CI/CO vs Clean Eating

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.

Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.

P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.

Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.

P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.

You wouldn't call this (THE cookbook, in my opinion) a clean cookbook?

(removed image)

BILLBRYTAN wrote: »

The Center for Disease Control states that two out of every three Americans are overweight today, and 35% of those individuals fall into the category of obese. While many place the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the individuals, there are many factors other than personal choice and will power that influence what we eat. One of them is malnutrition.

We don’t usually think of a person who is overweight as someone who is malnourished. Historically malnourishment was associated with underweight and starvation. The National Institutes of Health define malnutrition as the condition that occurs when your body does not get enough nutrients. That can occur even when one is eating enormous amounts of foods ,when the foods have little or no nutritional value.

The human brain is incredibly intelligent and sensitive to what goes on in the body. It will signal the lungs to breathe, the kidneys to flush, the liver to detox. It also monitors the nutrients that may or may not be present in the bloodstream. When your diet primarily consists of low-nutrient foods, your brain will not be happy with what your body has to work with and It will make you hungry.

Here are a few examples of what happens to you when you eat foods with few nutrients:

you will initially feel energized, but within an hour or so you will begin to feel hungary and/or tired
you will be distracted by your hunger, unable to focus and concentrate
if you eat more low nutrient foods, you will repeat the cycle of energy and fatigue
over the course of the day, you will consume many calories but few nutrients
you will become overweight, tired and hungry
Low nutrient foods are highly processed foods. They usually come in a box. High nutrient foods are fresh foods like fruits, vegetables and whole grains. You might also add beans, quality meat, fish, poultry, eggs and nuts to a list of high nutrient foods.

Here is what happens when you eat high nutrient foods:

You will be consuming multiple nutrients and fiber that work together to provide satiety and energy
you will feel energized and focused between meals
you will not feel hungry or tired between meals
You will find that because quality foods have a better ratio of nutrients to calories, you won’t overeat. (It’s easy to eat a big bag of low nutrient chips but highly unlikely you will eat a bag of apples in one sitting)

There is often a sense of shame or embarrassment associated with obesity. When you come to the understanding that the underlying cause may be malnourishment, then you can make changes in your food that will eliminate hunger and low energy and begin to shed unwanted pounds. .

PeachyCarol wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I think what we are really talking about is some people eat absurd diets (and assume everyone else does) and rather than merely cutting down on sugar or fast food or the like cut it out and of course feel better. And they assume that most people ate like they used to when of course most people do not and most people know what a healthy diet is. There's no real need to go from 100% fast food (or sugar) to none, and if you do chances are you will miss it. I don't eat fast food and don't miss it because I never really ate much and don't like it, but that's why making some big point about cutting it out is not interesting to me. My guess is for those whom that's a big thing it's not a good approach. Similarly, I didn't find cutting out added sugar a big thing, so added it back in. If someone really eats so much that's a big deal, they are going to want it again. (And personally I did, and see no reason not to have it.)

I think the diet you call absurd is more common than you think. A lot of people eat too much food that is low-value/low-satiety/low-nutrient. I think that is why there is an obesity epidemic. It's true that some might gain on what people call "clean" foods, but it's way harder to do that. Check out forums here and elsewhere, where bodybuilders strive to consume as much as possible on a "clean" diet for their gainz. It's simply not as easy to pound down 3000 calories of chicken and broccoli as it is to overindulge on chicken wings and fries, or pasta carbonara (with garlic bread, and a dessert...). Satiety tends to level off when people eat a certain way. I don't even want to give it a name at this point (Also - I am not saying everyone should eat chicken and broccoli.)

I think we actually agreed that the holy rollers who eat 0% treats are probably few, and that most people wind up doing 80/20, and use these different heuristics to think through their meals and days. I'm not bothered if they're not entirely self-consistent, as long as they're seeing results that promote normal weight (and health). I really haven't noticed rudeness, so I can't speak to that.

Curious: what offends you about people looking for recipes? Or about the idea that some people don't know how to cook? It's a fact, there are people who don't know how to cook. Or people who cooked in ways that didn't serve their goals and now want to learn something else.

[Deleted a bunch of comments because the nested quotes weren't quoting well.]

I agree that bad diets are common, after all, that's why we have the term Standard American Diet.

The Standard American Diet in 3 Simple Charts

US obesity and diabetes rates are among the globe's very highest. Why? On her blog, the NYU nutritionist and food-politics expert Marion Nestle recently pointed (hat-tip, RealFood.org) to this telling chart on how we spend our grocery money, from the USDA's Amber Waves publication:



So, we do a pretty good job eating enough potatoes. But the healthier, more brightly colored vegetables like kale and carrots, no so much. We spend four times the amount on refined grains the USDA thinks is proper, and about a fifth of the target expenditure in whole grains. We spend nearly 14 percent of our at-home food budgets on sugar and candies, and another 8 percent on premade frozen and fridge entrees. Whole fruit barley accounts for less than 5 percent of our grocery bill. And so on—a pretty dismal picture.

That chart deals with at-home expenditures. What about our food choices out in the world? The USDA article has more. This chart shows that we're getting more and more of our sustenance outside of our own kitchens:



And while the article doesn't offer comparable data to the above at-home chart about expenditures outside the home, it does deliver evidence that our eating out habits are pretty dire as well:

Pointless in context of the boards. As is the issue, really, of the general obesity epidemic in this discussion.

Waving SAD around is a strawman in a lot of discussions around here.

If you compare how you eat vs. SAD while you're discussing things with a bunch of other conscientiously dieting people, how exactly are they supposed to interpret your comments?

What does SAD have to do with this whole discussion? What does what the general public eats have to do when it comes down to what to do when it comes to losing fat (which is, after all, the topic of the thread)?

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Hypsibius wrote: »

I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).

Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.

Have you read this thread at all?

Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?

Round and round we go...

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Hypsibius wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Hypsibius wrote: »

I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).

Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.

Have you read this thread at all?

Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?

Round and round we go...

I... I.... used to eat a primarily hot pocket-based diet and I'm not terribly proud of it . Needless to say radical change was needed.

But would you say that someone who eats a varied and balanced diet which meets nutritional needs, leads an active lifestyle, and occasionally a Hot Pocket, would be less healthy or feel worse than you, who never eats Hot Pockets?

Hypsibius wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Hypsibius wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Hypsibius wrote: »

I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).

Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.

Have you read this thread at all?

Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?

Round and round we go...

I... I.... used to eat a primarily hot pocket-based diet and I'm not terribly proud of it . Needless to say radical change was needed.

But would you say that someone who eats a varied and balanced diet which meets nutritional needs, leads an active lifestyle, and occasionally a Hot Pocket, would be less healthy or feel worse than you, who never eats Hot Pockets?

Oh no, of course not. I'm not crazy.

I had one of these a month ago and I'm still happy and healthy:

[yummy doughnut chicken sandwich]

kshama2001 wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I think what we are really talking about is some people eat absurd diets (and assume everyone else does) and rather than merely cutting down on sugar or fast food or the like cut it out and of course feel better. And they assume that most people ate like they used to when of course most people do not and most people know what a healthy diet is. There's no real need to go from 100% fast food (or sugar) to none, and if you do chances are you will miss it. I don't eat fast food and don't miss it because I never really ate much and don't like it, but that's why making some big point about cutting it out is not interesting to me. My guess is for those whom that's a big thing it's not a good approach. Similarly, I didn't find cutting out added sugar a big thing, so added it back in. If someone really eats so much that's a big deal, they are going to want it again. (And personally I did, and see no reason not to have it.)

I think the diet you call absurd is more common than you think. A lot of people eat too much food that is low-value/low-satiety/low-nutrient. I think that is why there is an obesity epidemic. It's true that some might gain on what people call "clean" foods, but it's way harder to do that. Check out forums here and elsewhere, where bodybuilders strive to consume as much as possible on a "clean" diet for their gainz. It's simply not as easy to pound down 3000 calories of chicken and broccoli as it is to overindulge on chicken wings and fries, or pasta carbonara (with garlic bread, and a dessert...). Satiety tends to level off when people eat a certain way. I don't even want to give it a name at this point (Also - I am not saying everyone should eat chicken and broccoli.)

I think we actually agreed that the holy rollers who eat 0% treats are probably few, and that most people wind up doing 80/20, and use these different heuristics to think through their meals and days. I'm not bothered if they're not entirely self-consistent, as long as they're seeing results that promote normal weight (and health). I really haven't noticed rudeness, so I can't speak to that.

Curious: what offends you about people looking for recipes? Or about the idea that some people don't know how to cook? It's a fact, there are people who don't know how to cook. Or people who cooked in ways that didn't serve their goals and now want to learn something else.

[Deleted a bunch of comments because the nested quotes weren't quoting well.]

I agree that bad diets are common, after all, that's why we have the term Standard American Diet.

The Standard American Diet in 3 Simple Charts

US obesity and diabetes rates are among the globe's very highest. Why? On her blog, the NYU nutritionist and food-politics expert Marion Nestle recently pointed (hat-tip, RealFood.org) to this telling chart on how we spend our grocery money, from the USDA's Amber Waves publication:



So, we do a pretty good job eating enough potatoes. But the healthier, more brightly colored vegetables like kale and carrots, no so much. We spend four times the amount on refined grains the USDA thinks is proper, and about a fifth of the target expenditure in whole grains. We spend nearly 14 percent of our at-home food budgets on sugar and candies, and another 8 percent on premade frozen and fridge entrees. Whole fruit barley accounts for less than 5 percent of our grocery bill. And so on—a pretty dismal picture.

That chart deals with at-home expenditures. What about our food choices out in the world? The USDA article has more. This chart shows that we're getting more and more of our sustenance outside of our own kitchens:



And while the article doesn't offer comparable data to the above at-home chart about expenditures outside the home, it does deliver evidence that our eating out habits are pretty dire as well:

Pointless in context of the boards. As is the issue, really, of the general obesity epidemic in this discussion.

Waving SAD around is a strawman in a lot of discussions around here.

If you compare how you eat vs. SAD while you're discussing things with a bunch of other conscientiously dieting people, how exactly are they supposed to interpret your comments?

What does SAD have to do with this whole discussion? What does what the general public eats have to do when it comes down to what to do when it comes to losing fat (which is, after all, the topic of the thread)?

While the regulars may be "conscientiously dieting people," it's a stretch to apply this to all new posters as well, judging from what I see in their diaries and questions.

J72FIT wrote: »

Hypsibius wrote: »

Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.

I don't think anyone is suggesting eating nothing but hot pockets. That said, if you have hit your macros/micros and feel like a hot pocket, there is nothing inherently unhealthy about that...