"clean eating" articles

[ajangel25]

Hello! I was wondering if anyone had/knew of where some studies/articles are that prove the whole clean eating thing to be a myth. Thanks!

[Emma-Leigh]

Do you mean in terms of BODY COMPOSITION, or in terms of HEALTH?

For health - there is a bit out: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17536194

Ann Nutr Metab. 2007;51(2):163-71. Epub 2007 May 29.
Hormonal responses to a fast-food meal compared with nutritionally comparable meals of different composition.
Bray GA, Most M, Rood J, Redmann S, Smith SR.

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. brayga@pbrc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fast food is consumed in large quantities each day. Whether there are differences in the acute metabolic response to these meals as compared to 'healthy' meals with similar composition is unknown.

DESIGN: Three-way crossover.

METHODS: Six overweight men were given a standard breakfast at 8:00 a.m. on each of 3 occasions, followed by 1 of 3 lunches at noon. The 3 lunches included: (1) a fast-food meal consisting of a burger, French fries and root beer sweetened with high fructose corn syrup; (2) an organic beef meal prepared with organic foods and a root beer containing sucrose, and (3) a turkey meal consisting of a turkey sandwich and granola made with organic foods and an organic orange juice. Glucose, insulin, free fatty acids, ghrelin, leptin, triglycerides, LDL-cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol were measured at 30-min intervals over 6 h. Salivary cortisol was measured after lunch.

RESULTS: Total fat, protein and energy content were similar in the 3 meals, but the fatty acid content differed. The fast-food meal had more myristic (C14:0), palmitic (C16:0), stearic (C18:0) and trans fatty acids (C18:1) than the other 2 meals. The pattern of nutrient and hormonal response was similar for a given subject to each of the 3 meals. The only statistically significant acute difference observed was a decrease in the AUC of LDL cholesterol after the organic beef meal relative to that for the other two meals. Other metabolic responses were not different.

CONCLUSION: LDL-cholesterol decreased more with the organic beef meal which had lesser amounts of saturated and trans fatty acids than in the fast-food beef meal.

Copyright 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.
PMID: 17536194 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

There is also info re nutrients in organic v's conventional:

J Sci Food Agric. 2011 Jan 6. [Epub ahead of print]
Effects of organic and conventional growth systems on the content of carotenoids in carrot roots, and on intake and plasma status of carotenoids in humans.
Søltoft M, Bysted A, Madsen KH, Mark AB, Bügel SG, Nielsen J, Knuthsen P.

Division of Food Chemistry, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Mørkhøj Bygade 19, DK-2860 Søborg, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The demand for organic food products has increased during the last decades due to their probable health effects, among others. A higher content of secondary metabolites such as carotenoids in organic food products has been claimed, though not documented, to contribute to increased health effects of organic foods. The aim was to study the impact of organic and conventional agricultural systems on the content of carotenoids in carrots and human diets. In addition, a human cross-over study was performed, measuring the plasma status of carotenoids in humans consuming diets made from crops from these agricultural systems.

RESULTS: The content of carotenoids in carrot roots and human diets was not significantly affected by the agricultural production system or year, despite differences in fertilisation strategy and levels. The plasma status of carotenoids increased significantly after consumption of the organic and conventional diets, but no systematic differences between the agricultural production systems were observed.

CONCLUSION: The expected higher content of presumed health-promoting carotenoids in organic food products was not documented in this study. Copyright © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry.


J Agric Food Chem. 2007 Sep 19;55(19):7716-21. Epub 2007 Aug 16.
Effect of consumption of organically and conventionally produced apples on antioxidant activity and DNA damage in humans.
Briviba K, Stracke BA, Rüfer CE, Watzl B, Weibel FP, Bub A.

Institute of Nutritional Physiology, Federal Research Centre for Nutrition and Food, Haid-und-Neu-Strasse 9, D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany. karlis.briviba@bfel.de
Abstract
The present study was performed to compare the effects on antioxidant activity and on DNA damage of organic and conventionally produced apples grown under controlled conditions in human peripheral blood lymphocytes. Six healthy volunteers consumed either organically or conventionally grown apples (Golden Delicious, 1000 g) from two neighboring commercial farms in a double-blinded, randomized, cross-over study. The average content of total identified and quantified polyphenols in the organically and conventionally produced apples was 308 and 321 microg/g fresh weight, respectively. No statistically significant differences in the sum of phenolic compounds or in either of the polyphenol classes were found between the agricultural methods. Consumption of neither organically nor conventionally grown apples caused any changes in antioxidant capacity of low-density lipoproteins (lag time test), endogenous DNA strand breaks, Fpg protein-sensitive sites, or capacity to protect DNA against damage caused by hydrogen peroxide. However, a statistically significant decrease in the levels of endonuclease III sensitive sites and an increased capacity to protect DNA against damage induced by iron chloride were determined 24 h after consumption in both groups of either organic or conventionally grown apples, indicating the similar antigenotoxic potential of both organically and conventionally grown apples.

But most of the other info goes the other way in terms of things like trans fats etc:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0891-5849(00)00167-2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19541924
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19001666
http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/12/2451
http://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/S0026-0495(08)00087-5/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19945473

In terms of LOSING WEIGHT - there are numerous articles out about how it doesn't matter what diet you follow, as long as you are consistent + have calories less than you need.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n6/abs/ijo20088a.html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/293/1/43.abstract
Although, as we know, higher protein etc does promote better results:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.abstract

In terms of GETTING SHREDDED? Not a lot available.

[coopermax]

the term "clean" in regard to bulking, dieting, eating....is a nonsense word, IT MEANS NOTHING.....you can set up your diet to eat fast food and candy (the things you think of when thinking dirty foods) make it fit your goals and you can eat whatever you want

[DedicatedDad]

I know Alan Aragon has written about it, I'l see if I can find any of his posts. It could be in his research review too, I can't recall. But, basically what Emma-Leigh said, number one thing is consistency in calories, not so much macros. Consistency in calories and high protein.

[determined4000]

I know Alan Aragon has written about it, I'l see if I can find any of his posts. It could be in his research review too, I can't recall. But, basically what Emma-Leigh said, number one thing is consistency in calories, not so much macros. Consistency in calories and high protein.

Not exactly

[DedicatedDad]

Not exactly

I may have misinterpreted his writings, but I remember him doing an analysis of the guy that ate a 'junk food diet' consisting primarily of twinkies and lost mainly fat and very little muscle, in his AARR. I seem to remember that, while he didn't advocate a diet such as that, the end result didn't surprise him because the person was on a calorie deficit.

I know in his other writings he's talked about if you want to eat some junk occasionaly, just fit it into your macros and calories, because in the end, the calories in vs calories out are what is most important in weight loss (fat loss may be slightly different, and the macros have to be a bit stricter there).

Not trying to put words in his mouth and if you feel that I have misinterpreted what he has said, feel free to correct me.

[determined4000]

I may have misinterpreted his writings, but I remember him doing an analysis of the guy that ate a 'junk food diet' consisting primarily of twinkies and lost mainly fat and very little muscle, in his AARR. I seem to remember that, while he didn't advocate a diet such as that, the end result didn't surprise him because the person was on a calorie deficit.

I know in his other writings he's talked about if you want to eat some junk occasionaly, just fit it into your macros and calories, because in the end, the calories in vs calories out are what is most important in weight loss (fat loss may be slightly different, and the macros have to be a bit stricter there).

Not trying to put words in his mouth and if you feel that I have misinterpreted what he has said, feel free to correct me.
These statements are correct
Weight loss comes down to calories
Your statement that macros don't matter beyond protein is not correct
And a "fast food" type diet = not optimal -->see Emma's post about Trans fat
And taking long-term health into consideration, Emma and Alan would say nutritional quality matters.

[DedicatedDad]

These statements are correct
Weight loss comes down to calories
Your statement that macros don't matter beyond protein is not correct
And a "fast food" type diet = not optimal -->see Emma's post about Trans fat
And taking long-term health into consideration, Emma and Alan would say nutritional quality matters.

I should have been more clear, I wasn't referring to 'optimal health' simply weight loss/fat loss as that is what I was assuming the OP was referring to on this, bb.com site.

I never said that macros aren't important. For bb'ing purposes Calories are King, with Protein in just behind that.

[determined4000]

I never said that macros aren't important. For bb'ing purposes Calories are King, with Protein in just behind that.

fat=essential macro

[ajangel25]

the term "clean" in regard to bulking, dieting, eating....is a nonsense word, IT MEANS NOTHING.....you can set up your diet to eat fast food and candy (the things you think of when thinking dirty foods) make it fit your goals and you can eat whatever you want

Exactly- that's why I was hoping to find articles so I could prove it to some other people!

[ajangel25]

And thanks everyone and EL for the articles!

[JeffyDOS]

So in terms of getting shredded, you have to eat "clean"?
I do not worry about trans-fats in fast foods and restaraunts because they are banned in the state of CA.

[Emma-Leigh]

So in terms of getting shredded, you have to eat "clean"?
No. To get 'shredded' you can eat what you want - it is ultimately about
1/ the energy equation at the end of the day
2/ adequate protein for lean mass retention
3/ adequate training for lean mass retention

[JeffyDOS]

No. To get 'shredded' you can eat what you want - it is ultimately about
1/ the energy equation at the end of the day
2/ adequate protein for lean mass retention
3/ adequate training for lean mass retention

Ah, alright, thanks. I thought and was hoping that would be the answer :)

Everytime I try to get "shredded" I always end up around 13% BF and plateau... I think it's because I don't have enough LBM and that I'd have to drop my calories too low (sub 1800), but then I look at some of my friends with way less muscle mass than me who are as lean as can be.

It could also be because I don't do cardio too, but I thought diet and weight training were the only necessary components in terms of getting shredded.

Maybe I just need to bulk up more.

[Reloadguy]

Ah, alright, thanks. I thought and was hoping that would be the answer :)

Everytime I try to get "shredded" I always end up around 13% BF and plateau... I think it's because I don't have enough LBM and that I'd have to drop my calories too low (sub 1800), but then I look at some of my friends with way less muscle mass than me who are as lean as can be.

It could also be because I don't do cardio too, but I thought diet and weight training were the only necessary components in terms of getting shredded.

Maybe I just need to bulk up more.

Leptin hormone (controls hunger, energy expenditure, etc.) starts to drop when you get to the lower body fat levels, losing the fat slowly and incorporating refeeds will help prevent plateaus. Martin Berkhan has written about it, as has Lyle Mcdonald and a quick google search should yield more info.

[JeffyDOS]

Leptin hormone (controls hunger, energy expenditure, etc.) starts to drop when you get to the lower body fat levels, losing the fat slowly and incorporating refeeds will help prevent plateaus. Martin Berkhan has written about it, as has Lyle Mcdonald and a quick google search should yield more info.

Ah alright, I've read up on those before. Never actually did a "correct" refeed, but maybe I should. My refeeds are always a HUGE BBQ pulled pork sandwich and a side of large fries, and normal meals the rest of the day. Probably going way over my maintenance :)