Redefining a Clean Meal

Nutrition
62

[quote]CaliforniaLaw 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.

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.” [/quote]

What are you looking for? Clean is and will only ever be “what someone says it is.” It’s not a scientific term that is quantifiable or measureable. It was CREATED by some human being to apply to foods to promote good body composition and to help lifters meet their goals. I think the definition of foods found in their raw, unprocessed state with as little done to them as possible is as good as any definition. Why? Because those foods help promote good health and when eaten in the proper amounts, combinations, and times can help meet physique goals.

As far as the meals you mentioned, I think they are entirely appropriate if not 100% clean according to the definition I adopted. That’s why I think the analysis is misplaced. It doesn’t matter whether a meal fits a nonstandardized definition that will always be somewhat arbitrary. It matters whether it promotes your goals.

I suppose ‘clean eating’ could be redefined as whatever meets your goals. But I think that definition’s equally problematic. A powerlifter could add a good amount of of protein and fiber to meals or snacks from a box that a contain a high amount of sugar and trans fat and saturated fat and still be promoting their goals.

But they might well be carrying a large amount of excess fat and have cholesterol problems, high blood sugar, and other health problems. I wouldn’t really consider meals or a diet with so much food so divorced from nature or promoting health problems to be clean.

63

One of my favorite clean meals during my precontest bodybuilding prep is tacos. I use 96% lean ground beef (a whole pound), a package of taco seasoning, 4 oz of fat free cheddar, and 2 servings of low fat corn tortilla chips. Gets me about 134 grams of protein, 68 grams of carbs, and 20 grams of fat. Makes for a nice filling lunch.

My other standby is chili with a pound of beef, chili seasoning, and a can of tomato soup, with a little water.

I consider those both to be clean meals in my diet.

64

In precontest mode I don’t really make any foods of limits. I have daily macro numbers I want to hit and whatever food does the trick I will use. So if I decide to have a low cal chocolate pudding pop I just need to fit that in to my numbers and adjust the rest of my day around it in order to hit the macro numbers.

Eating clean is not rocket science. To me it means not eating junk food all of the time like I normally do.

65

[quote]jsbrook 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.

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

True, I shoot for 90% clean ala Berardi. If I don’t crave twinkies with flaxseed oil, why consume it? I find it easier to follow a more regimented diet with planned cheats rather than eating whatever I want and then trying to adjust my macros at the end of the day.

Before anyone flips out again, why don’t you start with your definition of a clean meal first, so we can have a platform for an intelligent debate. If everyone here has a different definition, and since there is no universally accepted definition, this thread is basically just turning into a shouting match.

66

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.
[/quote]

I apologize. Completely my fault-I was blind on that one. Thought you were making an attack on my post and misrepresentation of what I was stating in this thread. My fault.

67

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Is there a bandwagon? Thats not good.
[/quote]

Yes, it is. The bandwagon includes a bunch of guys who only “know” what they’ve read on this site. I’m actually pleased that so many of them (you) dislike my Internet persona.

I simply say what other educated people are thinking. If certain people didn’t have goods and services to sell, a lot more people on this site wouldn’t act much differently than I. Since I don’t make my living in the industry, I can be the voice of thinking people who are fed up with people who can’t run a simple search before asking a question, who think 13" arms are big, and who don’t read anything other than a few Internet articles a week.

68

Hey guys, today I went to mcdonalds and ordered a big mac, fries, a milkshake, and a snackwrap. But before I did I had a shake with flax in it, am I in the club yet?

69

[quote]Roy wrote:
Hey guys, today I went to mcdonalds and ordered a big mac, fries, a milkshake, and a snackwrap. But before I did I had a shake with flax in it, am I in the club yet?[/quote]

Did the burger have BCAAs in it?

70

My definition of “eating clean” is basically eating for your goals and meeting your nutritional requirements without eating a caloric surplus, or in other words, without excess.

My definition of not eating clean would be eating with a caloric surplus passed your nutritional needs.

I, by my definition, do not eat clean. What you stated at the start of the thread I would not consider clean either.

What I do consider it, though, is smart. I eat like that all the time. You are eating for your goals so call it what you like, so long as the results you are looking for are coming.

For some reason I associate eating clean with leaning out, staying lean, or bulking while gaining a minimal amount of fat, and still eating your required p/f/c. (Whatever your current p/f/c ration might be) That is why I would not consider it clean.

71

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Is there a bandwagon? Thats not good.

Yes, it is. The bandwagon includes a bunch of guys who only “know” what they’ve read on this site. I’m actually pleased that so many of them (you) dislike my Internet persona.

I simply say what other educated people are thinking. If certain people didn’t have goods and services to sell, a lot more people on this site wouldn’t act much differently than I. Since I don’t make my living in the industry, I can be the voice of thinking people who are fed up with people who can’t run a simple search before asking a question, who think 13" arms are big, and who don’t read anything other than a few Internet articles a week.[/quote]

Get over yourself.

You obviously have nothing.

This rationalle for your pompous, assanine behavior proves it.

You are an asshole who has run his course like a bad case of the shits.

Now do yourself a favor and fuck off.
You stink the place up.

72

[quote]lazyaxus11 wrote:
My definition of “eating clean” is basically eating for your goals and meeting your nutritional requirements without eating a caloric surplus, or in other words, without excess.

My definition of not eating clean would be eating with a caloric surplus passed your nutritional needs.

I, by my definition, do not eat clean. What you stated at the start of the thread I would not consider clean either.

What I do consider it, though, is smart. I eat like that all the time. You are eating for your goals so call it what you like, so long as the results you are looking for are coming.

For some reason I associate eating clean with leaning out, staying lean, or bulking while gaining a minimal amount of fat, and still eating your required p/f/c. (Whatever your current p/f/c ration might be) That is why I would not consider it clean. [/quote]

I am pretty sure we are targeting many of these posts at the little dudes who think they should be more focused on how “clean” everything is even though they still aren’t eating enough to make progress. They base this on half understanding very limited reading very often from only one resource (this site or one favorite author). That is the only reason these “definitions” are being challenged.

73

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Roy wrote:
Hey guys, today I went to mcdonalds and ordered a big mac, fries, a milkshake, and a snackwrap. But before I did I had a shake with flax in it, am I in the club yet?

Did the burger have BCAAs in it?

[/quote]

None advertised on the label.

But it’s all good, the protein/flax I added made it a clean meal. Now I’m gunna go read recipies about how to make healthy chocolate chip cookies with fish oil!!!

74

[quote]CaliforniaLaw 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.

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. [/quote]

First, you want to have an intellectual conversation, but continue to retaliate at each and every poster who pokes fun, albeit immaturely, at your “clean food” thread. Just saying, every response you give doubles the number of meaningless posts, on your thread. Because of this I made it as far as the above quote.

Now. For my 2cents. Personally a clean food/meal/diet is one that fits with ones personal health considerations as well as both short and long term goals. That is in most every case, 99% of the chosen foods will be as natural and unprocessed as is reasonably attainable. I agree that there is no wrong foods, only wrong times to eat certain foods. With the exception of trans fats, HFCS, heavy metals, known carcinogens, ect…

Your claim that by simply slowing the gastric emptying of a digested idaho potato, and thereby reducing the GI index, it is as “clean” as a sweet potato has some valid logic, but I feel it is also flawed. First, while it does make sense that the GI index of foods could fluctuate, I have not read any information backing this point. Sometimes what is logical, turns out to be far from it, especially with regards to the human body. Just saying, it is an assumption, period. For instance, carbohydrate digestion occurs largely in the small intestine, rather than the stomach. Furthermore, following your logic you have to take into account meal sizes, more so than usual. Example being, eating 1/4 idaho potato with 3g fiber, compared to eating 2 idaho potatoes with 24g fiber. The larger meal will be emitted from your stomach more rapidly than the smaller one, despite equal ratios of carbs to fiber simply because the intragastric pressure created is much greater overcoming the resistance of the pyloric orifice much easier. The GI load surely cannot change, and if I’m not mistaken an idaho potato is about twice that of a sweet potato.

So, NO. Reducing a certain foods GI index does not make it clean, or even cleaner, in my opinion. There are so many damn variables here its not even funny! How does drinking 20oz of coke with two scoops of Metabolic Drive and 2tbsp flax meal, really alter the GI index of the coke? Maybe alot, and maybe not. Replace that coke with an equal quantity of spaghetti and watermelon, do things change much? Not sure, but I bet they would!

How about just one krispy kreme donut… or just a 1/2 cup of ben and jerrys super chocolate peanut butter fudge ice cream, along with of course some healthy protein, fats, and fiber? You trying to wage war against the unhealthy aspects of these foods by combating them with healthy foods…it doesn’t work that way. 5 cups of broccoli with just a few grams of trans fats does not make the “meal” clean. Yes you must look at the whole macro/micronutrient profile of a meal, but also at how those nutrients are actually metabolized, stored, excreted, ect…

For the record, your ideas are intriguing, I am planning on refreshing myself with just exactly how “gastric emptying” occurs, thanks to this thread. Personally, I’ll avoid any food that I feel is “dirty” either in isolation or a meal, as there are better alternatives.

75

[quote]Professor X wrote:
lazyaxus11 wrote:
My definition of “eating clean” is basically eating for your goals and meeting your nutritional requirements without eating a caloric surplus, or in other words, without excess.

My definition of not eating clean would be eating with a caloric surplus passed your nutritional needs.

I, by my definition, do not eat clean. What you stated at the start of the thread I would not consider clean either.

What I do consider it, though, is smart. I eat like that all the time. You are eating for your goals so call it what you like, so long as the results you are looking for are coming.

For some reason I associate eating clean with leaning out, staying lean, or bulking while gaining a minimal amount of fat, and still eating your required p/f/c. (Whatever your current p/f/c ration might be) That is why I would not consider it clean.

I am pretty sure we are targeting many of these posts at the little dudes who think they should be more focused on how “clean” everything is even though they still aren’t eating enough to make progress. They base this on half understanding very limited reading very often from only one resource (this site or one favorite author). That is the only reason these “definitions” are being challenged. [/quote]

Right, and I agree, while I didn’t read all the posts throughout this thread, I can imagine what has been discussed.

I see a lot of people who are worried about macro nutrient ratios, “eating clean” or timing this and that, when there is absolutely no warrant. Yeah, there are some on this site who should be concerned with such things, but I gaurantee you it’s not the majority here. It just seems like many people try to over-complicate and over-analyze the simplicities of eating for mass.

76

CaLaw,

Did you ever give your definition of clean?

If people are going to agree or disagree with you, dont they need to know your defintion of the term?

Wouldn’t a better question be, “Can you eat ‘empty’ calories (the white flour in the pizza, the corn syrup in a coke)if you also eat calorie dense foods(steak and vegtables)and still pursue your training without ill effects?”

Isn’t that the issue here, or am I simplfying things?

77

I dont know about anyone else but if I eat empty calories and clean calories I put on fat like no other. Just becasue I’m getting all the essential nutrients doesnt mean I can add extra calories from say pizza or another source. I can’t eat anything but clean stuff or it be too much. But thats just my metabolism, I’m sure someone else could add it in if they had a faster metabolism.

78

So for my max effort movement tomorrow I’m going to do the leg adductor machine. What should I do afterward to make up for it?

79

[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
So for my max effort movement tomorrow I’m going to do the leg adductor machine. What should I do afterward to make up for it?[/quote]

First, change the name from “max effort movement” (whatever that means), add in leg presses, hack squats, and leg curls and you have a decent workout even if you avoided squats for that day. Oh, wait, you were trying to be funny by relating this to exercises…without realizing that you could very well prove the point with that analogy as well. Hey, you could get really crazy and add squats in the next time and barely be able to walk after hitting the gym. Do you think your legs won’t grow because you did adductors…and everything else?

I have no doubt there are 140lbs kids on this site afraid to even eat a baked potato or, God forbid, a hamburger every few days in between protein shake IVs. But hey, at least they always eat “clean” even if they don’t grow much.

80

[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
So for my max effort movement tomorrow I’m going to do the leg adductor machine. What should I do afterward to make up for it?[/quote]

This is known as the fallacy of disanalogy. When you go to college (or when you decide to learn something), you’ll understand why.

Happy learning.

81

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
Roy wrote:
Stop making exuses for yourselfs to eat like fatties.

If you’re joking, then that’s pretty funny…if you’re not joking, then slap yourself! [/quote]

I agree with this… stop making excuses to use food as a form of pleasure instead of using it for a purpose like it was intended.