The only difference between a "CLEAN" and "DIRTY" food is...

[X-Mark-X]

the creation of this thread opened my eyes and i love it! i was that guy afraid of milk and fruit eatin 2000 cals per day. now im eating just about 3000 cals and drinking milk and enjoying fruit and i feel great. I believe i had a slight eating disorder.

This is probably the best post in this entire thread, as I think it illustrates the OP's point better than anything else. As Horse said, a tablespoon of maple syrup on some waffles won't kill your diet, yet a lot of people actually consider that cheating and freak out over it, which I would agree sounds like an eating disorder. I saw a guy on here one day saying his cheat meal was whole wheat spaghetti with extra lean ground beef, and he said it was a cheat because he put store bought pasta sauce on it, I was like WTF.

However, I disagree when people start taking it to the extreme and claiming that the only thing that matters is macros. Alan argues that there is a certain point where eating cleaner won't matter, which I agree with. Eliminating that 10g of sugar you got from your tablespoon of maple syrup isn't going to make any difference.

But nobody here is arguing against that. Some people are acting like I could chug back 2000 calories worth of maple syrup throughout the day (500g carbs, all sugar), then chug back 12 scoops of whey and get 1600 calories (300g of protein), and then eat a stick of butter and get my 100g of fat and call it a day (I am talking STRICTLY in terms of body fat %, not weight or health or anything else). I hit my calorie and macro goals (4500 calories with a 45/35/20 macro split) so is that diet as good for my body composition as if I had hit those some calorie and macro goals eating a balance of lean meats, whole grains, veggies, nuts, etc? I say no, but there are people in this thread that have been arguing yes.

You guys keep telling us to stop using extreme examples like the one I just listed, but why? If you are arguing that macro nutrient ratios and calories are the sole determiner of body composition, and that sub types such as saturated fat, sugar, etc. make no difference, then you are claiming that diet A. listed above is as good for my body composition as diet B. I would honestly like some clarification on this because I'm not even sure if this is what you guys are arguing at this point, but it is what myself and others have been arguing against.

It seems to me that a lot of people have been saying "macros are the only thing that matter" and then whenever someone brings up an extreme example like the one I listed they reply with "moderation is key", well which is it? If macros are all that matter then I can eat as much "dirty" food as I want without having a negative impact on my body composition as long as I hit my macro's, can't I? If that is the case then the only distinction between a "clean" and "dirty" diet would be that a clean diet gets appropriate calories and macro ratios and a dirty diet does not.

[Phosphate bond]

exactly...its much easier to hit your macros on a good clean diet...but perhaps someone did actually hit those macros eating "dirty"; I would figure it to be the same result, maybe not health wise but physique wise....thats all i was getting at.

What do you mean by this term "hitting your macros"? (It might be that you and I are thinking of something different for this term)

If someone is concerned about physique then obviously fat oxidation and extracting the most work out of the calories they ate is going to be important.

[Paumen]

Blueberries qualify as bber friendly..

[The_Sage]

This is probably the best post in this entire thread, as I think it illustrates the OP's point better than anything else. As Horse said, a tablespoon of maple syrup on some waffles won't kill your diet, yet a lot of people actually consider that cheating and freak out over it, which I would agree sounds like an eating disorder. I saw a guy on here one day saying his cheat meal was whole wheat spaghetti with extra lean ground beef, and he said it was a cheat because he put store bought pasta sauce on it, I was like WTF.

However, I disagree when people start taking it to the extreme and claiming that the only thing that matters is macros. Alan argues that there is a certain point where eating cleaner won't matter, which I agree with. Eliminating that 10g of sugar you got from your tablespoon of maple syrup isn't going to make any difference.

But nobody here is arguing against that. Some people are acting like I could chug back 2000 calories worth of maple syrup in one sitting (500g carbs, all sugar), then chug back 12 scoops of whey and get 1600 calories (300g of protein), and then eat a stick of butter and get my 100g of fat and call it a day (I am talking STRICTLY in terms of body fat %, not weight or health or anything else). I hit my calorie and macro goals (4500 calories with a 45/35/20 macro split) so is that diet as good for my body composition as if I had hit those some calorie and macro goals eating a balance of lean meats, whole grains, veggies, nuts, etc? I say no, but there are people in this thread that have been arguing yes.

You guys keep telling us to stop using extreme examples like the one I just listed, but why? If you are arguing that macro nutrient ratios and calories are the sole determiner of body composition, and that sub types such as saturated fat, sugar, etc. make no difference, then you are claiming that diet A. listed above is as good for my body composition as diet B. I would honestly like some clarification on this because I'm not even sure if this is what you guys are arguing at this point, but it is what myself and others have been arguing against.

It seems to me that a lot of people have been saying "macros are the only thing that matter" and then whenever someone brings up an extreme example like the one I listed they reply with "moderation is key", well which is it? If macros are all that matter then I can eat as much "dirty" food as I want without having a negative impact on my body composition as long as I hit my macro's, can't I? If that is the case then the only distinction between a "clean" and "dirty" diet would be that a clean diet gets appropriate calories and macro ratios and a dirty diet does not.

Great post...reps.

[scoot557]

This is probably the best post in this entire thread, as I think it illustrates the OP's point better than anything else. As Horse said, a tablespoon of maple syrup on some waffles won't kill your diet, yet a lot of people actually consider that cheating and freak out over it, which I would agree sounds like an eating disorder. I saw a guy on here one day saying his cheat meal was whole wheat spaghetti with extra lean ground beef, and he said it was a cheat because he put store bought pasta sauce on it, I was like WTF.

All good stuff.

However, I disagree when people start taking it to the extreme and claiming that the only thing that matters is macros. Alan argues that there is a certain point where eating cleaner won't matter, which I agree with. Eliminating that 10g of sugar you got from your tablespoon of maple syrup isn't going to make any difference.

But nobody here is arguing against that. Some people are acting like I could chug back 2000 calories worth of maple syrup in one sitting (500g carbs, all sugar), then chug back 12 scoops of whey and get 1600 calories (300g of protein), and then eat a stick of butter and get my 100g of fat and call it a day (I am talking STRICTLY in terms of body fat %, not weight or health or anything else). I hit my calorie and macro goals (4500 calories with a 45/35/20 macro split) so is that diet as good for my body composition as if I had hit those some calorie and macro goals eating a balance of lean meats, whole grains, veggies, nuts, etc? I say no, but there are people in this thread that have been arguing yes.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. You're combining meal timing/frequency, with clean/dirty in a trainwreck leaving a path of bewilderment and stupidity in its wake. Your attempt at vilifying 'dirty' foods is a product of eating everything in one sitting, instead of the actual foods being eaten.

If you ate 2000 calories of whole wheat, then chugged 400g of protein of your choice, and then had 100g of a "clean" source of fat to be chosen by you in one sitting, how does that sound any better for body composition than your first scenario.

I'm just saying - clean vs dirty was never about meal frequency.

You guys keep telling us to stop using extreme examples like the one I just listed, but why? If you are arguing that macro nutrient ratios and calories are the sole determiner of body composition, and that sub types such as saturated fat, sugar, etc. make no difference, then you are claiming that diet A. listed above is as good for my body composition as diet B. I would honestly like some clarification on this because I'm not even sure if this is what you guys are arguing at this point, but it is what myself and others have been arguing against.

Firstly - saturated fat intake is a required nutrient. He is arguing that the amount of 'clean' food vs the amount of 'dirty' is irrelevant, presuming your end of day totals are in check with protein/EFA requirements and caloric requirements. Again - how you define clean and dirty make or break this statement. Most people consider maple syrup dirty, but if I made it my only source of carbohydrates and removed all the oatmeal and whole wheat and whatever else, and consumed it at the same schedule as I usually would consume my carbohydrates - the net effect on body composition would be nil. That is the assertion people should take away from this claim.

It seems to me that a lot of people have been saying "macros are the only thing that matter" and then whenever someone brings up an extreme example like the one I listed they reply with "moderation is key", well which is it? If macros are all that matter then I can eat as much "dirty" food as I want without having a negative impact on my body composition as long as I hit my macro's, can't I? If that is the case then the only distinction between a "clean" and "dirty" diet would be that a clean diet gets appropriate calories and macro ratios and a dirty diet does not.

Adequate protein/EFA matters. Things your body cannot synthesize which are required to be ingested. Calories In - Calories Out matter.

I define 'dirty' calories as calories that don't get me closer to my protein/efa requirements with regard to caloric intake. So It wouldn't be possible for *me* to eat solely 'dirty' foods and hit my protein/EFA requirements.

[BuckSpin]

I define 'dirty' calories as calories that don't get me closer to my protein/efa requirements with regard to caloric intake.

Using that, you could easily be defining carbs as dirty.

[Bioteknik]

well, ask the keto-ites about carbs and they might agree.

[scoot557]

Using that, you could easily be defining carbs as dirty.

Maybe I do.


/carbs are evil.


I should probably amend my definition to say "foods that don't push me closer to my daily macronutrition goals with regard to caloric intake."

[Dr. Horse]

Do we really believe that a "dirty diet" is more bodybuiding friendly than a "clean diet".

Oops, you TOTALLY missed the point.

[Dr. Horse]

So the point of this thread is, "Dirty Foods" [ie Candy/Pure Sugar/junk Cereals] DO NOT effect Body Composition in any way (with same Protein/EFA/Multi)

Although I agree with Mr. Horse (provided that he is referring to the effect on body fat composition that two equal-in-calories "clean" and "dirty" foods have),

No, that wasn't the point of this thread.

To re-reiterate, the point was to draw attention to the meaningless and uselessely STRICT definitions of what is and isn't a "healthy/productive/clean" food (by whatever criteria you choose to use). Eating healthy (or "clean") is about making good choices, MOST of the time. It's not about never eating unhealthy or "dirty" foods. The last 1% of healthy eating isn't going to make you 1% healthier, if you see what I'm getting at.

[lth]

What do you mean by this term "hitting your macros"? (It might be that you and I are thinking of something different for this term)

If someone is concerned about physique then obviously fat oxidation and extracting the most work out of the calories they ate is going to be important.

If someone is one a set diet where they are tracking the amount of carbs, fat, protein etc. they are taking in, "hitting your macros" would be reaching the numbers you've set...and i agree burning the calories altogether should be the major concern

[Phosphate bond]

If someone is one a set diet where they are tracking the amount of carbs, fat, protein etc. they are taking in, "hitting your macros" would be reaching the numbers you've set...and i agree burning the calories altogether should be the major concern

I have no doubt that tracking P%/C%/F% works for some people. For the rest of us worrying about "macros" can also mean we are being very precise and calculating towards something that ends up being completely wrong (but we just don't know it).

Personally I think there can be less headaches in just trying to choose healthy (in general) rather than worrying if 27 grams of carbohydrates I just ate in that "unplanned" banana throws off my P%/C%/F% macro totals by a couple of percent (for the day).

However, I do agree that getting a certain amount of protein and fat per day is a good idea (only because certain amino acids and fats are essential). I just don't believe macro percents in themselves are that critical.

[lth]

agree on this as well...I try to get 1g protein per lb bodyweight, 20% fat and fill the rest in with carbs.....works well for me and is less of a headache as you said; most people who track their macros gram for gram and are very strict have some issues going on if they're not competing.

[Phosphate bond]

agree on this as well...I try to get 1g protein per lb bodyweight, 20% fat and fill the rest in with carbs.....works well for me and is less of a headache as you said; most people who track their macros gram for gram and are very strict have some issues going on if they're not competing.

Well people who are competing calculate macros because they have been very precise in the past and it worked for them. They know their body well and they have measured results to prove it to themselves. So to me that makes sense to keep using the same strategy that has worked previously.

Unfortunately (for everyone else) it seems that every criteria we use to judge food is confounded by a another criteria we use to judge food. Unless the experiment used is standardizing all these identifiable variables (at the same time) it is hard to guage how applicable the results would be in the real world.

[X-Mark-X]

All good stuff.



It's an apples to oranges comparison. You're combining meal timing/frequency, with clean/dirty in a trainwreck leaving a path of bewilderment and stupidity in its wake. Your attempt at vilifying 'dirty' foods is a product of eating everything in one sitting, instead of the actual foods being eaten.

If you ate 2000 calories of whole wheat, then chugged 400g of protein of your choice, and then had 100g of a "clean" source of fat to be chosen by you in one sitting, how does that sound any better for body composition than your first scenario.

I'm just saying - clean vs dirty was never about meal frequency.



Firstly - saturated fat intake is a required nutrient. He is arguing that the amount of 'clean' food vs the amount of 'dirty' is irrelevant, presuming your end of day totals are in check with protein/EFA requirements and caloric requirements. Again - how you define clean and dirty make or break this statement. Most people consider maple syrup dirty, but if I made it my only source of carbohydrates and removed all the oatmeal and whole wheat and whatever else, and consumed it at the same schedule as I usually would consume my carbohydrates - the net effect on body composition would be nil. That is the assertion people should take away from this claim.



Adequate protein/EFA matters. Things your body cannot synthesize which are required to be ingested. Calories In - Calories Out matter.

I define 'dirty' calories as calories that don't get me closer to my protein/efa requirements with regard to caloric intake. So It wouldn't be possible for *me* to eat solely 'dirty' foods and hit my protein/EFA requirements.

Slow down, I suppose I worded it poorly but don't change my argument into something it isn't. I never really meant to bring frequency into this, I shouldn't have worded it the way I did. I just got an image from the movie Super Troopers in my head which is why I said to chug it all in one go lol. I edited it a bit to make it more clear. Let's not bring frequency into this, because this thread is a big enough circus without it.

[The_Sage]

Oops, you TOTALLY missed the point.

I received your "point" loud and clear from the very beginning. How can you say, without knowing the goals, lifestyle, experience, etc. of the people who are reading your opening post, that "the only difference between clean food and dirty food is the amount that you eat" and not expect people to have differing opinions? You have contributed ample supporting evidence why YOU feel the way YOU do. Others have agreed with this OPINION, some have not. It's as simple as that. We aren't missing anything. You aren't our professor and your words are not gospel.

[Dr. Horse]

I received your "point" loud and clear from the very beginning.

Your posting history suggests otherwise.

Do we really believe that a "dirty diet" is more bodybuiding friendly than a "clean diet". A double cheeseburger with fries is a better choice than a chicken breast and a sweet potato. I don't believe Mr. Horse, lTH, or any of these other guys who claim to eat "whatever" they want and stay at 10% bodyfat or below. At least not while maintaining any significant muscle mass.

This was my original issue with this thread. Some members give the whole "you can eat whatever you want in moderation and still remain at a very low bf%". Cheat meals are one thing. A grilled chicken sandwich is one thing. Fast food (even if it's just once a day) is another thing. This is very misleading, especially for a newb who comes here for genuine advice. I would venture to say that the majority of members on this site would advise a clean diet over a "eat whatever you want, just watch your macros diet."

How can you get in all of your macros spread intelligently throughout the day while eating dirty.

Put some pics up bud. I'd like to see what a bad ass, big mac eating, half man, half horse looks like after eating all that garbage. I have a feeling I already know the answer. I'll bet twinkies before bed are also a good idea (as long as one exhibits portion control). One of the most retarded things I've heard here for awhile. Congratulations!

Looks like you missed the point to me. Either that, or you're just being argumentative for its own sake.

[The_Sage]

Please re-read my above post.

[Dr. Horse]

Please re-read my above post.

I've read it forwards and backwards. I think you're just being argumentative. I see that in later posts you actually endorse my viewpoint, though you still refuse to come out and admit it. Have you been learning from Obama?

[The_Sage]

I believe you have achieved your goal in this thread. I took the bait so shame on me. Actually liked the part about Obama though.

[Paumen]

Anything from God = Clean , agree?

[Mxer_129]

Anything from God = Clean , agree?

but...i'm dirty...

[X-Mark-X]

but...i'm dirty...

HAHAHA oh **** I just lol'd...

[Paumen]

but...i'm dirty...

That's ok, must people can be dirty and be just fine.

[lth]

lmao

[TheWaffleIron]

I've read it forwards and backwards. I think you're just being argumentative. I see that in later posts you actually endorse my viewpoint, though you still refuse to come out and admit it. Have you been learning from Obama?

[lth]

haha, holy **** i lol'd so hard

[ndgal]

I agree with other people on this thread that "clean eating" has nothing to do with the calories, or if the food are carbs ect. It all depends on the way that it is prepared. Foods that are overly processed are "dirty". Foods that are naturally occuring are "clean". Big Macs are not clean no matter if you eat one or thirty-one. The meat is overly processed along with the dressing that they put on them.

[hooked4life]

I agree with other people on this thread that "clean eating" has nothing to do with the calories, or if the food are carbs ect. It all depends on the way that it is prepared. Foods that are overly processed are "dirty". Foods that are naturally occuring are "clean". Big Macs are not clean no matter if you eat one or thirty-one. The meat is overly processed along with the dressing that they put on them.

you are the first person on bb.com i have met that thinks protein shakes are dirty.

[belairdfence99]

Using that, you could easily be defining carbs as dirty.

Well you're body doesn't need carbs to survive to lots of extra carbs are not usually a good thing