effects of equal cal/macro meals "clean vs dirty"

2»

Replies

  • sweet110
    sweet110 Posts: 332 Member
    I have no idea why people are still doing it!

    $

    Sigh. Continue forth with your sense of certitude. People who don't do science don't know how science get's done, or how it progresses. Unless you're a Nazi, its messy. Contradictory. Requires replication. And has tradeoffs. No one result is right. And they all have at least one problems with bias, power, generalizability, etc. Whether lab, RCT, or observational. They all have their place. But NONE are completely "right."

    But hey. Certitude is better than science.
  • badgerbadger1
    badgerbadger1 Posts: 954 Member
    This is precisely why scientists put the most stock in meta-analysis. A single study is worthless in comparison. Especially a sample that is statistically insignificant and does not monitor long term results. You know, for more than an hour.

    You can find single studies to support any position, which is precisely why a meta-analysis is highly regarded.
  • kimberleylorna
    kimberleylorna Posts: 5
    agree! a cal is not a cal!

    sorry chris but eating clean should still be the goal. The chances are that the "dirty" food are more processed. therefore your fibre content is probably smaller and the GI higher, meaning you wont feel as full for as long and your chances of bowel cancer (for example) are higher.

    That said, an occasional meal out should be encouraged. If we dont break out every so often, we end up rebelling and completely falling off the bandwagon. I've been a "madonna-diet" follower for years. 6 days a week i'm as clean as can be, and 1 day a week i am dirty all the way. that way i never feel deprived and i look forward to my dirty day!

    And for the record, for every study that says one thing, there will always be another that shows the opposite! In the end - let common sense prevail!
  • sweet110
    sweet110 Posts: 332 Member
    Here's the study that the article quoted on refined grains lowering metabolism in animals ( i couldn't find the human study they said he did)

    Long-term effects of dietary glycemic index on adiposity, energy metabolism, and physical activity in mice. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Nov;295(5):E1126-31. Epub 2008 Sep 9.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2584816/?tool=pubmed

    Now the question i pose to you, are mice metabolic pathways the same as humans, particularly in regards to DNL?

    Look at the link I posted above to the human study. Its pretty cool. AND, for all you science purists, its a LAB study.

    It doesn't hold macros constant as you allege
    The meals selected for this study were standardized for overall energy content, which resulted in a small discrepancy in the macronutrient composition. Protein is generally accepted to require the greatest energy expenditure in DIT (20–30%), followed by carbohydrates (5–10%), and fats (0–3%) (9). Taking this into account, the significant findings of this study could be influenced by the 5% greater protein content of the WF meal (Table 2).


    ...AND, all studies have limitations. Which these authors, being scientists, pointed out. But that effect size is HUGE! 50%? The magnitude of that effect is something...well, almost never seen in nutritional studies. And the difference in macronutrient composition was a "small discrepancy." Probably means that the 50% figure isn't reliable, but that effect size is not to be discounted. Dude. Not certitude. But that's pretty cool.

    Alright cats and kittens. This has been fun! I've never done anything like this before. I've seen it done. But no one ever told me how FUN it was.

    But, alas, also a time sink. I don't think I'll do this too often. Because, really, whose mind was changed? That's the problem with this sort of thing. I trot out my studies...you trot out yours. They all have limitations...but whose limitations are more damning? Besides, we're coming from different worlds. You..orthorexic body builders. Me...fast food eating calorie counters. Your lesson is to tell people to not be so anal about the occasional Micky D's. My lesson is that I lose weight watching what I eat rather than how much I eat.

    Its all good.

    Toodles.
  • questionablemethods
    questionablemethods Posts: 2,174 Member
    This is precisely why scientists put the most stock in meta-analysis. A single study is worthless in comparison. Especially a sample that is statistically insignificant and does not monitor long term results. You know, for more than an hour.

    You can find single studies to support any position, which is precisely why a meta-analysis is highly regarded.
    Even meta-analyses can be problematic and subject to a lot of bias depending upon the inclusion/exclusion criteria.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    agree! a cal is not a cal!

    sorry chris but eating clean should still be the goal. The chances are that the "dirty" food are more processed. therefore your fibre content is probably smaller and the GI higher, meaning you wont feel as full for as long and your chances of bowel cancer (for example) are higher.

    That said, an occasional meal out should be encouraged. If we dont break out every so often, we end up rebelling and completely falling off the bandwagon. I've been a "madonna-diet" follower for years. 6 days a week i'm as clean as can be, and 1 day a week i am dirty all the way. that way i never feel deprived and i look forward to my dirty day!

    And for the record, for every study that says one thing, there will always be another that shows the opposite! In the end - let common sense prevail!


    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/453817-low-gi-vs-high-gi-diet-satiety-energy-intake-bw?page=1

    I'm not & the article is not saying to base you're diet around "dirty" foods. It's simply saying that eating one meal that is "dirty" that fits into your macro/calorie goals is not going to be detrimental to your weight loss/gain goals.

    sweet110: LOL@ calling acg67 an orthorexic bodybuilder. Clearly haven't been in the post your meals thread.
  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    Because, really, whose mind was changed? That's the problem with this sort of thing. I trot out my studies...you trot out yours.

    Don't want to change minds or tell someone else what to think. I like when they become interested enough to do their own research. You're really not such an *kitten*. :smile:
  • badgerbadger1
    badgerbadger1 Posts: 954 Member
    This is precisely why scientists put the most stock in meta-analysis. A single study is worthless in comparison. Especially a sample that is statistically insignificant and does not monitor long term results. You know, for more than an hour.

    You can find single studies to support any position, which is precisely why a meta-analysis is highly regarded.
    Even meta-analyses can be problematic and subject to a lot of bias depending upon the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

    Well no way. Still x1000 times better than a single study of 6 people over one hour. That was my point.
  • vs1023
    vs1023 Posts: 417 Member
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html


    This study basically backs up what I’ve been saying for years: a single fast food meal, within the context of a calorie controlled diet, is not death on a plate. It won’t destroy your diet and it won’t make you immediately turn into a big fat pile of blubber. And, frankly, this can be predicted on basic physiology (in terms of nutrient digestion) alone. It’s just nice to see it verified in a controlled setting.
    It’s not uncommon for the physique obsessed to literally become social pariahs, afraid to eat out because eating out is somehow defined as ‘unclean’ (never mind that a grilled chicken breast eaten out is fundamentally no different than a grilled chicken breast cooked at home) and fast food is, of course, the death of any diet. This is in addition to the fact that apparently eating fast food makes you morally inferior as well. Well, that’s what bodybuilders and other orthorexics will tell you anyhow.
    Except that it’s clearly not. Given caloric control, the body’s response to a given set of nutrients, with the exception of blood lipids would appear to be more determined by the total caloric and macro content of that meal more than the source of the food.
    In terms of the hormonal response, clean vs. unclean just doesn’t matter, it’s all about calories and macros.
    Which is what I’ve been saying all along

    I agree with this to a point, however I still choose to not eat fast food (ie McDonalds, BK, Taco Bell, etc) because I CAN get a better meal making it myself that will be more nutrient dense, less chemicals, etc. I don't have issues with going out to dinner at a restaurant every so often and heck today I had Five Guys Burgers and some fries (with 2 kids this is rare to go out!), but for years I never made a habit of it. I just don't see the appeal and I feel horrible afterwards. Not guilty exactly, but my body does not like that stuff at all.

    Also - my husband eats crappy food everyday and guess what he needs a lot of medicines for only being 35 and he isn't active at all (he once was), so eventually it does catch up to you.
  • StevLL
    StevLL Posts: 921 Member
    I don't think a meal out every now and then will hurt, but as you can see a generic clean meal up against a carls junior tyipcal meal and you begin to see how I went from a healthy 245 with a 34" waist to 371 with a 48" waist. I don't care what the science guys say. I'm living proof you eat poorly you gain weight, you eat clean you get healthy. I'm getting back to my lifting weight by eating how I did when I was lifting to compete. Back then carls was not on the menu, nor was fast food except for once a week we had cheat days.
    Numbers tell the tale. I added a loaded potato and BBQ sauce just to make it more even and it still beats the fast food meal hands down.
    Carl's Junior - Six Dollar Burger W/ Cheese, 1 burger
    790 53 43 47 3 2,450
    Carl's Junior - Fries (Natural Cut) Medium, 1 medium (150g)
    430 56 21 5 5 870
    Coca Cola - Coke 20 oz Bottle (591ml), 20 oz
    240 65 0 0 0 75

    1560 174 64 52 8 3395
    cals carbs fats protein fiber sodium

    Safeway - Chicken Breast - Bone and Skin on, 8 oz
    380 0 20 46 0 140
    Potatoes - Red, flesh and skin, baked, 1 potato large (3" to 4-1/4" dia)
    266 59 0 7 5 24
    Sweet Baby Ray's - Barbecue Sauce(Original), 2 Tbsp (37g)
    70 17 0 0 0 290
    Lucerne - Sweet Cream Butter, 1 tbsp
    100 0 11 0 0 95
    Brand Daisy - Sour Cream, 4 Tbsp
    104 2 10 2 0 24
    9 grain bountiful basket wheat bread
    100 20 1 10 4 150
    water for liquid

    Cals carbs fats protein fiber sodium
    1020 98 32 65 9 703

    I like carls, but if I eat there it's going to be rarely not regularly, but to each their own.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories