Why clean eating is a myth

[RonaldS]

Also, I disagree on the assertion that eating/digestion/processing/utilizing/storing etc is not a thermodynamic process.

 

At it's base, it absolutely is. Is the process far more complex than 'throw wood in the fire, wood burns, produces heat'? Absolutely. There are numerous pathways involved, moving around and utilizing of various resources, ETCs, various proteins doing performing all sorts of functions, genetic operons, removing energy from one compound using energy to create a compound we get our energy from, etc etc etc. And there are variations all over the place (the above poster mentioned the genetic element).

 

So, yes, it's very thermodynamic. And the key to understanding processesis not understanding a whole complex concept, but understanding the basic roots. And at the most basic level, for the purposes of our discussions here, a calorie is a unit of energy, at it's base level. Your body is in the business of using the energy it needs for carrying out whatever metabolic processes, storing what it doesn't need at the moment, and removing waste. Your body doesn't 'know' it's going to get another meal in a few hours. It treats every meal as if it's your last.

 

So, when we take in more energy than we use, we store it. Want to lose weight? Take in less than you use. Want to maintain? Take in what you use. Want to gain weight? Take in more than you use.

 

Yes, I know it's much more complex than that individually. For instance, there are skinny people who won't gain weight no matter what they do. People talk about their high metabolisms, but it's not really it. They're drafty houses. They are very inefficient at storing energy and end up going through a lot of energy due to losing most of it as heat production. People who get really fat, really, they're just much more efficient at storing energy.

 

There are variations all over the place. But to understand our bodies and our processes, it helps to start on the ground floor.

[Maleficent]

They've always eaten fruit and vegetables.

 

there is a difference between natural occurring sugar and synthesized sugar...especially in the way metabolisms deal with it.

 

Same with sea salt VS table salt.

[tbf]

What I mean is, fruits and (some) veggies have sugar in them.

Yes, I knew what you were expressing.

 

P.S. I just had another small Coke post long-run. Holy cow, I needed it.

I'm not suggesting never having synth sugars. What I'm stating is that the average person has no need for useless calories like carbonated drinks since there's nothing besides synth sugars in them. If these drinks included vitamins, minerals and fibre content, they would be like every other food.

 

Also, the average person doesn't physically exert themselves enough during the average day that their bodies will just store the useless caloric injection. Insta-fat anyone?

[RonaldS]

Yes, I knew what you were expressing.

 

I'm not suggesting never having synth sugars. What I'm stating is that the average person has no need for useless calories like carbonated drinks since there's nothing besides synth sugars in them. If these drinks included vitamins, minerals and fibre content, they would be like every other food.

 

Also, the average person doesn't physically exert themselves enough during the average day that their bodies will just store the useless caloric injection. Insta-fat anyone?

How is fructose a synthesized sugar? Coke is made from high-fructose corn syrup, where glucose is derived from corn and enzymatically converted to fructose...fructose being the sugar most commonly found in fruits

 

Nothing really synthetic about it.

 

But yes....consuming a bunch and sitting around on your butt isnt going to work for most people.

[tbf]

How is fructose a synthesized sugar? Coke is made from high-fructose corn syrup, where glucose is derived from corn and enzymatically converted to fructose...fructose being the sugar most commonly found in fruits

Wrong. HFCS is a disaccharide.

 

Nothing really synthetic about it.

Guess again.

 

But yes....consuming a bunch and sitting around on your butt isnt going to work for most people.

Yes.

[tman666]

Wrong. HFCS is a disaccharide.

 

How does HFCS being a disaccharide make his statement wrong? Fructose is indeed a naturally occurring sugar molecule (which doesn't mean it won't make you fat, mind you).

 

Fun fact: honey is similar in molecular structure to HFCS.

 

On another note: what makes a food useless?

[tbf]

How does HFCS being a disaccharide make his statement wrong? Fructose is indeed a naturally occurring sugar molecule (which doesn't mean it won't make you fat, mind you).

It's wrong because he claims non-synthesis where glucose and fructose are chemically linked in the process, never mind that there's synthesis of fructose.

 

Fun fact: honey is similar in molecular structure to HFCS.

Fun fact, most people don't consume the amounts of honey, they consume in a single soft drink.

 

On another note: what makes a food useless?

Soda pop is not food. Coke can clean concrete driveways and should be used as such.

[tman666]

It's wrong because he claims non-synthesis where glucose and fructose are chemically linked in the process, never mind that there's synthesis of fructose.

 

Fun fact, most people don't consume the amounts of honey, they consume in a single soft drink.

 

I don't disagree with you there, but you seem to be purporting in your posts the notion that naturally produced = "good" and factory produced = "bad", without much regard for how these chemicals are metabolized. A person can still get fat eating naturally produced foods (been there, done that), just like someone can likely stay healthy and achieve their fitness goals and still fit in some treats into their diets.

 

Soda pop is not food. Coke can clean concrete driveways and should be used as such.

 

How is soda not food? Yeah, it's not a good choice (I almost never drink soda myself) for health-minded people, but I don't see how it's not food, i.e. an energy source, and a very easily digestible one at that. If someone has a use for it, for example: glycogen depleted runners, I don't see how it can be construed as useless. Obviously, this same property of being easily metabolized is a double edged sword, since most people (like you mentioned in your post) rarely, if ever, find themselves in a completely depleted state.

 

Don't mistake what I'm saying to mean that I support eating crappy foods for any goal. I'm just saying that if a person knows about what they're ingesting and how it will effect them, they can make an informed decision on how to implement it into their diet. This can be important since one of the biggest factors in successful fat loss is long-term adherence to an appropriate nutritional plan. Many people try to make their diets too restrictive, based on their notions of what is "clean" and what is "junk" or "toxic".

 

The problem with that black and white view of nutritional planning is that humans experience a wide variety of individual behavioral quirks, based on a many different factors. More power to a person if they can fuel their body with 100 percent efficiency based only on what its needs are, but most people aren't that robotic.

 

Hence, why I personally think that people should take another look at "clean" versus "unclean" eating. Almost every single person I talk to who "diets" will, after a few minutes of conversation, reveal all of the things they can't have anymore, and after a few more minutes, they'll talk about how ALL of it sounds amazing right now.

 

So as that craving grows people end up cheating BIG time and sabotaging their efforts or falling off the wagon altogether.

[tbf]

I don't disagree with you there, but you seem to be purporting in your posts the notion that naturally produced = "good" and factory produced = "bad", without much regard for how these chemicals are metabolized. A person can still get fat eating naturally produced foods (been there, done that), just like someone can likely stay healthy and achieve their fitness goals and still fit in some treats into their diets.

No. That's your interpretation of my posts. If you go back to where the exchanges began, you'll find the synth part was in response to mice not consuming the same foods as human beings and everything that subsequently followed. Prior to extraction and synthing of sugars, human beings and mice weren't that far apart in diet, at least pertaining to sugars. Mice and humans have approximately 97.5% or more, similar DNA where both species are omnivorous. Our bodies weren't created to handle as much sugar as the average person consumes daily, particularly if you consider the fitness regime of most.

 

How is soda not food?

I was being facetious.

 

If someone has a use for it, for example: glycogen depleted runners, I don't see how it can be construed as useless. Obviously, this same property of being easily metabolized is a double edged sword, since most people (like you mentioned in your post) rarely, if ever, find themselves in a completely depleted state.

Yup.

 

Don't mistake what I'm saying to mean that I support eating crappy foods for any goal. I'm just saying that if a person knows about what they're ingesting and how it will effect them, they can make an informed decision on how to implement it into their diet. This can be important since one of the biggest factors in successful fat loss is long-term adherence to an appropriate nutritional plan. Many people try to make their diets too restrictive, based on their notions of what is "clean" and what is "junk" or "toxic".

 

The problem with that black and white view of nutritional planning is that humans experience a wide variety of individual behavioral quirks, based on a many different factors. More power to a person if they can fuel their body with 100 percent efficiency based only on what its needs are, but most people aren't that robotic.

 

Hence, why I personally think that people should take another look at "clean" versus "unclean" eating. Almost every single person I talk to who "diets" will, after a few minutes of conversation, reveal all of the things they can't have anymore, and after a few more minutes, they'll talk about how ALL of it sounds amazing right now.

 

So as that craving grows people end up cheating BIG time and sabotaging their efforts or falling off the wagon altogether.

Weight loss and fitness are lifestyles changes, not fad diets and boot camp, only to yo-yo, putting unnecessary stress on people's bodies. Better to maintain a consistent lifestyle where you're not always battling bulge.

 

This doesn't mean extreme strictness but it does mean tossing out useless driveway cleaners.

 

Look, I've had two most adorable, sweet, wonderful sons and I'm in better shape and weigh less now, than prior to both. It's all about maintenance.

[RonaldS]

No. That's your interpretation of my posts. If you go back to where the exchanges began, you'll find the synth part was in response to mice not consuming the same foods as human beings and everything that subsequently followed. Prior to extraction and synthing of sugars, human beings and mice weren't that far apart in diet, at least pertaining to sugars. Mice and humans have approximately 97.5% or more, similar DNA where both species are omnivorous. Our bodies weren't created to handle as much sugar as the average person consumes daily, particularly if you consider the fitness regime of most.

 

I was being facetious.

 

Yup.

 

Weight loss and fitness are lifestyles changes, not fad diets and boot camp, only to yo-yo, putting unnecessary stress on people's bodies. Better to maintain a consistent lifestyle where you're not always battling bulge.

 

This doesn't mean extreme strictness but it does mean tossing out useless driveway cleaners.

 

Look, I've had two most adorable, sweet, wonderful sons and I'm in better shape and weigh less now, than prior to both. It's all about maintenance.

 

Tbf....to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your general premise. I'm not advocating that everybody load up on garbage food. I really don't. I eat candy everyday, usually some sort of chocolate with peanuts. But other than that, I don't drink sodas, I rarely eat snacks/deserts like cookies, cake, ice cream, etc.

 

I am extremely active, and do have a very high carb diet. My body, to me, is as good as I could ever want. And I can and do run circles around guys half my age. I could refine a couple things diet-wise, but I'm not shooting for perfect. And the structure of my diet, to your point, is based on a lifestyle decision, so I don't have to worry about fluctuation or going backward or slipping of the wagon. I eat what I eat and it's consistent.

 

My issues are with the scientific understanding. You mention HFCS being a dissacharride, which it is and whereas naturally occurring fructose is a monosaccharide. That's fine, but being a dissacharride doesn't make it bad. Sucrose is naturally a dissacharride. You find a lot of sucrose in fruits such as pineapple. Now, the point is simple: your body has mechanisms...hormones and enzymes etc...that are in place to deal with these substances. These compounds are very similar, and we're talking a lot of times about maybe an extra hydrogen bond or a covalent bond vs a hydrogen bond that differentiates otherwise identical compounds. Some of these things are painted as bad, but they really aren't.

 

My issue with ideas such as 'empty calories' is that, in true human fashion, we blame the calorie rather than the person. The calorie is just a calorie....what qualifies it is what happens to it once it gets into an individual's body. If somebody doesn't put in the work to use up the energy they consume, of course the calories from a coke are going to have a deleterious effect on that individual. If an individual expends a lot of energy performing activities, guess what...that calorie is hardly empty. Your body will utilize that energy to its benefit.

 

Yes. There are better ways to get energy. Better to get sugar from a food with additional nutrional value, such as bananas over Cokes. That goes without saying. But when your diet is appropriate and your activity level is appropriate, then you should be able to have a Coke or bang out some Oreos with no negative impact physiologically.

 

Just want to clear that up and establish that I agree with a general premise.

[NGC1300]

Eating clean is definitely a myth. I've always had a fast metabolism, and when that's coupled with my active job + frequent weight training, I can easily require close to 6000 calories a day. No joke.

 

There's no way I could get 6K from chicken and veggies, just no way. I wouldn't want to anyway. So, what I do is consume nutrient-dense foods in conjunction with high fat/high carb foods such as ice cream, mac and cheese, etc.

 

The truth is that as long as the "good" foods are there, adding the "junk" food is perfectly fine as long as you don't exceed your caloric requirements.

[NGC1300]

Tbf....to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your general premise. I'm not advocating that everybody load up on garbage food. I really don't. I eat candy everyday, usually some sort of chocolate with peanuts. But other than that, I don't drink sodas, I rarely eat snacks/deserts like cookies, cake, ice cream, etc.

 

I am extremely active, and do have a very high carb diet. My body, to me, is as good as I could ever want. And I can and do run circles around guys half my age. I could refine a couple things diet-wise, but I'm not shooting for perfect. And the structure of my diet, to your point, is based on a lifestyle decision, so I don't have to worry about fluctuation or going backward or slipping of the wagon. I eat what I eat and it's consistent.

 

My issues are with the scientific understanding. You mention HFCS being a dissacharride, which it is and whereas naturally occurring fructose is a monosaccharide. That's fine, but being a dissacharride doesn't make it bad. Sucrose is naturally a dissacharride. You find a lot of sucrose in fruits such as pineapple. Now, the point is simple: your body has mechanisms...hormones and enzymes etc...that are in place to deal with these substances. These compounds are very similar, and we're talking a lot of times about maybe an extra hydrogen bond or a covalent bond vs a hydrogen bond that differentiates otherwise identical compounds. Some of these things are painted as bad, but they really aren't.

 

My issue with ideas such as 'empty calories' is that, in true human fashion, we blame the calorie rather than the person. The calorie is just a calorie....what qualifies it is what happens to it once it gets into an individual's body. If somebody doesn't put in the work to use up the energy they consume, of course the calories from a coke are going to have a deleterious effect on that individual. If an individual expends a lot of energy performing activities, guess what...that calorie is hardly empty. Your body will utilize that energy to its benefit.

 

Yes. There are better ways to get energy. Better to get sugar from a food with additional nutrional value, such as bananas over Cokes. That goes without saying. But when your diet is appropriate and your activity level is appropriate, then you should be able to have a Coke or bang out some Oreos with no negative impact physiologically.

 

Just want to clear that up and establish that I agree with a general premise.

 

I haven't read this whole thread, but just wanted to say this post is spot on.

 

It's disturbing to me that even so-called "professionals" are still telling people that sugar and fat is bad, or may lead to obesity and diabetes. There is no context, no discussion of calories or energy requirements, just this childish belief in "poisonous" calories.

[FitChick]

what I do is consume nutrient-dense foods in conjunction with high fat/high carb foods such as ice cream, mac and cheese, etc.

 

The truth is that as long as the "good" foods are there, adding the "junk" food is perfectly fine as long as you don't exceed your caloric requirements.

As long as the "junk" food is all natural and not synthetic, chemical laced crap. Eat Haagen Dazs and other all natural ice cream. Doesn't have to be organic but has to have ingredients you recognize and can pronounce. Whole food items have very few ingredients listed.

 

I hate those supermarket bakeries where you have the illusion that everything is "homemade." Yeah, from a mix. I don't even have to read the ingredients on those cakes or cookies. If there is a solid 2"x2" block of tiny text on the label, I won't buy it. It's all fake food.

[crederer]

I'm a fairly overweight dude, 5'10 220lbs. Granted I can bench press the same.

 

I lost about 50lbs in the last year from changing my diet. The beginning is the hardest but once you get into the habit of it, you think why the hell didn't I get into this sooner?

 

When I eat crap food, I feel terrible physically. When I eat healthy foods, I feel so much more fresh and vibrant.

 

It's just getting over that initial hump, which lasted me maybe 2 or 3 weeks.

[PogoStick]

Eating clean is definitely a myth. I've always had a fast metabolism, and when that's coupled with my active job + frequent weight training, I can easily require close to 6000 calories a day. No joke.

 

There's no way I could get 6K from chicken and veggies, just no way. I wouldn't want to anyway. So, what I do is consume nutrient-dense foods in conjunction with high fat/high carb foods such as ice cream, mac and cheese, etc.

 

The truth is that as long as the "good" foods are there, adding the "junk" food is perfectly fine as long as you don't exceed your caloric requirements.

 

The best stated post in this thread. Someone will struggle to meet high caloric needs through low calorie foods. I've read about olympic swimmers eating 10 big macs per day and still struggling to keep their weight up. I used to put down 1000 calorie ice cream shakes after track practice without trouble. Much preferable to eating 10 apples...It's about eating appropriate to one's lifestyle.