Why “Clean Eating” is a Myth

[Hulk]

Source(easier read)

Why “Clean Eating” is a Myth

Your favorite foods are poisoning you.

Even foods that you thought were safe are actually destroying your health, making you fat, and shortening your life.

That’s what you’ve been taught to believe.

If there’s one mistaken idea that’s become more embedded in the fitness and health industry than any other, it’s that certain foods are bad for you.

This myth is so entrenched that it’s promoted by everyone from gym rats to doctors to public health authorities.

Most diet books are based on the idea that “bad” foods will keep you from losing weight or slow your progress.

There’s no doubt that what you eat can have a massive impact on your health, performance, and body composition. However, there’s no evidence you can’t achieve all of these things while still enjoying any food you like.

Clean Eating Doesn’t Exist

“Healthy.”
“Clean.”
“Safe.”
“Wholesome.”
“Good.”

These are the words people use to describe foods they believe you should eat. On the other hand, these are the words for foods you should not eat:

“Unhealthy.”
“Unclean.”
“Unsafe.”
“Unwholesome.”
“Double-plus un-good.” (1984)1

The biggest problem with the idea of “clean eating” is that “clean” has no objective definition. Everyone believes different foods are “unclean.”

Vegetarians: Animal meat.
Vegans: All animal products.
Bodybuilders: Milk, fruit, and white bread.
Paleo: Grains, legumes, dairy, refined oils, added salt, sugar, alcohol, and some vegetables.
USDA/United States Government: Saturated fat, cholesterol, red meat, eggs, trans-fats.
Low-carb: Sugar and other carbs.
Hippies: Artificial sweeteners, processed foods, cooked foods, packaged foods, BPA.

It’s safe to say that for every food, there’s someone saying it’s dangerous.

There’s no way to define clean eating, which means there’s no way to measure or quantify what effect this concept might have on your health. There’s also no way to objectively compare a “clean diet” to other diets.

Throughout this article, I’ll use examples from all of these categories and let you decide which group I’m referring to.

The one thing these ideas have in common is that there are “bad” foods that should be avoided or limited, and “good” foods that you can eat.

This broad definition can be further classified into two forms.

The Two Kinds of Clean Eating

1. There are good and bad foods, and you should never eat any of the bad foods.

2. There are good and bad foods, and you should only eat a small number of the bad foods to limit the damage.

In this article, you’ll learn why both of these ideas are irrational, unscientific, and unhealthy.

We’ll start by looking at the three potential ways a food could decrease your health, lifespan, or body composition. Then we’ll see if any foods actually meet these criteria for being “unhealthy.”

Why There are No Good or Bad Foods

There are three ways a food could negatively affect your health, longevity, or body composition.
1. Contributing to a caloric excess which leads to negative health problems from being overweight.2
2. Causing nutrient deficiencies by diluting the nutrient density of your diet.3
3. Directly interfering with your body’s functions, causing specific diseases, increasing fat gain, or accelerating aging.

Let’s see if any foods meet these criteria.

Excess Calories Can be Bad for You — From Any Food

There is no evidence that any food will cause more fat gain than the excess calories it provides.

There is also no evidence that eating a certain food will help you lose fat.

Fat loss is ultimately about calories in versus calories out.

Any food that has calories can technically be bad for you — if consumed in excess. This includes chicken breasts, sweet potatoes, whole grains, and even vegetables.

The reason many people consider these “clean foods” is because they tend to be harder to overeat than things like cookies or ice cream.

For this reason, some people refer to things like sweets, baked goods, soda, and other junk food as “fattening.”

This is an inaccurate and myopic viewpoint. It assumes that you will over-eat these foods — regardless of the rest of your diet.

If your diet has enough satiating power to keep you satisfied and happy, then there’s nothing wrong with also consuming some less-filling indulgences. This idea also assumes that people can’t moderate their food intake, which they can.

For some people, eating enough to gain or maintain their weight can be a struggle. In these cases, higher calorie/more palatable foods can be extremely useful for meeting their calorie needs — not to mention being more enjoyable. Yet you don’t find people saying ice cream and cookies are life-saving for an anorexic, or muscle building for someone who’s trying to get bigger.

People look at these foods in isolation and assume they’re unhealthy regardless of the context.
Remember these two points:

1. The potential to over-consume a food does not mean that you will.
2. Some people need to eat more — and higher calorie, more palatable, and less filling foods can be an advantage — even a necessity.

However, you’re also concerned with your long-term health. You want to make sure you’re giving your body everything it needs to perform optimally, and you don’t want to deprive your body of essential nutrients.

No Food Causes Nutrient Deficiencies

The second way a food could potentially be “unhealthy” is by displacing more nutrient dense foods — by providing “empty calories.”

You’ve probably seen articles about how most people are deficient in certain nutrients, and how you simply can’t afford to eat any “empty calories.”

You’ve heard that all of your food has to come from nutrient-dense sources, and even then you should take some supplements.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a formal definition of what “nutritious” means.

Researchers and diet authors have tried repeatedly to come up with a system that ranks foods based on points or some other means — unsuccessfully. The problem is that each system uses arbitrary and unscientific means to grade different foods.

The USDA is still heavily biased against anything high in saturated fat and favors everything high in whole grains.

Other ranking systems like the ANDI score place a greater emphasis on antioxidant levels, despite the fact that there’s still little evidence a food’s antioxidant or flavanol levels are a good representation of its overall healthiness.

Classifying foods as healthy or unhealthy based on a score is a pointless and unscientific endeavor. In this case, common sense should prevail.

It’s true that some foods are far more nutrient dense than others. Cake icing doesn’t have the same nutrient content as an apple. As long as the majority of your calories come from whole nutrient dense foods, there’s no evidence you can’t meet your micronutrient needs while still consuming some “empty calories.”

Research has shown that most people would have to eat roughly 20% of their total calories from refined sugar before it became impossible to meet their micronutrient needs.

People who eat tons of sugar are generally malnourished.20,21 However, most people who are serious about their health aren’t eating anywhere close to 20% of their daily calories from sugar.

The CDC also estimates that around 90% of Americans are consuming adequate micronutrients.

There is some data that indicates nutrient deficiencies may be more common among people who are dieting.

This makes sense, since they’re consuming fewer total calories. However, it’s rare for someone to need to completely eliminate any junk food even when they’re restricting their calorie intake.

Some studies have also shown that vitamin D and magnesium deficiency may be more common than once believed. However, this data is based on people eating an average American diet. It’s likely less relevant to health nuts, like you, who are probably already eating lots of nutrient dense foods and getting adequate sun exposure.

People often make the mistake of assuming certain foods are completely devoid of nutrition. This is rarely the case. Take ice cream, for example. There are multiple studies showing the potential health benefits of dairy.

Just because cream is frozen and mixed with sugar doesn’t mean these benefits suddenly disappear. There might be less total benefit, but it’s still there.

White flour is another example. People assume that because it’s been processed, it must be completely nutrient void. Flour isn’t exactly nutrient dense, but there are still some micronutrients present, especially if it’s been fortified.

It’s also worth noting that studies have generally failed to find any major heath benefit of whole wheat flour over white flour.

Ironically, studies have shown that people who strictly avoid certain foods or food groups like bodybuilders, athletes, and people with eating disorders are often deficient in micronutrients.

As usual, balance and moderation are the most scientifically supported solutions.

Despite what you’ve been told, you probably aren’t deficient in most nutrients. You can still indulge in moderate amounts of “unclean” foods and meet all of your essential nutrition.

While many people accept this, they still believe that certain foods are still “bad.” They’re wrong.

No Food Directly Damages Your Health

The third myth is that “unhealthy” foods directly damage your health. People tell you that you will suffer less damage from eating less of these foods — but they’re still bad for you in any amount.

However, because these foods only damage your body a little, you’re told it’s still normal and healthy to eat them. Here’s the issue: You’re not happy with normal.

You’re more obsessed with your health and fitness than other people. “Normal” now means being overweight or obese, and you don’t want a “normal” physique. Eating “less junk” means “zero junk” in your mind. If a food is bad — it’s bad — and you don’t want it in your body in any amount.

This is the most ridiculous and harmful misconception of “clean eating,” largely because it’s promoted by doctors and other health officials who people trust more than most.

In this context, “unhealthy” foods do their damage in different ways:
Interfering with your body’s functions.
Increasing your risk of certain diseases
Making you gain fat.
Making you age faster.
… and other bad stuff.

The idea is that regardless of a food’s nutrient density or calorie content, it is still bad for you. Every group has a different idea of what this means.

Vegans believe meat is toxic and gives you cancer.

Dr. Robert Lustig and others claim that fructose is “a poison” and causes obesity and liver damage.

The USDA still tells people that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease, and that whole grains should form the base of your diet.

Paleo advocates claim that grains, gluten, beans, processed oils, and dairy give people cancer and pretty much every other known disease.

Mycotoxins are lurking in everything you eat, secretly making you fat and damaging your health.

“Processed” foods and artificial ingredients are dangerous.

GMO’s cause cancer and give you tumors.

Pretty much everyone claims all trans-fats are bad for you in any amount.

All of these claims are either untrue or out of context. Any food can be damaging in large enough amounts. The real question is whether or not these foods damage your health in the amounts they are normally consumed, in the context of a mixed diet.

The scientifically valid answer to this question is “no.”

Despite flawed correlational research, there is no evidence that meat, red or not, causes cancer or heart disease or death. In contrast, there is controlled evidence showing red meat consumption can improve health markers as much as other meat sources.

Fructose is not toxic and it doesn’t cause obesity or liver damage unless it is consumed in massive amounts and in caloric excess. There is no evidence it’s harmful in smaller amounts or that it encourages over-eating compared to sucrose.

Consuming moderate amounts of sugar does not decrease insulin sensitivity or impair your ability to process glucose, as long as you maintain your weight and don’t over-eat.

There is still no good evidence that moderate amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease, but many of these studies also have significant limitations.

Recent evidence indicates even the correlations between saturated fat and cholesterol intake and heart disease are weak or nonexistent.

Any food may contribute to heart disease if it leads to obesity or overweight, but there’s little evidence that consuming those calories from cholesterol-rich foods or saturated fat is worse than getting them elsewhere for most people.

There is little evidence that omega-6 oils contribute to inflammation or heart disease.

Gluten is not harmful to otherwise healthy people, and there is still no evidence that grains, dairy, or legumes damage your health. There is also good evidence to the contrary.

There is no evidence that processed or artificial foods are necessarily less healthy than natural foods. There is also no clear definition of what constitutes a “processed” food, and there are many “processed” foods that have proven health benefits, like whey protein.

There is no evidence that the levels of mycotoxins in the diets of developed countries have a significant impact on your health.

There is no evidence GMO’s are harmful to humans.

There is some evidence that synthetic trans-fats may be harmful, but the research is still inconclusive.

There’s little evidence that consuming a small amount of trans-fat is going to damage your health, especially since they’ve been removed from most foods. There is also evidence that some naturally occurring trans-fats like vaccenic acid may have health benefits.

There are specific medical reasons for avoiding certain foods. And by “medical reason,” I don’t mean some naturopath, acupuncturist, homeopath, or voodoo priest reading chicken entrails said a certain food is bad for you.

I mean a real doctor diagnosed you with a specific illness, and based their dietary recommendations on sound scientific evidence.

Here are a few examples.
People with phenylketonuria should avoid aspartame.
People with celiac disease need to avoid gluten.
People with a severe peanut allergy need to avoid peanuts.
People with familial hypercholesterolemia may need to eat less cholesterol.
People with insulin resistance may benefit from a lower carbohydrate intake.

Outside of very specific medical conditions like these, there is virtually no evidence that any single food can directly damage your health.
There is also no evidence that certain foods will accelerate fat loss at the same calorie intake, or that other foods will slow down or prevent fat loss. You could eat 43% of your calories from table sugar and still lose just as much fat as someone who only consumed 4% of their calories from sugar.

Elite athletes sometimes consume up to 20% of their calories from pure sugar, and stay at around 6-10% body fat year round.5,6
This is not a comprehensive list, but when you look at the evidence, virtually every food that’s ever been labeled as “dangerous” or “toxic” turns out to be fine in moderation, and sometimes even in large amounts.

Any food could be “healthy” or “unhealthy” in different situations. This is something people forget when they talk about “clean eating,” and it’s something we’re going to address right now.

How to Know Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You

Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends on who is eating it, and how much they eat.

A healthy highly trained endurance athlete or bodybuilder exercising several hours per day is going to have very different needs and tolerances than a sedentary diabetic overweight office worker.

The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet. They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”

The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable foods to avoid over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense foods since they’re eating fewer calories.

Personal preference also matters. Some people have a hard time eating in moderation, and it may be smart to remove some foods that they normally binge on, at least for a while.

A food that is “healthy” for one person might be inappropriate for another in a given context.

Should you eat it, and how much can you have?
It depends…

• Are you exercising or sedentary?
• How much are you exercising?
• What kind of exercise are you doing?
• What are your goals?
• Are you trying to lose fat, gain muscle, or improve your performance?
• Do you like a certain food or not?
• How many total calories are you eating?
• Do you have any specific medical conditions that warrant avoiding a certain food?
• Are you currently meeting your micro- and macronutrient targets?
• Are you hungry or do you feel satisfied throughout the day?
• What food(s) are you worried about?
• What do you think will happen if you eat it/them?
• Are you in a caloric deficit or caloric surplus?

All of these factors matter when deciding if a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” for a given individual. In virtually all cases, there’s room in your diet for a little junk.

“Clean Eating is a Scam”
- JC Deen

It’s a scam that’s promoted by athletes, coaches, trainers, doctors, government officials, schools, diet book authors, and pretty much everyone else who eats.

People who hinder themselves with rigid dietary rules also have a harder time maintaining a healthy weight.

• Food doesn’t make people gain fat — people over-eating food makes them overweight.
• Eating some of your calories from less nutrient dense sources is not going to give you a nutrient deficiency.
• There is no evidence that any food directly damages your health in moderate amounts in every situation.

You’re careful about your diet, which you should be. However, there’s no reason you need to avoid any specific food to achieve optimal health, a lean body composition, and maximum longevity.

Balance and moderation are what’s important, and the definition of both of these terms depends on who’s eating the food and how much they’re eating.

[tearose]

Jazaak Allahu khair for posting this. I know a lot of people who follow some of these crazes and it saddens me when they dismiss certain foods, like cheese, or pasta, as 'bad'/'unhealthy' foods.

[Muhaba]

Too much reading. too much reading!!! :phew
As I was scanning the post, I thought the last bold line said 'ice cream is clean.' LOL

one thing I've noted is that when I eat fresh fruit, I crave food less, so fresh fruit is definitely good, clean, healthy food!

[Pure Purple]

Clean Eating is a Scam”

After reading this all I can say "dietitian's job is in danger"

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[ahmed2013]

Sorry but I had a debate with someone over this sort of thing already with several people.

Ectomorphs can get away with eating anything they want and I believe it's ectomorphs that spread this idea that all calories are just calories. Sorry but they are not. Otherwise you could build muscle off of dirnking alcohol (it's a calorie).

Genetically modified foods, pesticides they all have harmful effects on hormones, cancer inducing, infertility inducing, etc...

Endocrinologists who study hormones and metabolism have done many studies on how different types of sugars are processed differently by the liver, how they are transported, used, stored, etc... How fructose, glucose and sucralose behaves is different.

Amongst carbs there are different types of carbs, amongst proteins there are different types of proteins. These are not irrelavent matters.

What it comes down to is the ingridients vs needs vs metabolism and bodytype.

Ice cream is clean? Please... this sounds like something that was written by an advocate of the junk food industry.

This is the kind of garbage that people spread to excuse themselves to eat.

Professional olympic athletes may eat 10k calories a day but train all day sure. That still does not avoid the fact that certain type of foods can harm you.

Professional bodybuilders also can eat massive amounts of food, any kinds of food, but they will also use fat burners, anabolic steroids, thyroid hormones like t4/t3, HGH, insulin, etc... and use science to their benefit to maximize their results.

The article stinks and I give it a big thumbs down.

If what these sorts of ppl advocate were true, there would be no need for endocrinologists to study metabolism nor would there be a need for nutritionists.

[ahmed2013]

Just saw his website too and the 'testimonials' section is filled with all a bunch of skinny ectomorphs and yes I saw his 'most muscular' front shot pose too, nothing exceptional, I'm bigger and was leaner recently too.

His long winded article is advice for ectomorphs not for meso-endomorphs or worse yet endomorphs.

Sure you can 'lose weight' by eating less of ANYTHING but how qualitative will the results be? On my site I posted a medical journal/study which showcased the difference of results in controlled groups those trying to lose weight via a high carb diet vs a high protein diet. The results were significantly different (mind you calories being reduced in both situations).

Try eating ice cream as an endomorph as a part of your 'diet' while trying to get results, lets see how far you get in your goals. How's that insulin resistance going for you? It's not about just being 'diabetic'. Insulin sensitivity and resistance is prelavent in all people not just diabetics.

Ectomorphs can't gain weight so they can get away with eating chocolate, greasy harmful mcdonalds crap and still stay lean, but that's why they're mostly twirps. Their problem is always NOT eating enough 'hard gainers'.

I also hate the idea that some of these simpletons advocate that it's all just about 'fitting the macros' so they will get their fats and carbs from cookies, candies, and their 'protein' from mcdonalds.

Ectomorphs get away with this sort of non-sense, others do not. It's a misleading and a narrow minded article not taking into account that yes there are some people in white coats researching metabolism that understand it better than some dude with a website who can get away with eating anything and his advice works for similar body type fellows like himself.

[ahmed2013]

There is no evidence GMO’s are harmful to humans.

This pretty much sums up how credible this guy is. He might as well get hired by Monsanto to spread their online propaganda. They are paying people to spread pro-GMO material online. The US government is also working closely with them. People are ignorant of the whole US gov/Monsanto scandal that just zipped by the ignorant masses.

[Hulk]

There is no evidence GMO’s are harmful to humans.

This pretty much sums up how credible this guy is. He might as well get hired by Monsanto to spread their online propaganda. They are paying people to spread pro-GMO material online. The US government is also working closely with them. People are ignorant of the whole US gov/Monsanto scandal that just zipped by the ignorant masses.

He does provides references in the original article, so I wouldn't dismiss the article based on that.

Below are the references he provided for that particular statement.

77. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008;46 Suppl 1:S2–70. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2008.02.008.

78. Joudrier P. [Food safety of GMOs]. J Soc Biol. 2009;203(4):337–344.

[ahmed2013]

Good for him and I could post journals which showcase otherwise the dangers of GMOs (except I can't as I have a low post count) Not all scientists have the interest of people at heart, those hired by corporations have the interest of corporations at heart. There has been a drive since the 1970s to make GMOs spread world wide, an effort of the American government and companies like Monsanto. The recent scandal you should look into it too. Laws basically being passed in the favour of companies like Monsanto. Monsanto has in fact been hiring people to spread pro-GMO propaganda online.

Lets look at it from another angle. What did the US and Canadian government do when radiation spread from Fukushuma? They raised the 'safety limits' and kept raising them and kept telling people oh yeah we are within the safety bracket, while in fact to this day there has been a total cover up of the insane levels of radiation spreading from there.

Back on topic aside from his GMOs are all good. Corn starch, fructose are but a speck of sand in the whole grand scheme of the obesity epidemic. It's a bit of a myth that people were somehow magically super active decades ago. Yes there is a growth in sedetary life style but the bigger change has been the foods we've been consuming.

Decrease in fertility, decrease in testosterone levels, increase in cancers, increase in diabetes, increase in obesity.

Why was fructose and corn starch made so popular since the 1970s, because it's dirt cheap not because it's 'better' in some way.

What we consume is processed differently by the body. I always give my example of alcohol as a calorie, but these people will then say oh but that's not fair, that's 'not the same' (not talking about Muslims). They know it's processed differently. How is it suddenly that other calories are not?

1g of fiber vs 1g of pure sugar. Aren't they both carbohydrates? Again these people will say oh but that's not fair the body doesn't have the enzyme to process that the same way as sugar. Again why is it suddenly different?

These people don't have a **** clue about metabolism or hormones and I'm no researcher but at least I read journals and research more in depth than throw around "bro tips" like these guys.

As I said it is a very narrow minded article geared towards ectomorphs who have a hard time gaining weight and can eat anything they want. The examples he gives are lame, such as an olympian or a pro bodybuilder who will train and be far more active it's their job.. and... also will use performance enhancing drugs and science to their benefit which most clueless fitness wanabes know very little about.

I can go on and on about all that's wrong with this premise.

The bottom line is what these kind of guys want to advocate is that all calories are just calories and as long as you fit whatever you eat within your macros and caloric need you are all good.

It's also totally ridiculous to say that eating any of these foods is not health damaging. Cholesterol, insulin resistance hello? Just a few examples... it's just so upsetting to see people spread this kind of rubbish (not you bro, just this dude JC).

You are what you eat. People who are poor and ate little food but natural non-processed food just a generation ago vs the poor people today who eat little but eat cheap junk this generation are very very different in both terms of health and appearance.

I can only conclude that these types of ppl are ectomorphs who don't realize there is something called metabolism... or they are advocates of the junk food or gmo or pharma industry which definetely does not take into heart peole's well being but profits only. Obviously I wouldnt say he is in this case but still a fool.

[ahmed2013]

Just thought I'd say it's weird but the post has a censored word but I did not use a swear word obviously. Anyways enough ranting haha. I just get pretty passionate when people spread half truths or lies and mislead people... whether its deen, dunya, politics or anything else for that matter.

[~Zaria~]

:salam:

^ I think that you may have missed the point of the article:

However, there’s no reason you need to avoid any specific food to achieve optimal health, a lean body composition, and maximum longevity.

Balance and moderation are what’s important, and the definition of both of these terms depends on who’s eating the food and how much they’re eating.

^ In other words, he is saying - there is no reason to completely remove a certain type of food from your diet (e.g completely eliminating red meat), but these foods can be consumed in moderation.

In essence, he is saying that if anything is consumed in excess, then it can be harmful (which is true - even excess water can be fatal).

He also mentions that this does depend on - Who is eating the food (e.g. fast vs. slow metabolisers, those with medical conditions, very active vs. less active people, etc)

In terms of the above conclusion, I have to agree with him.
(this is coming from someone who, at one stage of her life knew off-hand, the calorie/ fibre/ fat content of brown bread vs. white bread vs whole-wheat bread, and many other common foods.....not in an attempt to lose weight (as I am actually under-weight and have always been so), but because, at one stage in my life, I too was very health-conscious : ) )

Over time, I have learnt to just live and enjoy life - so long as it is within the boundaries of islam.

If you think about it, Islam has already placed necessary restrictions for us - all being, for our benefit.
And for everything else in life, we are taught to live in moderation.

So, I certainly enjoy my chocolate cakes, chips, sodas, fried foods (like chips and samoosas : ) ), and everything else that is conventionally said to be 'bad' for you.....but importantly: all in moderation.

This is essentially what this article is also saying - it is in fact reflecting the teachings of our own deen, alhamdulillah (not that we need any reassurances here).

The fact is, that society for the most part, have forgotten 'how to' eat.
Our portion sizes have increased.
And most people dont understand what 'moderation' actually means - e.g. drinking a can of coke a day is not moderation (thats actually excessive).

And as mentioned in the article, we have forgotten that: "Fat loss is ultimately about calories in versus calories out."

In other words, people need to appreciate what they are actually consuming.
Unfortunately, many people do not make enough effort in this regard, and hence for them to figure out what 'moderation' actually means for a certain food group, is where the challenge lies.

Just some of my thoughts on this article.

Thanks for sharing.

:wa:

[Hulk]

Wa alaykumsalam

Indeed the key is moderation. Ice cream, sugary snacks, fried food are definitely not on the same boat as fruits, veggies, lean meats etc but it's not impossible to progress towards your fitness goal and still have them be a part of your diet as long as it's within reason.

Many times people fail at dieting due to the "boringness" of their diet. Only being able to eat the same food everyday and not being able to eat other types. With some basic understanding of how our body interacts with calories and macronutrients a dieter would be able to diet with a much wider variety of food and thus they would be less likely to fail.

[ahmed2013]

That's not really what he's arguing for. people like him argue that as long as you meet macro nutrient guidelines and caloric goal you can eat anything you want. Not to mention he basically says no there is nothing wrong with GMOs nor any other kind of food, be it ice cream or anything.

Have you ever looked at the ingredients of any of the things you buy?

The point I'm making, people like this don't understand there is something called 'metabolism' and different body types. The approach of eat anything you want is acceptable to ectomorphs.

He makes a lot of erronous comparisons like a normal person to that of a professional athlete or bodybuilder.

He totally avoids that yes eating certain things WILL be detrimental to your health.

Is there moderation in alcohol? The whole approach of the article is rubbish. Even if we pick out a few good points.

I do eat ocassionally ice cream and a slice of pizza. But if I want consistent results I am not going to turn my whole diet into eat anything you want (which is what basically his click would advocate) as long as it fits your calories and macro nutrients.

It's absolutely wrong.

[ahmed2013]

People fail because they are not disciplined and dedicated that's the only reason they will find anything boring. People with weak will power. Everything in the dunya and even for the akhira takes effort. Just as jannah is surrounded with hardships and hell with ease, so is achieving goals in this life.

People want quick solutions, quick answers, quick results and that's why they end up disappointed.

You can lose WEIGHT no matter what you eat if you eat less. But do you want to lose WEIGHT or do you want to lose fat? This is something people don't get too. I would post some journals and articles to get my point across further including the one i mentioned a restricted diet with either high protein or high carbs in a caloric defeciet and how different the body composition of the people in question was as a result.

I see people at the gym all the time, they NEVER change, why? Because they don't know what the heck they are doing. Fat people who keep eating the same while exercising their pants off, skinny people who don't eat enough and expect to grow, etc... There's a set of basic rules to adhere to if you want results.

Try eating mcdonalds only for a month while in your 'caloric and macronutrient bracket' and then do some blood work and come back to me and tell me I'm wrong. Try then instead to do the same but with eating unprocessed foods such as real vegetables, fruits, whole wheat, oats, brown rice, lean chicken, lean beef, etc... and lets see how things go.

I have eaten all kinds of ways over the years, I've been obese, I've been muscular/fat, I've been recently shredded. It's all in the details of nutrition. I understand my body type and I understand what it takes to achieve goals whether it's bulking or cutting.

Clowns that advocate to the masses to eat any kind of food in caloric defecit always make people end up with mediocre results.

I've had one non-muslim lady at work do exactly that and she ended up just a skinnier fat version of her old self. She even ended up gaining weight while following this type of approach from one 'celebrity nutritionist' who also advocated eating anything including cakes, cookies while maintaining caloric and macro nutrient brackets.

Sorry to say she got no where and still is no where after knowing her for three years.

Ectomorphs just 'work different' and the rules bend for them. They don't even need to often include cardio to get lean/shredded, only reduce calories. It doesn't work like that for everyone sorry.

[ahmed2013]

There is

no evidence

that any food will cause more fat gain than the excess calories it provides.

Just recently I was reading a study in vivo although in rats comparing the results between:

Differential effects of sucrose, fructose and glucose on carbohydrate-induced obesity in rats.


Abstract

Caloric intakes, body weights, plasma glucose levels and glucose tolerance were examined in male Sprague-Dawley rats given a single standard diet or the standard diet and one of four sources of sugar: 1) a 32% glucose solution, 2) a 32 % fructose solution, 3) a 32% sucrose solution or 4) granulated sucrose. After 50 days, blood was collected from fasted animals for analyses of serum glucose, triglycerides and insulin levels. Livers, kidneys, epididymal and retroperitoneal fat depots and intrascapular brown adipose tissue (BAT) were removed and weighed. Animals given sugar solutions and the standard diet consumed significantly more calories, gained more weight and had significantly more retroperitoneal fat than controls given only the standard diet. Although rats given granulated sucrose and the standard diet did not eat more, they did gain significantly more weight per kilocalorie consumed and had more retroperitoneal fat than controls. Rats given the sucrose solution had significantly more BAT than controls or rats given the fructose solution or granulated sucrose. Rats receiving glucose had significantly more BAT than controls. Access to the fructose or sucrose solutions led to a decreased ability to tolerate an oral glucose load. Animals given fructose had significantly greater serum triglyceride levels than controls or rats given the glucose or sucrose solutions.




The effects on hormones like leptin, insulin, triglyceride levles, hdl/ldl levels, all these things are known to endocrinologists who study metabolism. But bro JC and his click will always conclude no no, it's all the same just eat a certain amount of calories of any food.

He also mentioned that eating certain type of foods will not determine difference in body composition. Another fail because eating certain types of food will determine your qualitative results whether muscle gain in a bulk or fat loss in a cut.


A High-Protein Diet is Better than a High-Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss


The war over weight loss is usually fought between the low-carb and the low-fat folks, both of whom are absolutely convinced they're right and the other side is wrong. If you've read diet forums, you know what I'm talking about (and if you've read my blog, you know that it's really the low-fat people who are wrong).

Protein, the third macronutrient, is often forgotten in the heat of battle. Putting the question of fat intake aside for a moment, which is better for weight loss, carbohydrates or protein? That is the question Classens et al. set out to answer in their recent study. They first put obese people on a low-calorie diet to induce weight loss and then divided them into two groups: the high-carbohydrate group and the high-protein group. The idea was to see whether they would gain back the weight they lost during their calorie restriction diet.

Composition of diets

During the first 5 weeks of the study, all of the subjects consumed a liquid diet providing 500 kcal per day. In addition, they were allowed to eat an unrestricted amount of vegetables, except for pulses. All participants lost weight during this period.

During the next 12 weeks, the subjects were told to eat as much as they like but maintain a fat intake of about 30%. The high-carbohydrate (HC) group was told to consume at least 55% of their energy intake as carbs, while the high-protein group was told to eat a diet with at least 25% protein. The HC group was also given a 25 g maltodextrin supplement twice per day.

To compare the effects of so-called slow and fast proteins, the high-protein was further split into a whey protein group and a casein protein group. The distinction between slow and fast proteins is made based on their absorption pattern. Whey protein is quickly absorbed and thus a fast protein, while casein is slowly absorbed and therefore a slow protein. The subjects in the high-protein group were given either 25 mg casein (HPC group) or 25 mg whey (HPW group) twice per day.

At the end of the study, the HC group consumed 63% carbs, 16% protein and 21% fat. Mean total energy intake was 1868 kcal. Both HP groups reported consuming 42% carbs, 35% protein and 23% fat. According to urinary nitrogen excretion, however, the protein intakes of the HP groups were between 27-28%, which means that the difference in protein intake between the groups was probably not as big as one might hope, though it's still significant. Mean total energy intakes were 1848 and 1812 in the HPC and HPW groups, respectively.

Effects on body weight & body fat

During the 12 weeks of ad libitum eating, subjects in the HC group gained weight, while those in the HP groups kept losing weight. Fat mass and waist circumference also increased in the HC group, but decreased in the HP groups. The graphs for body weight and body weight change are shown below (the upward lines are the high-carb group and the downward lines are the high-protein groups).


[img removed as i dont have permissions to post yet it was a graph]


Thus, despite similar energy intakes, those who ate more carbohydrates gained weight, while those who ate more protein lost weight. Furthermore, despite losing weight, the HP group actually gained fat-free mass.

Effects on blood pressure & cholesterol

Systolic and diastolic blood pressure increased slightly in the HC group, but the increase was not statistically significant. In the HP groups, however, a modest but significant decrease in blood pressure was seen.

Both groups modestly increased their HDL and LDL levels during the 12 weeks. No significant differences were seen between the groups. Triglycerides increased in the HC group but remained constant in the HP group. Effects on insulin and glucose

Fasting insulin increased in the high-carbohydrate diet group and decreased in the high-protein diet group, but the changes were not statistically significant. Fasting blood glucose increased in both groups, with the increase reaching significance only in the HP groups. With glucagon, the situation was the opposite: the increase reached significance only in the HC group.

It's not entirely clear why the high-protein diet increased fasting blood glucose more than the high-carbohydrate diet. The authors comment:

This may be related to the gluconeogenesis-stimulating and/or glucagon-stimulating effect of high protein intake, which both will lead to increased hepatic glucose output.
-- Although impaired fasting glucose is a risk factor for the development of impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes in a high-risk population, there is no evidence that elevations of fasting plasma glucose within the normal range, as in the majority of our subject population, are associated with increased risk. Furthermore, no adverse effect of the high-protein diet on HbA1c was found in our subjects.

So, while this is an interesting result that deserves a closer look, I wouldn't be too worried at this point about high-protein diets and glucose levels it as long as your insulin levels are fine.

Conclusion

After a 5-week low-calorie diet, a high-protein ad libitum diet resulted in further weight loss compared to a high-carbohydrate ad libitum diet, which resulted in weight gain. Despite a decrease in body weight, body fat percentage and fat mass, fat-free mass increased in the high-protein groups. Energy intakes were similar in all groups.

Cholesterol levels increased similarly in both groups, but triglycerides increased only in the HC group. Fasting blood glucose increased in both groups, with a larger increase seen in the HP groups. Blood pressure decreased slightly in the high-protein groups.

No significant differences were seen between those eating a casein (slow) protein or a whey (fast) protein supplement.

[عابر سبيل]

Definitely moderation is key. I would not cross out any food category I eat, but there are some foods that I simply do not eat because it's not worth it, and a lot of junk food falls into this category. Soft drinks, fast food and so on. I avoid all of that in its entirety because healthier alternatives are available. By that I mean, alternatives that already contain many similar ingredients, but are prepared in a manner that is healthier. It's not that the matter is only number of calories in versus number out, some substances are just not great for the body, so I try not to ever consume them outside of necessity, and I don't even make exceptions because once someone stops eating a lot of these foods, their appeal goes away completely as well.

Take chips for example. I've not enjoyed a bag of chips in years, all these snacks have lost their appeal long ago to me. I tried some one time a while back, and I just found it was extremely salty.

[~Zaria~]

:salam:

That's not really what he's arguing for. people like him argue that as long as you meet macro nutrient guidelines and caloric goal you can eat anything you want.

His article is advocating a balanced diet, which predominates in healthy, nutritious foods.....whilst still enjoying other foods in moderation. He says:

"As long as the majority of your calories come from whole nutrient dense foods, there’s no evidence you can’t meet your micronutrient needs while still consuming some “empty calories.”

"As usual, balance and moderation are the most scientifically supported solutions."

Not to mention he basically says no there is nothing wrong with GMOs nor any other kind of food, be it ice cream or anything.

The beauty of this article is the authors choice of words.

He says: "There is no evidence GMO’s are harmful to humans."


^ This is true. There is indeed no evidence that links harmful effects of GMOs in humans.
Our knowledge thus far is limited to animal studies.

I do agree that we should be very mindful of the manner in which our foods are grown and processed, and that we should try to keep our consumptions as organic as possible.

However, we should also realize that in todays age, it is almost impossible to completely eliminate those substances that are considered to be potential 'endocrine disrupters' from ones life.
The reason being, is that these potentially harmful substances are found everywhere in our enviroment - e.g. the plastics that we are directly in contact with (via packaging as well as non-consumables - e.g your keyboard), our water (even if one drinks spring water - this too usually comes bottled in plastic), etc.
In our country, it is said that there is no organic maize produced at all (as a result of pesticide use) - in other words, every product that is derived there-from can be regarded as GMO.

So, while we need to make an effort to keep our lifestyles and consumptions as natural as possible, we should also try to be balanced in our approach (lest paranoia in these matters, creep in).

I do eat ocassionally ice cream and a slice of pizza.

^ This is what the author is advocating - still being able to consume those foods that are considered as unhealthy in their overall nutritional content - but doing so in limitation/ moderately.

Just recently I was reading a study in vivo although in rats comparing the results between:

Differential effects of sucrose, fructose and glucose on carbohydrate-induced obesity in rats.

The problem with fructose-containing foods lies in the quantity in which it is currently consumed.
If these foods are consumed in moderation, then this should be ok in shaa Allah.

A High-Protein Diet is Better than a High-Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss

^ This is a short, 5-week study - its results cannot be extrapolated into long-term effects with regards to maintaining weight loss, preventing nutritional defiencies and cardiovascular outcomes.

This article is a worth-while read in shaa Allah:

A High Protein Diet Won't Make You Lose Weight Long Term: In Fact, It May Make You Fatter


It is also important to remember the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wasalam) was to eat meat in moderation.

As mentioned here: “Beware of meat. It has addictiveness like the addictiveness of wine.” [Muwatta Malik]

And as in all things in life, the teachings derived from Quraan and the sunaah of our prophet (sallalahu alahi wasalam) takes precedence over any other - even if we may find apparently conflicting view-points.


:wa:

[insann]

What kind of workout is the most important thing. There is a big difference between eating protein from low fat food and high fat food.

[aymericdp]

Salam alaykum
And more importantly, there is a huge difference betweens the concerns that dictate a bodybuilder's diet, and the diet of people who simply want to stay healthy without trying to get bigger. I really don't think the rationale is the same in both cases.

[cOsMiCiNtUiTiOn]

As somebody who has studied holistic nutrition on my own for over 7 years (and now obtaining a certification, Alhamdullilah) and who has dropped over 100Lbs, I will tell you that this article and this entire website "evidencemag.com" is there to contradict the health movement.Full stop. Every single thing we work hard to help people become aware of, they are there to shoot it down. Pharmaceutical companies usually fund scientific research and also in charge of government health guidlines. Just follow the money, its very simple.

Look, different foods do different things to the body and it depends on WHAT you want to achieve. The labels have to be removed "vegan, paleo, bodybuilders" etc. For someone trying to gain muscle, there are different rules then, lets say, a person who is obese. A person with an autoimmune disease trying to reverse the disease has different requirements than a person simply trying to improve their health. So ALL of the points matter.

There are no "good" or "bad" foods, just foods that will give your body more and less nutrition and can better or worsen your health. Nobody puts cheap fuel n a ferrari, but everyone finds it acceptable to put cheap fuel in the most intricate vehicle created. Our bodies are vehicles for our soul's experience in this dunya. Anyway, the choice is a personal one. I have traveled a very long road and have changed my life around completely not only battling weight but everything that comes with it. I am now teaching mothers how to nourish themselves so they can raise healthy families. There are women out there giving babies soda/fizzi pop in a bottle. imsad People are aging horribly, we have 50 year olds not capable of walking up stairs properly. Chronic illnesses like diabetes and heart disease are now seen as normal "aging" diseases which couldn't be further from the truth. The proof is in the pudding, no amount of "evidence" can disprove our declining health as a whole. All of these things are preventable, and it begins by the nutrition chosen for our bodies.

Thank you for sharing the article, I always enjoy a good discussion about nutrition. I just really hope this person's words aren't taken to heart and more time is taken to reflect on teh decisions we make for ourselves which affect our health, our experiences, our worship and also affect our surroundings.

For the record this guy is a bodybuilder so in the end he has a biased view of things and trying to get you to subscribe and in the future use his products/books/services. Marketing 101. He isn't in it for health, most body builders are in it to see a specific change in their bodies that is not realistic or maintainable. Where as the rest of us just want everyone to eat real food. That's it. Real food is not found in boxes or cans or vending machines. :)

-Nusaybah

[Waylon]

That post sounds to me like some kind of super guide for being lazy about food and not taking care of your body. Of course there is such a thing as clean eating, but it requires knowledge and commitment too. As long as you can find a good clean source for vetegables and fruits you can definitely eat clean and be healthier.

[greenhill]

Salaams,

Took me a while to get to this post...:D and when I got here I was reading ... and reading and I found myself still reading...

Interesting but :phew...

On food, I eat to live, I see many who live to eat. I eat when I'm hungry, not because it is lunch time .. sometimes my tongue craves for certain foods and I guess that is my body telling me that I am in need of that particular minerals or whatever, I guess. I have always only been preoccupied with whether it is halal or haram and never really paid too much attention to the other 'beliefs' in food classification.

Sometimes in might be a blessing to be ignorant... ;D


Peace :shade:

[Muhaba]

Why “Clean Eating” is a Myth

It will take a full semester to read this article.