Why “Clean Eating” is a Myth

[HuckleB]

http://evidencemag.com/clean-eating/

"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.

..."



Oddly. Some corporations use fear tactics to get you buy their foods and avoid foods of their competitors. Of course, those who buy into such marketing also feel that they are righteous and make better decisions than others. Oddly, it seems that, for the most part, they are fooling themselves.

:hi"

[randome]

1. We are addicted to food. Slaves to our cravings.

We see it as a reward system in the same way addicts do. "I deserve a little something more today." "Man, I could really use {insert favorite food name here}."

We need to put aside the idea that food outside nutrition is somehow 'good' for us.

I became a food minimalist five months ago. No chocolate. No chips. No desserts. No more daily coffee. Dropped 30 pounds in that time. I don't see ever going back.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[HuckleB]

2. Thanks for your response!

It's very interesting. I'm not saying anything bad about you, in any way, with this response. I had to quit drinking, so I get it!

Still, it does bring up habits. I was brought up in a family where a few nights a week, we could have a scoop of ice cream or a cookie (home made) for dessert. Everything else was "real" food. (I know. I know. Loaded term.)

When I got married, we bought a half gallon of ice cream. I had a scoop one night. Then I wanted another a few weeks later. It was gone. I didn't understand. Why is it all gone?

Well, my wife grew up in a family where the ice cream (and other treats) was simply eaten as fast as possible as soon as it made it to the freezer. There was balance. No moderation.

I probably should give up chocolate, by the way. I appreciate your inspiration on that!

Cheers!

[randome]

4. It's really been a strange trip for me.

It hit me when I was in a Chiles restaurant in Chicago, stuffing spicy tortillas in my mouth: "When should I take care of any physiological problems that come my way? After they become a problem? Or before?"

And I didn't give up all those things in one fell swoop, but gradually and now it's the norm for me.

Looking back on how I thought about food, it was very similar to how I felt with cigarettes 30 years previously: I obeyed my cravings. Same mindset. Same 'excitement' about food as I had with tobacco.

I still get an Imo's Pizza or White Castle hamburgers and fries once in a while but I mark the calender when I do so I'm not tempted to make it a regular occurrence.

Ice cream didn't last long in my family, either.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[HuckleB]

6. Good luck!

Keeping track of things is a great way to go. Both for "treats," and for things like exercise. If I don't keep track of exercise, it's easy for me to think I've done something almost every day, even it that's not close to true.

Cheers!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. In a sense, yes.

Certainly, eating makes people feel good, and if you try stopping eating, you'll experience severe and ultimately fatal withdrawal symptoms...

[randome]

5. I think of it in the same sense that morphine is necessary sometimes.

You can still get addicted to it.

Food is obviously a necessity. But recognizing that is different from recognizing signs of addiction. I can see how I used 'addiction behaviors' in regard to food in the past.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[yuiyoshida]

7. I for one welcome our popcorn overlords

with open arms!

[randome]

8. That's probably where Pucca gets all her energy from!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[yuiyoshida]

9. Yup...

You know whats funny.. I have a friend in Taiwan who freaks out when I mention I am eating popcorn. They are under the impression that all corn in the USA is contaminated or radio active or something! I tell her, hey its popped..its not exploding and blowing up my microwave, nor has it taken out any cities yet!

[randome]

14. So long as you don't end up like Orville, I'm sure you'll be fine!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[yuiyoshida]

15. Well ya know, they say

You are what you eat! Scary, huh?

[Art_from_Ark]

38. Mmmmm, popcorn

It's been a while since I've had some freshly popped popcorn. Now you've got me hankering for some.

[yuiyoshida]

40. do what i do..

Ingrediants:

1. Microwave oven
2. Brown paper lunch bags
3. Popcorn kernals.

Insert 3 into 2...than insert both 3 and 2 into 1. Nuke for 30 seconds or until popping slows down. Retrieve from 1... put into 4 (Your tummy!)

You can add stuff on to it afterwards, but um... don't tell anyone, but I like Chinese curry powder on my popcorn. Sometimes spice it up with some Sriracha added. Yikes its yummy!

[Art_from_Ark]

44. I'd like to try your method

However, I don't know where I can get brown paper lunch bags, or anything like them, in Japan.

[yuiyoshida]

49. seriously, no paper bags?

Not at all? I can't believe you can't find a paper bag!! Any paper bag will do, doesn't have to be brown. I just get those cause they are convenient!

[Art_from_Ark]

50. There are lots of paper bags in Japan, of course,

but it's hard to find the kind that would be ideal for your corn-popping method. People here don't "brown bag" their lunches, they have "bento bako" that they carry around in plastic or cloth bags. At any rate, I'll check the local American-style supermarket to see if they have any.

[Art_from_Ark]

62. Well, I tried that method, and guess what?

The paper bag caught on fire at about 30 seconds. The microwave was set at 700 watts.

So I tried another approach-- I put the popcorn kernels in a deep, microwave-safe bowl (one layer of kernels covering the bottom of the bowl), covered the kernels with sesame oil, and covered the bowl with a heavy earthen dish. Then I nuked them for about 2 1/2 minutes. It worked that way. And while there were quite a few unpopped kernels the first time, I nuked the unpopped kernels a second time, and most of them popped.

[yuiyoshida]

63. Thats amazing...

Buy the way.. the paper bag shouldn't catch on fire.. that must really high level! I don't know what my microwave is ..but I have never had a fire in it. Than again..I don't put oil in the bag..that might cause a fire. I am glad you found a way to make popcorn though.. If you pop it without the oil..it will be fine, and you can add the oil to it later as a topping. I like to put lots of different stuff on mine.. like maybe Parmesan cheese, or curry powder, or something spicy..Tabasco sauce, or Thai hot sauce. Enjoy!

Let me know when You have mailed the item..I look forward to seeing it> I could use more good luck about now!!

[Art_from_Ark]

64. I didn't put any oil in the paper bag

Just popcorn-- and the bag still caught fire. Maybe the bag contained something that made it highly flammable under microwaves.

I will have a chance to go to the post office tomorrow.

[yuiyoshida]

65. Outstanding! Yes...

I have seen some bags from stores like Macy's that seem like it had some metal threads in it to make it more sturdy. Something like that would light up like a xmas tree before exploding into a ball of fire. ZZZZZZTTTZZZZzzzz

[Art_from_Ark]

66. My microwave wasn't quite that bad

But it still scared the blazes out of me.

[whistler162]

16. You could be right, Wilbur sure to keep a eye on the poster.

[WinkyDink]

21. "addicted to food"? Is that like being addicted to air and water?

[Archae]

39. Some people eat to feel better.

Not to satisfy hunger cravings, or to occasionally indulge, a little.

They are addicted to eating itself.

[Silent3]

30. I've lost 85 lbs, and without a puritanical approach.

I was eating so much junk before that I had a lot to cut back on, but it made, and still makes, much more sense to me that "the poison is in the dose", that it's the ratios of different kinds of food that I eat that matter, not ritualistic purity. That, and getting a lot more exercise than I used to. (Today, for instance, I snowshoed 5.6 miles.)

I'm coming up on two years of my improved diet and exercise, a year and half since I lost the first 50 lbs, and about nine months of holding steady at a good, trim target weight.

Today, part of what I ate included 280 calories worth of ice cream, and about 150 calories worth of tortilla chips.

I currently exercise enough so that I typically need to consume 3000-3500 calories/day just to maintain my weight. The bulk of what I eat is fresh vegetables, lean meats, whole grains and other starches that I try to keep mostly on the low glycemic index side of things, fruit, Greek yogurt, and protein bars.

With the kind of calorie budget I have, however, I see no problem with 2-3 desserts per week, although I do make them small desserts most of the time, and, except on rare occasion, only eat half of typical portions of restaurant desserts.

I usually eat about 100-150 calories of light popcorn daily (air-popped, or prepared with very little oil, lightly salted, not the funny tasting artificial butter flavor kind), I go back and forth about how often I eat a little dark chocolate (typically 140 calories of it), I eat small servings (250-400 calories) of french fries or sweet potato fries 3-4 times/week.

I usually eat at least one salad a day, preferably one that I make myself with a good mix of vegetables, avoiding salads that are mostly just a big pile of lettuce, nearly always topped with a small amount of bleu cheese dressing. I'm more than satisfied with 50-100 calories of that, and I'd rather use a small amount of bleu cheese than any amount of a "light" dressing, or any other dressing that I imagine would qualify for the nebulously defined idea of "clean".

I certainly don't stress myself out over whether what I eat is "natural" or "organic", or GMO-free, or gluten free, or whatever other thing has become the fetish of the day to be free of. I don't live in a world where I obsess about "toxins", or worry about "cleansing" myself.

[FreeJoe]

45. This generally matches my approach

I eat mostly healthy foods. I exercise regularly. I don't get puritanical about it and enjoy some pizza or treats here and there. I have to watch my blood sugar, but I'm OK with an occasional binge.

[eridani]

41. I'll admit to being a multiple substance abuser

I'm also addicted to oxygen and water.

[JJChambers]

10. People need to get past eating like a bird

Count your calories and allow yourself to eat whatever you want, in moderation. Exercise regularly. It will be impossible NOT to lose weight. My fitness pal is a great ap. The only people who remain overweight are those who choose to remain that way, or those with medical conditions that predispose them to obesity.

[HuckleB]

11. Past a certain age, it's not necessarily that easy to lose weight, but...

I have no general problem with your post!

Cheers!

[WinkyDink]

22. Ha! Last time I heard that my mother's wisecrack was, "I eat like a bird. A vulture."

[demosincebirth]

53. That's the way I was. Never was overwait 'till I was, about 30.

[WinkyDink]

57. I was an early achiever. ;-)

[H2O Man]

12. Respectfully disagree.

I engaged in wonderfully clean eating throughout Valentine's Day evening and night. It was a great experience for both of us.

[HuckleB]

13. I don't know what that means, but it sounds like you had a good time.

[flying rabbit]

17. Thats an interesting site

Thanks for putting it out there

[HuckleB]

18. It's not my favorite site, but this piece seemed worthy.

[SheilaT]

19. In this country there's this weird inclination

to treat certain foods as poison, and certain others as magically good. Sometimes a poison food becomes good, or vice versa.

Overall, we don't have a healthy relationship with food. Collectively we eat too much fake food.

And we tend to fall for dumb food fads.

We'd all be better off if we ate real food, not too much.

On a related note, I love to bake. I find that when I make a cake or brownies and bring it to work to share, my co-workers are incredibly grateful and love my treat even more than it deserves. That's because they are for once getting the real thing, not something made from a mix. I've found that even most bakery treats have that faint chemical taste because they are almost always using mixes which have preservatives and who knows what else.

I find that the more I cook for myself, the less I can tolerate commercial foods. I sometimes buy organic, but not that often. What I don't buy are the pre-prepared things anymore.

[Silent3]

31. I'm afraid that distinction you're making between "fake" and "real"...

...can be just as ill-defined and unscientific as faddishly declaring things "magically good" or "poison".

[SheilaT]

35. I'm defining real food as that

made from the essential ingredients, with nothing else added. No mixes. No preservatives.

I know that my experience with making cakes and cookies from scratch is truly eye-opening, because it's quite clear that far too many people have never -- or rarely -- had such things not made from a mix.

[Silent3]

36. What's automatically, intrinsically bad about a mix?

Or a preservative, just any preservative?

The whole point of the OP article is that there's little evidence that, for instance, any particular commonly used preservatives, in the quantities typically consumed, have any particular deleterious effects.

And why on earth would something being mixed ahead of time, and put into a box, make it less "real" in any particular and meaningful way that your body would care about one way or another?

You may very well find the stuff you make yourself tastier and more satisfying than anything you ever make from a mix, or anything with preservatives in it, but that could come down to the particular mixes tried or other factors that are poorly defined by using "real" as the word to distinguish those factors.

There's a whole lot of room for in such things for placebo-like effects here too, for your own knowledge that you made something yourself, and a pre-existing psychological bias against mixes and preservatives to make a big difference in what's essentially a subjective judgment. I suspect its highly unlikely that you've done either double-blind taste tests or double-blind nutritional studies.

[SheilaT]

37. I have found I can taste the artificial stuff in the mixes

without knowing ahead of time what was used.

While I haven't done formal double blind studies I can relate this story:

Some years ago, for our mother's 80th birthday party, my sister asked me to make some cakes. I did. Had you been at the party that day, when dessert came around, you had a choice of chocolate cake with white frosting or chocolate cake with chocolate frosting, or another dessert she fixed.

Now, this sister had three young children and did the usual birthday parties and other holidays where she baked cakes. From a mix. Sister was used to people, even kids, taking a few bites of the cake and not finishing.

To her astonishment every single person that took a slice of cake ate the entire piece. And commented on how very good it was. I wasn't as surprised, because I was used to that response.

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, every time I bake stuff I am amazed and a little embarrassed at how people rave as to how good my stuff is. Heck, I even had one co-worker who said she didn't like chocolate, try whatever it was I'd made that time (probably my brownies) and just loved them. I'm guessing she'd never had anything not from a mix before.

I'm not claiming deleterious effects, because (even if I suspect they exist) I don't know what if any research has been done. All I can say is that (anecdotally which is such a dirty word) I've seen over and over again how people respond to the made-from-scratch items.

[sendero]

43. What's wrong with preservatives?

Well we really don't know. Just like GMO foods. As human beings, we've only been consuming them for about 0.0000001 % of our timeline, and there is no actual scientific method for determining the long term effects of doing so.

Trying to claim that eating, for example, bread with a list of ingredients as long as your arm is as healthy as eating bread containing only flour, water, yeast and maybe a leavening agent is pretty silly IMHO.

Why would you want to eat random chemicals when you have no idea of their bodily impact? Why would you assume that if you eat some chemical and don't die on the spot that means it has no longer term associated health risk?

I eat some processed foods but I'm pretty sure we'd be better off without some of them.

[Silent3]

48. If you did a chemical analysis of what's in an apple...

...the list would wrap up and down the length of your arm a few times, in small print. Food is made out of ("gasp!&quot chemicals.

Why would you assume that if you eat some vegetable and don't die on the spot that means it has no longer term associated health risk?

In the few cases it has been done (like the "natural" sweetener Stevia, or some of the naturally occurring "organic" pesticides mentioned in the article), when you start to put "natural" and "organic" foods under the same scrutiny we expect for "artificial" ingredients, you find that "natural = good, artificial = bad" is a very poor guideline.

[sendero]

51. Yes..

....but humans have been eating apples for centuries and centuries.

I'm sure you are sure you are making some kind of point, but I'm also sure you are not.

[Silent3]

54. And for centuries and centuries average human lifespan...

...has been miserable by modern standards. I'll expand on this response more when I'm not trying to type on my phone in a restaurant.

[Silent3]

56. As I was saying, for centuries and centuries average human lifespan...

...has been miserable by modern standards, only 30-40 years as recently as two centuries ago.

When considering what's "natural" or not, please realize that long, healthy lives well into our 70s, 80s, and even 90s, is a wonderfully unnatural thing, not a realization of any basic nature. Our longest lifespans have corresponded with our creation of an increasingly unnatural environment. This is hardly to say that everything modern is healthy -- far from it -- but that, on the whole, the negative aspects of modern life that are mixed in with the positive ones can't be all that hugely bad if they haven't even come close to negating the gains.

If specifically apples harbor no worries in long term use, many other things from bananas to zucchini might. Or they might all be perfectly safe in normal use, but if you tested them the way artificial additives are tested, in huge doses and unrealistic concentrations, the same fears could arise.

The only advantage it makes sense that so-called "natural" foods would intrinsically have (once you jettison the mystical appeal of "nature&quot is that they perhaps have a slight edge in being more like what our bodies have evolved to tolerate. Two things diminish that edge: (1) A far wider variety of foods drawn from all over the globe are now part of our diet, as well as many new pre-GMO foods derived from selective breeding, making even a diet composed purely of "natural" products far more different and diverse than what human evolution has had time to significantly adapt, and (2) Since very few humans have ever lived and reproduced beyond their thirties, or even their twenties, during most of human evolution, there has been little significant selective pressure from what we'd now call "long-term effects".

[flvegan]

20. For a 7th graders term paper, this was a great read.

I hope he/she got a wonderful grade.

[HuckleB]

27. You're so cool!

[flvegan]

32. So...nothing else, then?

Your OP, my coolness aside.

[whatchamacallit]

23. DUmb

This place will soon be indistinguishable from newsmax.

[HuckleB]

24. If it keeps pushing anti-science, you might be right.

The OP is actually the opposite of Newsmax, however.

[whatchamacallit]

25. Shouldn't you be doing your thing in this post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024512830

[HuckleB]

26. Name that logical fallacy.

Hello? Is anyone home?

[whatchamacallit]

28. Lol

The empty house you're calling out in is your own cranium.

[HuckleB]

29. Derpity. Derp. Derp. Derp.

And, well, more Derp.

[Marr]

33. This is very true-- the whole "clean eating" thing isn't necessary.

All that matters for weight loss is counting calories and, for athletic performance and general health, getting a good balance of macronutrients. I used to "eat clean" myself, but eventually switched over to an "If it fits your macros" approach, and still do great.

The one way in which I do believe "clean eating" is actually helpful is for people who are trying to cut calories, but are accustomed to eating more than they need. So-called "clean meals" like skinless chicken breast and steamed vegetables aren't calorie-dense, and will fill a person's stomach while providing fewer calories.

[TheMathieu]

34. Take out more calories than you put in.

Voila.

[eridani]

42. Not possible. Take out calories and your body adjusts itself to need even fewer

How fast this happens depends on your genetics. Metabolism is a complex system of feedback loops, not a bank account.

[Laelth]

55. Spot on. n/t

-Laelth

[DanTex]

46. While I agree with the anti-anti science thing, this is not a good article.

It presupposes as fact many claims that are controversial within the peer-reviewed literature. For example:

Research has never found red meat, or most other foods, to damage your health.

Actually there is plenty of research finding that red meat is bad for your health. And there are plenty of credentialed cardiologists who recommend avoiding red meats. Does this blogger know something that all of these other scientists don't?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=red+meat+heart+disease

Fat loss is ultimately about calories in versus calories out.

At best this is technically true but not a very helpful way analyze fat loss. At best. One example, foods can affect things like hunger and metabolism. Another example, calories in versus calories out tells you nothing about whether the weight gained or lost will be in the form of fat or lean body mass. So, even if it weight gain or loss can be reduced to a thermodynamic equation, that does not actually mean that this is a useful way of thinking about it. There are a lot of other important and useful variables that affect both sides of that equation in ways that it is foolish to ignore. In the same way the "force equals mass times acceleration" is not terribly useful advice for a race car driver.

And so on.

[Silent3]

47. The author does go on to talk about the difference between nutrient dense...

Last edited Tue Feb 18, 2014, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)

...foods and low calorie food, differences in activities and goals, saying "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.", etc.

Keeping in mind that "Fat loss is ultimately about calories in versus calories out" is important because, while it may not be a good guide to specific food choices and exercise plans, it is useful for setting boundaries that people are all too likely to ignore when they get tempted by hype about "fat-burning foods" and infomercial exercise programs that supposedly burn away pounds and pounds of fat "in only twenty minutes per day!" Too many people are either causing themselves unnecessary grief by avoiding foods that have been unnecessarily demonized, or are failing to lose weight because they consume too many calories while expecting some "superfood" that they're eating to "melt" their fat away.

As long as you're getting the nutrients you need, the most important thing about food choices for people with weight problems is managing hunger. That doesn't change the essential truth about "calories in, calories out", however, it just changes how much will power is needed to prevent excess calories from coming in.

To the extent that food choices may actually change your metabolism, change the rate at which you burn calories, if such effects exist I don't know how well proven these effects are, and I doubt that these effects ever amount to much more than tinkering around the edges of the calories in/out balance sheet.

As for red meat...

I looked at many of the studies that your search brings up, and what I see is a lot of "could", "may", "is associated with", etc. Some of the studies are about particular metabolic reactions, but not looking at the big picture of what's actually going on when people eat red meat. Other stuff is bigger picture, but so "big picture" that it's talking about comparing diets that are greatly different not only in the consumption of red meat, but many other ways at the same time.

No, I certainly didn't go through pages and pages of matches from the search you suggested, but if the OP article's author's point was that there isn't a solid body of research that shows a clear, causal link between typical levels of red meat consumption and specific health problems, that seems to be the case from what I've seen.

Perhaps some people want to "play it safe", avoiding certain foods even when there's only one or a few reported "could", "may", and "is associated with" problems, but I suspect if you take that route, pretty soon you'll be afraid to eat anything -- or, more likely, in order to avoid starvation, you'll start to rationalize believing the research that fits your preconceived notions of healthy eating, and dismiss the studies that would attack whatever is left that you like eating until there's more evidence.

[DanTex]

58. ...

Keeping in mind that "Fat loss is ultimately about calories in versus calories out" is important because, while it may not be a good guide to specific food choices and exercise plans, it is useful for setting boundaries that people are all too likely to ignore when they get tempted by hype about "fat-burning foods" and infomercial exercise programs that supposedly burn away pounds and pounds of fat "in only twenty minutes per day!" Too many people are either causing themselves unnecessary grief by avoiding foods that have been unnecessarily demonized, or are failing to lose weight because they consume too many calories while expecting some "superfood" that they're eating to "melt" their fat away.

One important research finding from that the author neglected to mention: people who try to lose weight by increasing exercise almost certainly fail. Another important one: people who try to lose weight by reducing calorie intake usually fail also (although calorie reduction appears to be less useless than exercise).

So, the obvious strategies suggested by the "calories in versus calories out" namely, reduce calories in and increase calories out, have been repeatedly shown scientifically to fail in terms of achieving and maintaining weight loss. In light of this, can we conclude anything other than the fact that "calories in versus calories out," while technically true, is horribly misleading slogan?

To the extent that food choices may actually change your metabolism, change the rate at which you burn calories, if such effects exist I don't know how well proven these effects are, and I doubt that these effects ever amount to much more than tinkering around the edges of the calories in/out balance sheet.

I agree that not much is known, but that doesn't mean that such effects don't exist. The thing about the literature on weight loss is that there are a lot of unknowns, and a lot that is not understood. Maybe the only thing we can say for certain is that there's a lot more to it than "calories in versus calories out". We don't have all the answers, and so anyone peddling an easy 7-day dramatic weight loss plan is a quack. But anyone pretending that it's all about calorie deficits and surpluses is also mistaken.

I looked at many of the studies that your search brings up, and what I see is a lot of "could", "may", "is associated with", etc. Some of the studies are about particular metabolic reactions, but not looking at the big picture of what's actually going on when people eat red meat. Other stuff is bigger picture, but so "big picture" that it's talking about comparing diets that are greatly different not only in the consumption of red meat, but many other ways at the same time.

The reason studies say things like "could" and "is associated with" is because is the cautious language that scientific research is written in. Particularly when it comes to diet versus heart disease, there aren't any clinical trials, only observational studies, which are theoretically unable to produce causal conclusions. That's why you get "associations" rather than direct causal links.

So, what to do with a lot of observational evidence. Well, one thing you can do is just ignore all of it because there aren't any RCTs (there also aren't any RCTs proving that smoking causes lung cancer). Or, you could look at the evidence that exists, and try and draw the best conclusions that you can. And if you do the latter, it's hard to come away with anything but the advice that it's a good idea to limit red meat consumption.

As far as the big picture, the American Heart Association recommends limiting red meat consumption. I haven't done the poll, but I would wager that if you polled top cardiologists how they feel about red meat, the consensus would be similar. And yet here is some blogger, claiming to be standing up for science, but making blanket and provocative statements that run contrary to the stated opinions of the leading scientific and medical authorities. Not the authorities are always right, but who is the blogger and why should I believe him over the consensus?

[demosincebirth]

52. Eating is a must, over eating is an addiction. For years, since I was a kid, the more you ate the

healthier you were...that's how many older family's thought. I was a skinny lil' kid and very active so I was never was overweight. Come my discharge from the Army Airborne, I got a job driving fork lift for eight hours. Only time I got off the lift was breaks and lunch, then my pant size went from 30" to 36.

Today I very seldom have seconds at home and when eating out I pick the smallest entree. I am now ready to a 34" waist pants from a 36."

[madville]

59. I just know what works for me

After I turned about 35 most of the carbs had to go, I had gotten up to 205 pounds. I stick mainly to a paleo/low-carb type diet, mainly meats, nuts, oilve oil, and vegetables. No gluten, rice, legumes, sugars, dairy, etc most of the time.

I play tennis, basketball, and do basic calisthenics a few days a week. I do give myself a cheat day two or three times a month and have some pizza or fries or pasta or something like that. It keeps me around 180 lbs at 5'10" but like I said, that's what works for me.

A woman I used to date had lost 40 pounds and maintained it by doing Nutrisystem and hitting the gym, it worked for her. A guy I worked with ate Healthy Choice meals but sat at his desk all day on the computer and on the couch all evening gaming, never saw him lose a pound. Another guy at work would complain about it being impossible for him to lose weight, he is 350+ pounds and I have seen him eat three Chinese food entrees in one sitting or come in to the office carrying two full bags of fast food burgers and fries, easily 2000-3000 calorie lunches.

It's an individual thing, different things work or don't work for different people. I'm a big believer in cutting out most of the carbs since that's where I found success.

[Zorra]

60. Absolutely! Also, climate change is a librul myth, and smoking 2 packs a day is good for kids!

[HuckleB]

61. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS "CLEAN" FOOD

http://www.xojane.com/healthy/theres-no-such-thing-as-clean-food