoked salmon) because they make it easier for me to meet my nutrition goals. If what you really mean is eat more nutrient dense stuff and less low nutrient stuff, why don't people just say that?

I personally cannot stand Lean Cuisines or the like--they don't taste good to me, they seem to have ridiculously small portions, I don't really like the way they smell when my co-workers heat them up in the microwave (I would never say this and I'm sure I eat some weird smelling stuff from time to time). But I think it's silly to deny that they can be helpful to people and are perfectly nutritious as part of an overall balanced diet, etc. So why tell someone that eating them is BAD or the like? That's my problem with the "clean eating" approach. If someone personally chooses not to eat them (like I do), of course that's fine, but it's nothing to preen about.

I don't find "no processed food" or "no sweets ever (except when I'm cheating)" to be good rules of thumb re what good nutrition is. There might be reasons an individual would benefit from quitting sweets for a time or focusing on cooking from whole foods (as I like to), but I wouldn't tell them that's something they must do if they want to have a good diet. I'd say "use common sense, see what you are eating now that you are getting lots of calories from, try to eat a good amount of veggies and adequate protein, think about good sources of fat--because fat is not scary--consider switching to higher fiber/less processed starchy carbs if you enjoy them, fruit is great, and while sweets and other lower nutrient extras are fine in moderation and within your calories if you are eating a whole lot of them or going over your calories you'd probably want to cut down." And I say "it's not rocket science--I grew up thinking of a normal meal as a protein source, a starch, and some veggies and now I tend to plan around a protein source, veggies (I like a lot), and some extra, whether starch or some fruit or dairy or--if keeping it low cal--maybe just more veggies. But I still like to fit in some ice cream or chocolate when I have the calories and have met my other nutrition goals."

lemurcat12 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

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

I see the "clean eating" vs. moderation argument as essentially an argument between those who say it's better to NEVER eat any "processed" foods (regardless of what you actually eat) vs. those who say one should eat a primarily nutritious, balanced diet, but if that happens to include some highly processed foods (or lots of processed foods like most everything is) or some less nutritious extras, there's no harm from that at all.

Thus, my understanding (based on the definitions given by "clean eaters") is that "eating clean" is about NEVER eating certain things, not simply trying to include more fruits and veggies and lean meats and complex carbs.

After all, I do the latter and always recommend the latter--indeed, one of my main problems with "clean eating" is that I think focusing on not eating a few things is the wrong focus if one wants to construct a healthy diet. Focusing on the foods you primarily eat (like adding in enough protein and lots of veggies, shifting to less processed carbs where possible and helpful, so on, as well as seeing where you are getting extra calories and addressing that in general) is IMO a better method for most people and--in particular--one that's more related to actual nutrition than lots of the "NO processed foods!" clean eating silliness.

My problem with the spinach in a bag thing is that I freely admit that I eat processed foods (like the bagged spinach) because I find it helpful, and I think cutting out that stuff often makes it harder for people than it needs to be. But then I get lectured by people who eat just as much or more processed stuff than I do about how they have cut out processed stuff (when they have not, they just have a weird definition) and I should eat healthy like them.

^So much this. I don't even think it's that we so much part ways in how we eat with "clean" eaters, insomuch as how we think about what we eat.

I don't know if the distinctions are ultimately important in the long run or not. I would think it would depend, at least from the perspective of someone making a choice to give the way they eat a title, why they're doing the naming thing in the first place. I'm sure there are many reasons for that.

I will say this much. Anyone "doing" it, just to lose weight or for some surface reason? Not a good idea. I've seen the "Hi I'm back!" posts that include bits about how the returning poster to MFP "stopped eating clean" and "started eating crap" again.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

And you're right that the reality is very likely that "clean" eaters are really eating moderately, and moderate eaters are most likely eating nutritious foods. It's just a preference in terms of *ways of thinking about it*

I think it relates to how you see your own diet vs. others. Why claim to eat clean unless you are asserting that others who don't are eating "unclean"? Especially if you don't, in fact, eat the way you claim to.

I find it quite illuminating that so-called "clean" eaters so often tend to assume that everyone not "eating clean" is eating McD's and Twinkies constantly or occasionally donuts, that we don't care about health or nutrition.

I think that some of that attitude comes from the responses they get. Someone will say they need to cut sugar consumption and then all of a sudden the thread gets hit with people talking about their ice cream...posting gifs with calorie laden desserts. If I didn't know better I would think that they are pushing that type of foods and that was all they ate. Then someone comes along and brags about eating burgers for three days in a row.

I think that sometimes we forget that these people are struggling to find a way to eat where they can stay within their calorie limit and not be hungry. I think that some also forget that for those that have a larger calorie allowance have an easier time fitting the "treats" in where the person that only has 1200-1400...not so easy.

half_moon wrote: »

Clean is indeed different to everybody. Does that mean no GMOs (haha) or does that mean no chemicals? Something straight from the ground -- or definitely no packages or plastic in sight?

When I think of clean food, I think of food grown from the ground. Whether or not it is in a bag, a box, a shelf, or you go out in the wild and pick it; it is in its natural state.

Doritos, canned chili, french fries, etc -- i would not consider those to be as they are from the ground.

I've heard too often that "lean proteins support strong muscles" etc., and despite the "All Foods Are Created Equal" way of thinking (which I take no issue with), there is indeed a type of diet where people stay away from anything "in the isles" at the store, as my sister says. Does MFP prefer the term Paleo? Please tell me how I can be more clear in my question.

I paraphrased your question upthread as basically "does focusing on nutrition make a difference to body comp," but a somewhat different question would be "does limiting highly processed foods vs. eating primarily highly processed foods make a difference to body comp" and yet another would be "does eating mostly from homecooked (or similar) whole foods make a difference to body comp."

My own view is that eating whole foods or limiting highly processed foods MIGHT help an individual eat better (it does me, because I enjoy eating that way more) and might be more satiating, but it's unlikely to make a difference absent that being the case. However, I think focusing on nutrition does make a difference, so if the highly processed foods you are choosing also tend to be low in nutrition and aren't eaten as a moderate part of the overall diet but as the primary diet, then it might be helpful to make a change.

My disagreement with "clean" is that I don't think it matters at all if someone eats mostly nutritious foods vs. ALL nutritious foods and I don't think that being highly processed makes foods low in nutrients. It depends on the particular item.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

And you're right that the reality is very likely that "clean" eaters are really eating moderately, and moderate eaters are most likely eating nutritious foods. It's just a preference in terms of *ways of thinking about it*

I think it relates to how you see your own diet vs. others. Why claim to eat clean unless you are asserting that others who don't are eating "unclean"? Especially if you don't, in fact, eat the way you claim to.

I find it quite illuminating that so-called "clean" eaters so often tend to assume that everyone not "eating clean" is eating McD's and Twinkies constantly or occasionally donuts, that we don't care about health or nutrition.

Because that's how people think. In global, imprecise, sometimes inconsistent terms that may or may not reflect what they actually do. In slogans, if you like. We (all of us, humans) take cognitive shortcuts. It makes parsing the environment (e.g. grocery store) & negotiating day-to-day life easier.

So for some people, thinking about "moderation" as a slogan is helpful. For other people, thinking about "clean" food is helpful.

And there are also probably variations in who actually responds better to whichever diets.

WinoGelato wrote: »

If you are looking for a way to clearly articulate what you mean by "clean" in a way that means the same thing to every person reading your words, that just won't happen. There are at least 20 commonly used interpretations of what "clean" means, just on MFP alone.

Kind of like....

...rain.

"It's raining" means 20 different things to different people, based on what they're used to.

And yet, somehow, magically, discussions about weather don't degenerate into the semantic ****ing contests we have on MFP over "clean".

half_moon wrote: »

Clean is indeed different to everybody. Does that mean no GMOs (haha) or does that mean no chemicals? Something straight from the ground -- or definitely no packages or plastic in sight?

When I think of clean food, I think of food grown from the ground. Whether or not it is in a bag, a box, a shelf, or you go out in the wild and pick it; it is in its natural state.

Doritos, canned chili, french fries, etc -- i would not consider those to be as they are from the ground.

I've heard too often that "lean proteins support strong muscles" etc., and despite the "All Foods Are Created Equal" way of thinking (which I take no issue with), there is indeed a type of diet where people stay away from anything "in the isles" at the store, as my sister says. Does MFP prefer the term Paleo? Please tell me how I can be more clear in my question.

No chemicals? But water is a chemical!