Redefining a Clean Meal

Nutrition
42

[quote]Roy wrote:
Adding healthy fats/fiber/protein does not make a meal “clean”. If I were to add those things to an ice cream cone. I would have a yucky tasting ice cream cone with protein, alot of fat, some fiber, and alot of suger that would digest slightly slower because of the fiber.[/quote]

Roy, I thought I told you not to “contribute”? You’re the guy who didn’t know that all whey protein has BCAAs in it. (Noting the BCAAs in whey is just a marketing trick used on noobs who don’t know any better.) I’ve skimmed some of your other posts. You really are clueless.

That you continue posting indicates you’re ignorant of your ignorance. That’s worse, imho, than being fat.

43

[quote]Roy wrote:
I’d say over 50% of the people on these boards are fat. That statement comes from … good ol fashion pictures.[/quote]

Huh? Most of the pictures are of little guys. I haven’t seen many fat pics, unless you’re talking about before pics.

You’re one of those guys who weighs 150 pounds and who suffers from ILS, aren’t you?

44

clean to me is low carb with a proper balance of protein, healthy fat, and powerful vegetables.

i’m sure to some of you who are on higher carb diets, a clean meal is different in that it is leaner and contains complex longer lasting carbs.

A generalized definition of a clean meal must satisfy the following condition:

-Provides the proper amount of nutrients for lean gains to enhance performance, without resulting in fat gain, ideally no fat gain.

any meal that satisfies that condition is in my opinion, clean.

45

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I define ‘clean’ as wholly natural and unprocessed [things like meat, poultry, fruits, veggies, oats, olives, nuts]. I would not consider a meal clean if it had any processed food in it. [/quote]

I completely agree with this definition.

So adding protein/fiber/healthy fats to a meal that already contains processed foods, trans fats, and/or refined sugar would not make it a clean meal in my opinion. It certainly would improve the profile of the meal, but I still wouldn’t consider it clean.

46

[quote]consumer wrote:

A generalized definition of a clean meal must satisfy the following condition:

-Provides the proper amount of nutrients for lean gains to enhance performance, without resulting in fat gain, ideally no fat gain.

any meal that satisfies that condition is in my opinion, clean.[/quote]

No offense, but what a dumbass definition. It doesn’t matter what foods you eat if your CALORIC INTAKE is still more than needed to maintain your body weight. Do you think that someone who needs 3,000cals a day to maintain but eats 5,000cals a day will somehow not gain fat if they eat that in chicken breasts?

Those of you THAT worried about fat gain are probably the same ones making the least progress overall.

47

[quote]Modi wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I define ‘clean’ as wholly natural and unprocessed [things like meat, poultry, fruits, veggies, oats, olives, nuts]. I would not consider a meal clean if it had any processed food in it.

I completely agree with this definition.

So adding protein/fiber/healthy fats to a meal that already contains processed foods, trans fats, and/or refined sugar would not make it a clean meal in my opinion. It certainly would improve the profile of the meal, but I still wouldn’t consider it clean.[/quote]

Most food has been “processed”. That term doesn’t mean much. While you get a gold star for mentioning trans fats (since they are the new evil in the food pyramid), most of these concepts are based on little but preference.

48

[quote]Modi wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I define ‘clean’ as wholly natural and unprocessed [things like meat, poultry, fruits, veggies, oats, olives, nuts]. I would not consider a meal clean if it had any processed food in it.

I completely agree with this definition.

So adding protein/fiber/healthy fats to a meal that already contains processed foods, trans fats, and/or refined sugar would not make it a clean meal in my opinion. It certainly would improve the profile of the meal, but I still wouldn’t consider it clean.[/quote]

Can anyone support his or her definition with at least a little analysis?

A sweet potato is widely considered a “clean” food. Why? Because of its (low) GI. (Not because people say, “It’s clean!”)

If you, by taking added fiber tabs, could slow down the gastric emptying and thus lower the GI of an Idaho potato to that of a sweet potato, wouldn’t the ID potato be just as “clean” as the sweet potato?

Why or why not?

I think the answer is clearly, yes. A lot of people seem to disagree. But I haven’t seen an actual arguments. Just assertions. “Well, ‘clean’ is what I say it is.”

Anyhow, I can see this discussion will not be as fruitful as I had hoped it would be. I guess that’s because no one has published an article yet addressing the subject. Thus, no one has anyone to parrot.

49

Idaho’s don’t exactly have the same phytochemicals as sweet potatoes. Not the most important thing for leanness, but still, it’s not quite the same. I’d say it makes them a cleaner food, so its a good idea nonetheless.

Not to say I don’t do this myself. If I’m gonna eat some white pasta I just load it with fibersure. Now heres a question. Usually I add about 30 grams of fiber to cups of pasta. Does this make it cleaner than wheat pasta.

50

[quote]Taquito wrote:
Usually I add about 30 grams of fiber to cups of pasta. Does this make it cleaner than wheat pasta.[/quote]

This goes to the heart of (what should have been) this discussion. I think the answer is, Yes.

There’s nothing particularly special about whole wheat pasta. People just eat it because it has a lower GI than bleached pasta. In light of what you do, the GI will be low because the fiber will slow the gastric emptying. So it’s just as smart (or a smarter) choice than whole wheat pasta.

51

[quote]Taquito wrote:
Idaho’s don’t exactly have the same phytochemicals as sweet potatoes. Not the most important thing for leanness, but still, it’s not quite the same. I’d say it makes them a cleaner food, so its a good idea nonetheless.[/quote]

Phytochemicals? What “phytochemicals” does it specifically have that are the primary reason that make them superior?

At some level, I am just digging into you, but it does kind of bother me when people just repeat things they’ve heard somewhere before but don’t really know why they follow these “rules”. It is much like the “eight glasses of water” thing. Everyone supposedly KNOWS this is good for you, but no one knows why. Why not NINE glasses? Who actually drinks “glasses” of water anymore anyway?

52

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Anyhow, I can see this discussion will not be as fruitful as I had hoped it would be. I guess that’s because no one has published an article yet addressing the subject. Thus, no one has anyone to parrot. [/quote]

Neither do you, you arrogant asshole.

Here’s a novel idea- Go do something, then get back to us with the results.

Oh, wait, that would require a little more than being an asshole.

You would actualy have to methodicaly measure and track the results of implementing your idea.

It’s just funny that you have nothing on this topic, but are pissed that no one else does either.

Just think CA, if you actualy implemented this idea and got back to us with the results, you could be parroted too!

53

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Here’s a novel idea- Go do something, then get back to us with the results.

Oh, wait, that would require a little more than being an asshole.

You would actualy have to methodicaly measure and track the results of implementing your idea.[/quote]

Huh? Who said I don’t track my results. If you’re interested in how I eat or what I supplement with, read the Carbolin 19 thread I started. I have exact macros and kcals laid out for you; along with supps I take and activities that I do.

Nice try at “jumping on the bandwagon” and making baseless attacks, though.

54

[quote]proteus189 wrote:
Trans fats are saturated fats, but there is a difference between the two.[/quote]

Trans fats are not saturated fats. They are unsaturated fatty acids where the molecules are in a trans configuration rather than the normal cis configuration.

55

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Here’s a novel idea- Go do something, then get back to us with the results.

Oh, wait, that would require a little more than being an asshole.

You would actualy have to methodicaly measure and track the results of implementing your idea.

Huh? Who said I don’t track my results. If you’re interested in how I eat or what I supplement with, read the Carbolin 19 thread I started. I have exact macros and kcals laid out for you; along with supps I take and activities that I do.

Nice try at “jumping on the bandwagon” and making baseless attacks, though.[/quote]

Is there a bandwagon? Thats not good.

Besides, as I’m sure you know, these comments were pertinent to your feigned disappointment at the lack of ability of others form their own thoughts, and provide an arguement for or against yours.
(which you conveniently left out of your copy and comment)

So, I suggest that you conduct your own inquisition into your own question and come up with your own proof.

AND drop the shitty attitude.

But just for the sake of entertainment-

No, adding a couple of ingredients doesn’t make something good.

Why?

Because, It may make it a bit more beneficial, but it still contains the same “bad” ingredients that made it “bad” in the first place.

The thing is though, I don’t look at foods as clean or dirty.
I look at them as more or less beneficial, depending on the goal.

Twinkies with protien and flax are of little benefit to someone trying to get very lean.

On the other hand, I add a scoop of grow to my morning cereal, which is considered “bad”. It is sugary and has little nutritive value, but I’m bulking and don’t give a crap. It has calories and protien.

This in no way “cleans it up”. It simply adds something I need to a few other things that are less than ideal.

You would think that something so simple would be a bit more obvious to someone as brilliant as yourself.

56

[quote]Professor X wrote:
consumer wrote:

A generalized definition of a clean meal must satisfy the following condition:

-Provides the proper amount of nutrients for lean gains to enhance performance, without resulting in fat gain, ideally no fat gain.

any meal that satisfies that condition is in my opinion, clean.

No offense, but what a dumbass definition. It doesn’t matter what foods you eat if your CALORIC INTAKE is still more than needed to maintain your body weight. Do you think that someone who needs 3,000cals a day to maintain but eats 5,000cals a day will somehow not gain fat if they eat that in chicken breasts?

Those of you THAT worried about fat gain are probably the same ones making the least progress overall.[/quote]

this is true, but i am not so apt to believe that fat gain is simply calories in vs calories out. I also believe a lot has to do with the hormonal changes involved.

The body just doesn’t require X amount of calories per day and you get to eat whatever macronutrient. It requires differing ratios of different macronutrients and micronutrients.

If the body needs glucose and you give it fatty acids instead, it will still be in a deficit.

57

I always thought the label ‘clean’ had more to do with general health than physique goals. I am interested in the answer to your question of whether or not added fiber and protein to a high-fat, high-sugar meal (e.g. pizza-hut) would cancel out the supposedly negative effects of that food.

It seems like the best way to figure this out would be to have three groups: the first would eat a traditionally ‘clean’ diet ala Berardi or T-dawg, the second would eat a ‘dirty’ diet rich in fast foods and delicious, delicious pizza, and the third would eat like CLaw is suggesting; a diet with large amounts of traditional dirty food supplemented by fiber and protein.

You could have all groups eat at maintanence cals, have them perform similar exercise programs, have them get bloodwork done before and after and then write up the results.

I’d read it.

58

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Modi wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I define ‘clean’ as wholly natural and unprocessed [things like meat, poultry, fruits, veggies, oats, olives, nuts]. I would not consider a meal clean if it had any processed food in it.

I completely agree with this definition.

So adding protein/fiber/healthy fats to a meal that already contains processed foods, trans fats, and/or refined sugar would not make it a clean meal in my opinion. It certainly would improve the profile of the meal, but I still wouldn’t consider it clean.

Most food has been “processed”. That term doesn’t mean much. While you get a gold star for mentioning trans fats (since they are the new evil in the food pyramid), most of these concepts are based on little but preference.[/quote]

  And what exactly is this post supposed to mean? Not all foods are processed beyond simply adding preservatives to keep them from going bad for a longer time. I am speaking of foods in their natural form. Fruits and veggies and meat and oats. As opposed to twinkies, hohos, and little debbies.

And yes, storebought pizza with bleached white flour without the fiber. There is a difference in the way the body processes these foods. Thanks for the gold star, buddy. I’ll hang it on my fridge. I think it’d be deserved since there’s plenty of research that trans fat are particularly detrimental to coronary health and also preferentially promote fat gain, particularly abdominal fat gain.

But if you had in fact read all my posts on this topic, instead of selectively choosing a portion to make yourself look superior and try to make others look foolish, you would've seen that I said clean is just a buzzword for healthy eating, and eating purely unprocessed, raw foods is not necessary for health or good body composition.

That I said, trying to determine what’s ‘clean’ is the wrong questions to be asking. And the proper thing to be focused on is what’s appropriate for body composition goals. Where even in the realm of ‘clean’ eating, macronutrient breakdown, meal timing, and food choice will vary greatly depending on goals.

That some ‘junk food’ need not be shunned when the goal is to gain. But you are a selective reader and just focus on what you want to focus on. Congratulaions, you get a gold star for consistency.

59

[quote]Modi wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I define ‘clean’ as wholly natural and unprocessed [things like meat, poultry, fruits, veggies, oats, olives, nuts]. I would not consider a meal clean if it had any processed food in it.

I completely agree with this definition.

So adding protein/fiber/healthy fats to a meal that already contains processed foods, trans fats, and/or refined sugar would not make it a clean meal in my opinion. It certainly would improve the profile of the meal, but I still wouldn’t consider it clean.[/quote]

Yes. But as I said, I see no reason why it would need to be 100% clean outside the context of very strict dieting.

60

[quote]consumer wrote:
this is true, but i am not so apt to believe that fat gain is simply calories in vs calories out. I also believe a lot has to do with the hormonal changes involved.[/quote]

Insulin? testosterone? Weight gain is still a function of calories being stored or used. “Hormonal changes” may affect how many calories are needed but they don’t magically change the equation.

[quote]

The body just doesn’t require X amount of calories per day and you get to eat whatever macronutrient. It requires differing ratios of different macronutrients and micronutrients. [/quote]

…for health, not for WEIGHT CONTROL.

Not a CALORIC DEFICIT. It may be lacking nutrients just like you can have a vitamin deficiency yet still gain weight.

61

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
And what exactly is this post supposed to mean? Not all foods are processed beyond simply adding preservatives to keep them from going bad for a longer time. I am speaking of foods in their natural form. Fruits and veggies and meat and oats. As opposed to twinkies, hohos, and little debbies.[/quote]

What about “wheat bread”? It is still PROCESSED. Just because you used Twinkies in your example doesn’t erase the “wheat bread” in mine.

[quote]
And yes, storebought pizza with bleached white flour without the fiber. There is a difference in the way the body processes these foods. Thanks for the gold star, buddy. I’ll hang it on my fridge. I think it’d be deserved since there’s plenty of research that trans fat are particularly detrimental to coronary health and also preferentially promote fat gain, particularly abdominal fat gain.[/quote]

First, dear blind one, I quoted someone else who was NOT you.

[quote]

But if you had in fact read all my posts on this topic, instead of selectively choosing a portion to make yourself look superior and try to make others look foolish, you would've seen that I said clean is just a buzzword for healthy eating, and eating purely unprocessed, raw foods is not necessary for health or good body composition. [/quote]

My post wasn’t directed at you which was why I DID NOT QUOTE YOU but the person before me. Pull your head out of your ass and read next time. Modi quoted you. I quoted him. Get glasses.