CI/CO vs Clean Eating
Options
Replies
-
Indeed interesting, but unfortunate that the study only had six people in it -- all of which were male.[
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.
Yes, definitely. My original post was more along the lines of -- does the kind of food have an affect on your appearance.
Number of participants does not necessarily matter if the effect is notable enough. There's a reason people calculate a p-value rather than just get a specific number of participants.
Also, yeah, only male studies can have limitations, but are you honestly hypothesis gender alters your ability's fast food versus sports food digestion?0 -
lemurcat12 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.
0 -
I don't think this is a CI/CO or a Clean Eating dichotomy. I think it is a question of variety. Does a variety of foods from all the macros help with your appearance and health? I think so. This can fit in an IIFYM, CICO, or Clean Eating plan.My original post was more along the lines of -- does the kind of food have an affect on your appearance.
There are some diets that try and restrict foods like the gluten-free, paleo, Keto, or vegetarian diets. People who follow these plans will have to take care that they get all their macros in.
Not enough protein, and one sees dry skin, brittle nails, thin hair. Too much protein and one smells. You may be listless if you don't have enough carbohydrates, and enough fats helps keep you fuller longer.
For weight LOSS, one must achieve a lower CI to CO.
For appearance and health, I've seen the greatest benefit from exercise, not food. Pinks my cheeks. Improved my stamina.0 -
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.0 -
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.
As a rule, I find eating by slogans to be pretty, well, silly. That whole eating in the aisles thing doesn't hold up when you think about it.
Instead of claiming to be a clean eater (because I'm not), I just call myself a scratch cook. I prefer my own cooking, and since I have celiac disease, more often than not, it's the best option for me to make things for myself. I get a lot of things from the inner aisles of the grocery store like gluten free oats, bean pasta, tea and coffee, canned tomatoes, olive oil, nuts and seeds, organic veggie broth, dried and canned beans, dried herbs, and canned pumpkin puree. There is nothing wrong with any of these ingredients.
Focus on nutrition.
Eat food you like that has the most nutrition you can get for your calories.
Have some treats now and then, life is short and chocolate is tasty.
Those are sayings I can get behind.
0 -
lemurcat12 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.0 -
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".
0 -
lemurcat12 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.
But I'm asking here why make those assumptions about people who don't eat clean. Why do they always go immediately from someone saying "it's okay to include some less nutrient dense foods in an overall balanced, healthy diet that meets micros and macros and is calorie appropriate" to "they are saying it's the same to eat all donuts as all broccoli!" (For the record both would be stupid choices.) This seems to want to make rather uncharitable and offensive assumptions about other people, simply because they don't self-define as "clean eaters."
And I've had those assumptions stated about me even after I explained that I think eating with attention to nutrition is important and that I wouldn't call myself a "clean eater" in part because "processed" foods include foods like, well, greek yogurt and bagged spinach.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.
I don't disagree with this in general. I don't see how the term "clean" helps particularly vs. the old standby "healthy." It seems to add on either some element of religious thinking or else some effort to create disgust (these two things are related) by thinking of the food the person wants not to want as "dirty" or "unclean." Which again I think tends to be somewhat harmful and also rude when it comes to the characterizations of others.And there are also probably variations in who actually responds better to whichever diets.
I'm not convinced we are really talking about different ways of eating.
But yeah, I know that the way the term "clean" rubs me the wrong way is kind of like my version of tilting at windmills. ;-)0 -
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!
0 -
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!
BE CAREFUL!!!!
dhmo.org/facts.html0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
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.
...
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.
I agree that my question was answered. I enjoy some of the additional comments and perspectives people are leaving, though, and am not claiming my question went unanswered. I always enjoy the knowledge and perspective of those who have more experience-- so thank you again for your help. Even if we did have to wade through rather confusing conversations to get the answers I was seeking.
I hope the mods do not delete this thread and see no real reason for them to. There is a lot of great information here -- information that I searched for previously and was unable to find before posting.
0 -
BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition; the poor body is screaming for nutrients which it never gets and therefore the person is never satisfied and always eating. If we all ate properly there would be no reason to count calories. And eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
i
Oh boy, it's this guy.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition; the poor body is screaming for nutrients which it never gets and therefore the person is never satisfied and always eating. If we all ate properly there would be no reason to count calories. And eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
i
Oh boy, it's this guy.
He lost me at lard. But I'm willing to learn more about this idea... The body is always hungry searching for nutrients, so the human remains hungry. I could roll with that, possibly.0 -
BILLBRYTAN wrote: »
Yes, the guy who tells the truth and refuses to be bullied by misguided public opinion.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition; the poor body is screaming for nutrients which it never gets and therefore the person is never satisfied and always eating. If we all ate properly there would be no reason to count calories. And eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
i
Oh boy, it's this guy.
More like the guy who likes to rustle jimmies and flame-bait.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The only problem I have with CICO is that obesity is not caused by excessive caloric intake; it is caused by malnutrition; the poor body is screaming for nutrients which it never gets and therefore the person is never satisfied and always eating. If we all ate properly there would be no reason to count calories. And eating properly is incredibly easy: cook with lard instead of oil and stop using anything refined and white.
i
Oh boy, it's this guy.
He lost me at lard. But I'm willing to learn more about this idea... The body is always hungry searching for nutrients, so the human remains hungry. I could roll with that, possibly.
That particular poster is not the one from whom you want to be getting that information.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions