CICO vs. "clean eating"
Options
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »They aren't really the same thing, but I do think clean eating is important. A lot of people on here are only interested in CICO and say it doesn't really matter as long as it fits your calories or macros. That's true for weight loss, but there are so many other aspects to health other than weight. I think it's a lot easy to stay under your calorie goal when you eat mostly clean, and also it's better to eat foods that provide you nutrients, vitamins, etc. than something calorie dense but providing nothing to benefit you other than energy.
These threads always reach the exact same dead end.
Go ask a vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a raw vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a vegetarian what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a paleo dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a keto dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask an IIFYM'er what "clean eating" is.
You'd get a different answer from every single one of them. Some foods that a paleo, keto or IIFYM'er considers perfectly "clean" would be anathema to a veg*an. Some foods that a veg*an considers "clean" would be off limits to many paleo/keto dieters. And so on.
"Clean eating" is a ridiculous, nebulous, undefinable concept. It's an emotionally charged phrase and has pseudoscience and fearmongering woven all through it. Each one of the groups above would most likely claim that theirs is the "healthiest" way to eat, and they would all have their own reasons why they believe that (whether they're supported by science or not).
Once upon a time in the What is Clean Eating debate thread someone attempted a venn diagram to see what could be agreed on. Non-starchy vegetables was the only thing left at the center, and even that gets blown out of the water by gmo/organic/pesticide debates.
and things you cant pronounce debates.
What if I have a lisp and I cant pronounce spinach - should I not eat it??
Admittedly the things you cant pronounce is one of the sillier definitions - as is aisles of the supermarket.
If people want to make reasonable definitions for themselves about the actual foods - not the words or the layout of the store - and then they focus on fresh fruit/vegetables/ home cooked meals, etc - that is well and good.
For me, I see no need to have a definition or to try to eat clean.
I try to eat a reasonably balanced healthy diet - but I do not avoid cake, lollies chocolate, frozen meals etc - in moderation.
I am a healthy BMI and I do not have any medical conditions - so that is good enough for me.
3 -
broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Study done with a kansas state nutrition professor who ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories. If you've seen the documentary supersize me then I suggest watching fathead. Where the guy does the same "nothing but fast food" diet in a caloric deficit and debunks supersize me. Both cases the people not only lose weight but also become healthier.
http://jamesclear.com/junk-food-science
Pretty good little article on junk food, how to change those eating habits, and why we do binge eat them.
The thing with any diet is finding the diet that works for you. Diets aren't for everyone. With CICO the "standard" is eating whatever you want as long as you stay in a deficit but really any diet is CICO. This works for some people however if you don't have your eating habits under control I feel as if that diet is a mistake. You'll always get those people "its all about willpower" who make it seem like its some simple feat to achieve. There are a number of people I know who just can't do "CICO." They can't just have that 1 piece of cake without over indulging. That's when I will suggest to them clean eating. Am I saying to do this forever? No however until you have your eating habits under control it can be a huge downfall for many.
But this is going right back to confusing calories in vs calories out with a specific "diet", and separating "clean eating" from the basics of weight loss/gain. If you eat "clean" and consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight. If you eat "clean" and consume fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. The same if you eat paleo, keto, vegan or McDonalds. CICO is not a diet or a way of eating, it's a fundamental energy equation. Nothing more. It applies no matter how or what you eat. Always.3 -
broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Study done with a kansas state nutrition professor who ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories. If you've seen the documentary supersize me then I suggest watching fathead. Where the guy does the same "nothing but fast food" diet in a caloric deficit and debunks supersize me. Both cases the people not only lose weight but also become healthier.
http://jamesclear.com/junk-food-science
Pretty good little article on junk food, how to change those eating habits, and why we do binge eat them.
The thing with any diet is finding the diet that works for you. Diets aren't for everyone. With CICO the "standard" is eating whatever you want as long as you stay in a deficit but really any diet is CICO. This works for some people however if you don't have your eating habits under control I feel as if that diet is a mistake. You'll always get those people "its all about willpower" who make it seem like its some simple feat to achieve. There are a number of people I know who just can't do "CICO." They can't just have that 1 piece of cake without over indulging. That's when I will suggest to them clean eating. Am I saying to do this forever? No however until you have your eating habits under control it can be a huge downfall for many.
But this is going right back to confusing calories in vs calories out with a specific "diet", and separating "clean eating" from the basics of weight loss/gain. If you eat "clean" and consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight. If you eat "clean" and consume fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. The same if you eat paleo, keto, vegan or McDonalds. CICO is not a diet or a way of eating, it's a fundamental energy equation. Nothing more. It applies no matter how or what you eat. Always.
I agree thats what CICO actually is. However people do consider CICO to be a diet. With the belief that you can eat whatever you want as long as you're in a deficit. Became popular with the whole pop tart debacle.0 -
broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Study done with a kansas state nutrition professor who ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories. If you've seen the documentary supersize me then I suggest watching fathead. Where the guy does the same "nothing but fast food" diet in a caloric deficit and debunks supersize me. Both cases the people not only lose weight but also become healthier.
http://jamesclear.com/junk-food-science
Pretty good little article on junk food, how to change those eating habits, and why we do binge eat them.
The thing with any diet is finding the diet that works for you. Diets aren't for everyone. With CICO the "standard" is eating whatever you want as long as you stay in a deficit but really any diet is CICO. This works for some people however if you don't have your eating habits under control I feel as if that diet is a mistake. You'll always get those people "its all about willpower" who make it seem like its some simple feat to achieve. There are a number of people I know who just can't do "CICO." They can't just have that 1 piece of cake without over indulging. That's when I will suggest to them clean eating. Am I saying to do this forever? No however until you have your eating habits under control it can be a huge downfall for many.
But this is going right back to confusing calories in vs calories out with a specific "diet", and separating "clean eating" from the basics of weight loss/gain. If you eat "clean" and consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight. If you eat "clean" and consume fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. The same if you eat paleo, keto, vegan or McDonalds. CICO is not a diet or a way of eating, it's a fundamental energy equation. Nothing more. It applies no matter how or what you eat. Always.
I agree thats what CICO actually is. However people do consider CICO to be a diet. With the belief that you can eat whatever you want as long as you're in a deficit. Became popular with the whole pop tart debacle.
Some people do consider the moon landing to have never taken place.
It doesn't make them right or entitle them to define what history gets written.
Edit: You can eat whatever you want as long as you're in a deficit if that's your jam. You're still conflating health & nutrition with what you eat vs. what you burn. They are two separate issues. The yardstick the ladies at the fabric counter measure a fabric with has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of fabric it is or the properties it will bring to its intended use.
4 -
broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Study done with a kansas state nutrition professor who ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories. If you've seen the documentary supersize me then I suggest watching fathead. Where the guy does the same "nothing but fast food" diet in a caloric deficit and debunks supersize me. Both cases the people not only lose weight but also become healthier.
http://jamesclear.com/junk-food-science
Pretty good little article on junk food, how to change those eating habits, and why we do binge eat them.
The thing with any diet is finding the diet that works for you. Diets aren't for everyone. With CICO the "standard" is eating whatever you want as long as you stay in a deficit but really any diet is CICO. This works for some people however if you don't have your eating habits under control I feel as if that diet is a mistake. You'll always get those people "its all about willpower" who make it seem like its some simple feat to achieve. There are a number of people I know who just can't do "CICO." They can't just have that 1 piece of cake without over indulging. That's when I will suggest to them clean eating. Am I saying to do this forever? No however until you have your eating habits under control it can be a huge downfall for many.
But this is going right back to confusing calories in vs calories out with a specific "diet", and separating "clean eating" from the basics of weight loss/gain. If you eat "clean" and consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight. If you eat "clean" and consume fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. The same if you eat paleo, keto, vegan or McDonalds. CICO is not a diet or a way of eating, it's a fundamental energy equation. Nothing more. It applies no matter how or what you eat. Always.
I agree thats what CICO actually is. However people do consider CICO to be a diet. With the belief that you can eat whatever you want as long as you're in a deficit. Became popular with the whole pop tart debacle.
OK, so what do you tell people who follow your advice to eat your version of "clean" and continue to gain? Cut out another food group? It sounds like you believe eating "clean" has magical weight loss properties, which isn't doing the people you pass this advice on to any favors.1 -
broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Study done with a kansas state nutrition professor who ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories. If you've seen the documentary supersize me then I suggest watching fathead. Where the guy does the same "nothing but fast food" diet in a caloric deficit and debunks supersize me. Both cases the people not only lose weight but also become healthier.
http://jamesclear.com/junk-food-science
Pretty good little article on junk food, how to change those eating habits, and why we do binge eat them.
The thing with any diet is finding the diet that works for you. Diets aren't for everyone. With CICO the "standard" is eating whatever you want as long as you stay in a deficit but really any diet is CICO. This works for some people however if you don't have your eating habits under control I feel as if that diet is a mistake. You'll always get those people "its all about willpower" who make it seem like its some simple feat to achieve. There are a number of people I know who just can't do "CICO." They can't just have that 1 piece of cake without over indulging. That's when I will suggest to them clean eating. Am I saying to do this forever? No however until you have your eating habits under control it can be a huge downfall for many.
But this is going right back to confusing calories in vs calories out with a specific "diet", and separating "clean eating" from the basics of weight loss/gain. If you eat "clean" and consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight. If you eat "clean" and consume fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. The same if you eat paleo, keto, vegan or McDonalds. CICO is not a diet or a way of eating, it's a fundamental energy equation. Nothing more. It applies no matter how or what you eat. Always.
I agree thats what CICO actually is. However people do consider CICO to be a diet. With the belief that you can eat whatever you want as long as you're in a deficit. Became popular with the whole pop tart debacle.
OK, so what do you tell people who follow your advice to eat your version of "clean" and continue to gain? Cut out another food group? It sounds like you believe eating "clean" has magical weight loss properties, which isn't doing the people you pass this advice on to any favors.
Where in my post did I ever say eating clean is some magic to weight loss. The first link I posted even displays the opposite of that. Where they eat little debbie snack cakes as their primary source of calories and another where a guy is eating nothing but fast food in deficits. As I said in both cases they lost weight and got healthier..
My advice was to try a multitude of diets and see which one works for you. That if you can't eat something like a piece of cake without over indulging then you shouldn't eat cake until you have things under control.
Again I agree that CICO isn't a diet however the OP clearly was refering to CICO as a diet, we all know what they mean't by asking CICO VS Clean eating. The 2 links I posted was to display both worlds. That each diet works as long as they are in deficits.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cuadrado12 wrote: »I have always considered "clean eating" to mean minimally processed. There are plenty of grains out there that fall into that category.
I think eating less processed items (like whole foods without added ingredients, added sugar etc.) is really important. You could make extremely poor food choices, be unhealthy, and still meet weight goals / fall within a specific calorie range. You can also be very thin on the outside and be unhealthy on the inside.
I also think that keeping track of calories for just a little bit can give you some perspective into how certain items (like soda, desserts, alcohol) can really be deterring your health goals. I also think you can get some great bang for your buck with eating healthier items. I am not a fan of CICO as a permanent thing, but I think it's a great teaching tool starting out.
If the underlying premise is that a non-whole food or a food with added ingredients or a food with added sugar is automatically a poor choice or will lead to poor health, then I reject that. I don't think there is any evidence to support the claim that these foods, in and of themselves, will lead to poor health.
If I'm meeting my nutritional needs and including some white rice or protein powder or jam sweetened with fruit juice or a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee in my diet, how is that going to hurt me? If I dress a salad with some olive oil, a non-whole food, how is that going to cause harm?
The choice isn't "eat poorly" or "only eat clean foods." There is a whole range of eating between those two choice and those of us who include non-whole foods in our diets aren't necessarily compromising our health.
I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I was really just alluding to the people who only care about calories.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »They aren't really the same thing, but I do think clean eating is important. A lot of people on here are only interested in CICO and say it doesn't really matter as long as it fits your calories or macros. That's true for weight loss, but there are so many other aspects to health other than weight. I think it's a lot easy to stay under your calorie goal when you eat mostly clean, and also it's better to eat foods that provide you nutrients, vitamins, etc. than something calorie dense but providing nothing to benefit you other than energy.
These threads always reach the exact same dead end.
Go ask a vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a raw vegan what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a vegetarian what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a paleo dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask a keto dieter what "clean eating" is.
Go ask an IIFYM'er what "clean eating" is.
You'd get a different answer from every single one of them. Some foods that a paleo, keto or IIFYM'er considers perfectly "clean" would be anathema to a veg*an. Some foods that a veg*an considers "clean" would be off limits to many paleo/keto dieters. And so on.
"Clean eating" is a ridiculous, nebulous, undefinable concept. It's an emotionally charged phrase and has pseudoscience and fearmongering woven all through it. Each one of the groups above would most likely claim that theirs is the "healthiest" way to eat, and they would all have their own reasons why they believe that (whether they're supported by science or not).
Once upon a time in the What is Clean Eating debate thread someone attempted a venn diagram to see what could be agreed on. Non-starchy vegetables was the only thing left at the center, and even that gets blown out of the water by gmo/organic/pesticide debates.
And wouldn't the non-starchy vegetable have to be fresh (not processed, not frozen, not canned, not dried) and grown within 100 miles of your home (to satisfy the "eat-local" clean eaters), which would mean the Venn Diagram clean eaters would all have to move to arable land near enough to the equator to have a year-round growing season, which would require amazingly dense housing circling and threading through the arable land? And, I'm not sure, but I really don't think non-starchy vegetables are among the more calorie-dense-per-acre foods. Could the bodies of people who starved to death trying to survive year-round on unprocessed locally grown non-starchy vegetables (in competition with other people trying to eat clean) be used as organic fertilizer?
I think people who want to eat clean would be wise to keep it a secret, especially the VDCErs (Venn Diagram Clean Eaters). They don't need competition for the locally grown non-starchy greens.3 -
Misschellechelle: I'm gonna skip the debate and just answer your question. Some lucky people can just "eat less" and lose what they need to. Or some lucky people can just cut back on carbs and restrict sugar (eat cleaner) and in a month or so, the extra 10 pounds is gone.
If you've never needed to lose weight before, it might work out best to opt for whatever your definition of clean eating is, and skip the calorie counting. Assume you'll be one of the lucky ones! But you really have to be honest with yourself at every meal. Are you really eating less than usual?
I think people eat "clean" because they are trying to be in tune with what their body really needs in order to function best. And they want to shut off the inappropriate messages their brain is giving them to eat unhealthy foods. New habits take about a month to form, and during that time, your brain actually grows new neural pathways to support the new habit.
You'll know within a week if you can be successful without counting calories.
Good luck with that 10 pounds and regaining optimum health!
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »skinny1soon wrote: »IMO, I think a more important question is, why aren't more people using CICO and CE together? CICO is necessary to lose weight but I think quality of food is equally important. I would think that using them together would compound success. Again, just my opinion.
As for long term, I feel that after you have done CICO for so long you start to know what is the right amount to maintain your weight. Listen to your body, and adjust portions accordingly whether you be CE or not.
Most of us here would advocate a diet rich in nutrient dense foods and probably even follow an 80/20 rule, but to different people clean eating means different things. If you look at the link I posted originally, you will get the understand.
I"m not arguing that fact.
I don't like the term mainly because it has a lot of gray areas. Would it mean the same to a vegan, paleo, LCHF, etc...? And my other issue is it doesn't guarantee that it will support ones goals. I know a lot of people who complain about not losing weight be eating clean and they don't understand it. And then they look at my diet and can't figure out why I lose 1 lb a week. Essentially, the industry (and more so bloggers/youtubers who dont' have a clue) have confused people so much, that they make it hard to lose weight. And then people fail to address the most important and basic requirement of weight loss... addressing the energy balance requirement (eating less than you burn).
When I train people, i tend to recommend small steps. And step one is always figuring out actual caloric needs.
I agree, as I said above in a few replies my view of CE is different then what others would consider CE. My question is more based on what we as individuals view as CE. Which looking back probably should have specified. I assumed people were on the same page as CE being what we personal believe CE to be, and not a general rule with a list.
My definition of clean eating:
A diet predominately of whole fresh food eg meat, fish, fruit, veggies, eggs, nuts, cold pressed oils. Whole grains (which ironically come in packets and tins... see below), rice, pasta, beans, legumes etc
No packet meals eg frozen ready meals, meals in boxes/packets/tins.
Then there's stuff like yogurt and milk, which i consider healthy, but again comes in packages. The whole clean eating thing just gets too damn confusing
In a nutshell, stay away from "super" processed food, and made man made foods, stick to things that are found in nature..
Please dont shoot me for this list, I'm just putting forth my definition of clean eating. And no, I am not a clean eater, one day maybe...
Good Lord, was i half asleep when i wrote this post!!?? Typo's galore and sentences in the wrong places2
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
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions