A calorie is just a calorie

[GiantSlayer]

"Clean" in my own words can be described as a food being as close as possible to how it is found in nature. Obviously we have to cook some foods to make them safe but even that makes them less "clean" in my vocabulary. Fruit, nuts, berries, legumes, whole grains, veggies, fish..... You get the point. Once you start messing with the cellular structure of the foods they seem to become less healthy. Ie refining, processing, even cooking. Adding preservatives yadda yadda. Our immune system sees these things as foreign bodies.

 

[macgyver]

"Clean" in my own words can be described as a food being as close as possible to how it is found in nature. Obviously we have to cook some foods to make them safe but even that makes them less "clean" in my vocabulary. Fruit, nuts, berries, legumes, whole grains, veggies, fish..... You get the point. Once you start messing with the cellular structure of the foods they seem to become less healthy. Ie refining, processing, even cooking. Adding preservatives yadda yadda. Our immune system sees these things as foreign bodies.

This article I posted below is well worth the read for you. It may change your opinion. The guy that wrote it, is one of the most well respected guys in the nutrition field. He is very pragmatic in his examination of things and uses science, not just blindly, but in the context of the type of lifestyles we lead as weight trainers.

Here is an exerpt that directly addresses your viewpoint above. Still think 'processed' foods are "dirty" and the best food are "as close as they are found in nature"?

The two most commonly cited characteristics of foods considered clean are a lack of processing and a high nutrient density. Let’s look at processing first. Foods in their whole, naturally occurring state are often deemed clean. In contrast, foods that are altered or removed from their original state are stripped of the clean stamp. Is this demerit warranted? As we’ll see, this is not a reliable method of judgment for all foods. By this definition, most supplements are dirty, since they often undergo extensive processing and are far-removed from their original source. To use a common example, whey is doubly processed in the sense that it’s not only a powdered form of milk protein, but it’s a separated fraction of milk protein. Yet, when combining the results of standard ranking methods (biological value, protein efficiency ratio, net protein utilization, and protein digestibility corrected amino acid score), whey has a higher total than all other proteins tested, including beef, egg, milk, and soy [5].
Furthermore, research has shown not only its benefits for training applications [6], but whey has a surprisingly wide range of potential for clinical applications as well [7-10]. Therefore, despite whey being a refined/processed food, it has multiple benefits and minimal downsides.

Here is a link to the whole article.
http://www.simplyshredded.com/resea...-written-by-nutrition-expert-alan-aragon.html

 

[GiantSlayer]

I haven't read the article yet. I will. Just want to say that I do not deem whey to be a clean food, nor sugar, but I use them both post workout because they have their benefits.

 

[macgyver]

I haven't read the article yet. I will. Just want to say that I do not deem whey to be a clean food, nor sugar, but I use them both post workout because they have their benefits.

So if you say whey is not "clean" as you say..... then a accurate statement could be, non-"clean" foods can be some of the healthiest and most beneficial choices for athletes and individuals.


SRS....what is the point of coming up with a subjective label for a category of food, if it is meaningless and contradictory?

 

[GiantSlayer]

So if you say whey is not "clean" as you say..... then a accurate statement could be, non-"clean" foods can be some of the healthiest and most beneficial choices for athletes and individuals.


SRS....what is the point of coming up with a subjective label for a category of food, if it is meaningless and contradictory?

I'm not sure if I will go as far to say "healthiest." I will definitely go with "conditionally beneficial." Not everything is black and white. There are exceptions to every rule. That is why we have room to debate. Same as in politics... I believe in a woman's right to choose but I don't necessarily like the idea of abortion. There is a grey area that I live in. We are so bipartisaned...

Oh, please lets not make this political. It was just an analogy.

To prove that a few processed foods have benefits does not mean we should comprise our entire diet of them.

still haven't read the article...

 

[HDH]

***edit***

 

[GiantSlayer]

Okay I read it. Hmm... nothing really life changing for me. Yes, the definition of "clean" has changed. Yes, we demonize this or that only to find we were wrong. Yes, there is probably a study that shows no difference between the sucrose eating group vs the "clean" group. It's not really proof for me. It's just adding on to the pile of things we were wrong about. I know how I feel, how my body runs on fish and veggies vs pizza and icecream. I know I feel like shit if I overload on simple carbs. If you feel okay eating junk, more power to you.

 

[macgyver]

GS

Appreciate you reading the article. Yes....remember, I am strictly speaking of from a composition basis (fat loss and gain)...NOT overall health.

Speaking to overall health, I completely agree....what you eat DOES make a difference. I personally choose to make the majority of my diet from whole and minimally processed foods....but save room for things I like too.

I have found over time and close tracking and planning, that eating "dirty" food vs "clean" has virtually zero effect on fat loss and gain. (or none that I could observe)

Appreciate the exchange of ideas. We think more alike then different.

 

[HDH]

Good vid man.

============================

I believe we should do what we want to do. I' don't believe that everyone can follow the IIFYM plan and have the same results.

It's been a good discussion so far. One thing that I see that's being said is science is wrong on both ends.

Are there any studies out there that anyone knows of?

There are people out there that are trying it and doing it so that proves that it can be done. That doesn't mean that it works like that for everyone.

I have tried it and don't get the same results. I don't run traditional macros in a sense, I run percentages of bodyweight. I could turn them into a macro set up but it would still be the same. I learned it before macros. It ends up the same but for someone starting it, it takes a little more time to dial in. Once dialed in, it's basically the same because the total calories are the same.

I was a fatty for a lot of years and putting fat on has always been easy. Perhaps that could be the difference. Like when someone has a lot of muscle, loses it, they can gain it back quickly.

I'm not saying I couldn't cut on the IIFYM, I'm saying I get better results sticking to better foods.

I think terms "clean and dirty" have been made unsimplified. To me it was always a simple way to say clean- grilled chicken, fresh veggies and slower complex carbs compared to dirty- brownies, candy bars, fast sugary carbs, trans fats, etc...

Now it's just become a simple term unsimplified. I understand people have their own or different meanings of the terms but I also know in order to stick with a IIFYM plan, there can't be a clean or dirty term because that would be saying that some of the things eaten are wrong.

This a quote from DEX that I totally agree with-

The idea of IIFYM has been blown way out of proportion. If you eat a pop tart after you lift I don't see that making a bit of difference BUT if you eat a pop tart with every meal you will see the negative effects. IIFYM still means eating clean most of the time but somehow people think they can eat shit all day and be ripped.

It's going to far in the eyes of people that just don't know any better.

This would be like saying one could use sugar packets only, for carbs as a bulk or a cut and expect lean gains or getting ripped.

Yes, it's an extreme example but I'm using it to show that if that much can make a difference, so can a little but just on a smaller scale and I believe it will vary from person to person from personal experience.

I believe every little bit counts. If you get a little bit from different places, it can add up to something bigger.

That's why I like the video. It's along my lines of thinking.

HDH

 

[GiantSlayer]

Yeah I think generally we are on the same page. Allow me to twist the knife one last time. What effect, if any, does general health and well being have on body composition?

 

[Turbolag]

The idea of IIFYM has been blown way out of proportion. If you eat a pop tart after you lift I don't see that making a bit of difference BUT if you eat a pop tart with every meal you will see the negative effects. IIFYM still means eating clean most of the time but somehow people think they can eat shit all day and be ripped.

Bingo ! I think you still need to eat somewhat clean. 80% clean and 20% of your choice seems like a good option.

Here's the thing with eating junk calories. They fill up your calorie window MUCH faster.

Here's something too, depending on how much not good stuff you can can depend on how well you feel.

 

[macgyver]

Good vid man.

Vid is full of mis/bad information. I love his "white flour causes cancer". I mean....really? This is stupid beyond belief. I also love guys training at high levels of bodybuilding coming off like they are even remotely concerned with their health. Talking about eating bad and then checking to see what it does to thier bloodwork. How can a guy say these things with a straight face?

And "I dont want anything in my body that would cause inflammation"....O-really! How much BA, BB, EO etc is flowing through their veins and he is preaching about eating foods free of pesticides. Guy is out in left field....

This would be like saying one could use sugar packets only, for carbs as a bulk or a cut and expect lean gains or getting ripped.....

I see you did not read the article I posted. Actually a studies like this has been done. One group getting almost 50% of carbs from sucrose (table sugar) and the other group only 4%. NO difference.

FROM THE ARTICLE YOU DIDNT BOTHER TO READ:
First up, Surwit and colleagues compared the 6-week effects of 2 hypocaloric diets – one with 43% of the total calories as sucrose (table sugar), and one with 4% of the total calories as sucrose [15].
No significant differences were seen in the loss of bodyweight or bodyfat between the high and low-sucrose groups. Strengthening these results was the use of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to measure body composition. Furthermore, no differences in blood lipids or metabolism were seen between the groups.

Yeah I think generally we are on the same page. Allow me to twist the knife one last time. What effect, if any, does general health and well being have on body composition?

I think general health can have a large impact upon body composition. This is especially true when conditions like insulin resistance and eventually diabetes develop. But I do not believe that simply labeling one food as 'clean' and another as 'dirty' is a step towards reaching better health.

In fact our government has done this several times and look at the consequences on our general health. Remember the "fat is bad" craze? How about cholesterol....that's bad too isnt it? (better not eat eggs). Saturated fats are very bad....are they not? Now the new craze is gluten. Gluten and refined flour is the enemy. Never mind less then 1% of the population have celiacs disease. (they are really the only people that have to worry about gluten).

In closing.....trying to label something as "clean" and another thing "dirty" based on arbitrary things such as level of processing or nutrient density is a losing battle. It will cause people to make decisions which really do not serve their general interest or do anything to help them reach their goals. I hate to bring it up....but it is just like Glycemic index. Another TOTALLY USELESS label that means NOTHING for general health or body composition..... (unless you are diabetic...but even then GL is a MUCH better tool)