Eating "Clean" versus Calorie Counting

[Leanstrong]

So I have been doing a lot of research on the importance of eating clean, and I came across a thread that debates how important it is as far as muscle gain/fat loss. Check it out and tell me what you think.
The basic questioned posed is "Will eating 100% clean result in more muscle gain and less fat gain at equal calories"
The general consensus seems to be that if you meet your basic nutritional requirements (enough protein, essential fatty acids, micronutrients), having some of your calories in cheesecake or poptarts will not make a difference.
Some interesting points raised are:
- People think too much in absolutes (especially some of the people from bb.com haha). They think that eating clean 6 days a week is absolutely necessary and that a snickers bar that fits in their caloric goal will lay their muscle to waste.
- People who follow the 6 days clean one cheat day diet essentially have an eating disorder. Rather than practicing healthy moderation and eating enough variety of foods, they eat the same chicken breast and brown rice every day, and they think this is healthy. During this time, they obsess over their upcoming "cheat meal", and when it comes, they binge on food they perceive as not clean.
- Junk food tends to be more dense in calories, and thus may not be as filling. You are going to feel very full eating lots of veggies, but an equal amount of calories in hagan-dazs will probably leave you still hungry for a while. Clean foods will make you feel fuller quicker while you are eating them, and thus may moderate your total caloric intake better.
- A 100% junk food diet would not work because it probably wouldn't meet the basic nutritional requirements for building muscle. For many people it also may not supply enough energy for your workouts. Many people attest to having better workouts after eating oats than they would after eating a snickers bar.
- Because bodybuilders. weightlifters, and people who do strength training represent such a small(but hopefully growing thanks to people like Mehdi ) population, there has never been enough interest to actually conduct a study on the effects of eating 100% clean, 50% clean, and 100% McDonalds.

Now a couple of things need to be mentioned before I post this, because I know challenging the clean eating concept is blasphemy round these parts. First, yes I know it is a bodybuilding.com article, and it is full of "bros." It also has reasonable people who have achieved good physiques without eating clean. Second, I realize that Mehdi's nutrition 101 rules works for many people, is healthy, and also allows for junk food 10% of the time. However, I believe (as do people in the thread) that the stress on clean, unprocessed foods goes more towards general health than it does body composition. It may be easier than calorie counting for many people, and I respect that. But it works because it meets peoples basic nutritional requirements, yields enough protein, and moderates calories (mostly due to the lack of caloric density and fiber content of "clean" foods).
My general point is that if you eat foods you perceive as clean 6 days out of the week, you are doing a whole lot for your general health, more power to you. But your body composition would not change if you replaced some of those calories frequently with bread, dessert, ice cream, ect.
What do you all think?

[Mehdi]

So calories matters more than where the calories come from? That's your point?

Don't agree:
* Protein higher thermic effect, helps fat loss, satiates longer, ...
* Excess carbs promote fat gains, make you hungry again faster
* Fat satiates & makes you full longer

I have people up their protein intake, lower carb intake, eat cleaner, eat more calories than before and see them losing fat while they didn't before. So practical evidence tells me otherwise.

I do agree however that you can get away with 70-80% clean food of the time and still get good enough results. However: you gotta watch out sending mixed signals to people. They don't know what to do anymore then. Better to be black & white until they get the point, let them find the gray shades for themselves as they get more experienced.

EDIT: thinking of something. I also think it's a slippery slope. It starts with eating clean 90% of the time. Then 80%. Then 70%. Before you know it's back to old habits. Problems.

[Beppe]

EDIT: thinking of something. I also think it's a slipper slope. It starts with eating clean 90% of the time. Then 80%. Then 70%. Before you know it's back to old habits. Problems.

That's exactly why I went back to the Anabolic Diet. Some foods are off limits during the week, period. You don't have to think about it. When doing a more "balanced" diet I found myself slipping more and more. Maybe it's just me, but just about the black and white analogy, with time on a strict regimen one may learn and gain discipline to tweak other approaches.

[MidLifter]

Two Words: Dave Tate.

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_art ... _project_i

[namaste]

Doesn't it all 'loosen up' a bit if you are doing HIIT often as well as weights?

People at my bjj/mma gym can get away with eating crap if they feel like it, because they are going to burn most of it off that day or that night during class.

I don't think I could exercise 5+ times a week without looking forward to eating some shitty food occasionally.

[Leanstrong]

Mehdi, well said, I have to agree with that. Protein does have a higher thermal effect(like 25-33% or something like that). Because of that, you would be able to eat more total calories if you replaced some carbohydrates with protein. However, a nutritionist would argue with you and say that carbohydrates are the body's preferred source of energy, and the brain's only source of energy. A bodybuilder would also attest that upping protein and lowering carbs works wonders for those trying to loose fat, but makes it far more difficult to gain significant muscle weight. Fat does satiate the best, along with protein and fiber, and thus stressing fat/protein/fiber intake and carb avoidance may be the best solution for someone who just wants to eat something until they are full and don't want to worry about portion size or caloric intake. I simply choose another route because I like sandwiches and pop tarts more than once a week. Well I am getting close to reaching my strength goals, and I will report my results in a month or so, so I will see if eating more dirty has had any significant bad effects on my body composition. Either way, expect tons of praise Stronglifts has worked wonders for me so far, and I plan my weekly laundry schedule so I can wear your t-shirt for as many workouts as I can! The best part so far - the look I got last week after hitting a deadlift PR from a kid doing curls in the squat rack

[Mehdi]

Doesn't it all 'loosen up' a bit if you are doing HIIT often as well as weights?

People at my bjj/mma gym can get away with eating crap if they feel like it, because they are going to burn most of it off that day or that night during class.

I don't think I could exercise 5+ times a week without looking forward to eating some shitty food occasionally.

But who has time to lift 3x/week + HIIT 3x/week. As much as I like this, there's more to life than lifting.

Mehdi, well said, I have to agree with that. Protein does have a higher thermal effect(like 25-33% or something like that). Because of that, you would be able to eat more total calories if you replaced some carbohydrates with protein. However, a nutritionist would argue with you and say that carbohydrates are the body's preferred source of energy, and the brain's only source of energy. A bodybuilder would also attest that upping protein and lowering carbs works wonders for those trying to loose fat, but makes it far more difficult to gain significant muscle weight. Fat does satiate the best, along with protein and fiber, and thus stressing fat/protein/fiber intake and carb avoidance may be the best solution for someone who just wants to eat something until they are full and don't want to worry about portion size or caloric intake. I simply choose another route because I like sandwiches and pop tarts more than once a week. Well I am getting close to reaching my strength goals, and I will report my results in a month or so, so I will see if eating more dirty has had any significant bad effects on my body composition. Either way, expect tons of praise Stronglifts has worked wonders for me so far, and I plan my weekly laundry schedule so I can wear your t-shirt for as many workouts as I can! The best part so far - the look I got last week after hitting a deadlift PR from a kid doing curls in the squat rack

Cool tnx. Well if you don't care about fat gains/health benefits, then I really agree only calories matters.

[Leanstrong]

Two Words: Dave Tate.

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_art ... _project_i

This guy appears to be like most powerlifters. The reason he has all those health problems though is probably because of his body fat (which, as the article stated, is NOT 12%). I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if he:
1) Covered his protein needs (probably around 1g/lb)
2) Covered his essential fatty acid needs (which I am recently learning has much scientific evidence towards affecting body composition)
3) Eliminated trans-fat from his diet (which ample evidence shows can cause more body fat gain at equal calories)
3) Controlled his total calories, found his maintainance rate, subtracted 300-500 calories, and made sure he lost no more than 1lb/week
4) Continued to eat the same kind of crap he already was eating
Then most of his health problems would go away once his actual body fat percentage was in an acceptable range (maybe under 20%). I might also tell him to include some cardio in his routine, but Mehdi has shown that powerlifting-type moves already boost heart health to a healthy range.

[Leanstrong]

But who has time to lift 3x/week + HIIT 3x/week. As much as I like this, there's more to life than lifting.

To each's own. I do SL 5x5 m/w/f and do 20 minutes of jogging tues/thurs/satur. I am a full time college student and in a fraternity group that constantly has social events, and I don't find that this cuts that much into my schedule. In fact, for someone who likes some form of exercise on most days of the week, HIIT is probably the quickest effective cardio workout someone could do (rather than 45 minutes on the elliptical as you recommend for fat loss). Of course, HIIT is very hard/taxing, so 45 minutes on the elliptical might be more feasible for the average joe trying to loose the beer belly.

Cool tnx. Well if you don't care about fat gains/health benefits, then I really agree only calories matters.

True, which is why Dave Tate was able to get so strong eating all that crap. Dave seems to be on the opposite side of a spectrum than you, Mehdi. While you eat almost all nutrient rich foods, Dave eats almost all nutritionally void foods. If he simply chose healthy foods for 2000 of his 7-10k calories, he would be getting more nutrition than most of America (and increasingly, the world). He is fat because he ate too much too quickly, as his only goal was to gain strength and this large caloric surplus is the best means of doing that. There also may be a significant amount of trans-fat in his diet.
The point of the bb.com thread wasn't that calories are ALL that matters. Here is the scenario:
1) Bob needs 3000 calories to maintain his weight, but he is skinny and wants to bulk up a little bit.
2) Bob is lucky enough to come across SL 5x5 and starts working out
3) Bob adds 500 calories to his daily diet (more on workout days), starts eating 1 gram protein/lb, and supplements with multivitamin/mineral and EFA's.
4) Bob understands that besides the first couple weeks or so he works out (the infamous newb gains that everyone wishes they still had), his body can only add so much muscle to his frame. So bob monitors his caloric intake and keeps his rate of weight gain between 1/2 lb to 1 lb per week.
5) After some time, Bob puts 30 pounds of his frame. He loves his new body, confidence, and work ethic. He raves about Mehdi and Mark Rippetoe to everyone he knows (rightfully so!). Bob gets his body fat level tested, does some before-and-after math, and finds out he added 23 pounds of muscle and 7 pounds of fat to his frame.
The bottom line: that 7 pounds of fat was inevitable, regardless. Bob could have been eating chicken/brown rice/vegetables all day, or he could have been having a Big Mac every day for dinner. He also could have been eating 6 meals a day or 3.

[hazmat]

Lean...I think one very big thing you're missing here is that Mehdi's site isn't necessarily designed for folks who "know" how to eat properly, but is moree directed towards folks who have no clue what they're doing and want to learn how to be healthier. When I first found this site, I read every blog article that was available at the time, cross-referenced with some other nutrition/training sites and books and determined I wanted to make the change to "clean" foods. It was difficult at first, changing my perspective on food, reading ingredients, avoiding this and including that. But once I got used to it and figured out a system for myself, it became easy. It helps that I like to cook and be creative with simple meats and veggies. After a while, as an individual who has trained him/herself to eat clean most of the time, you're right, you can cheat more often and it's not difficult to get back to eating clean...but you've put the time in and have seen the results at this point, so you understand the slippery slope. Newcomers to this lifestyle don't and need basic, idiot-proof information to get them going. How the follow through with it once they have the knowledge is up to them.

[Vlad]

There are many advantages in eating clean, but one of them is that you do not need to count callories. I am not saying that callories do not matter. The point is that when you eat clean it is easy to eat by instinct so that you have enough but at the same time you do not over-eat.

[namaste]

it's also harder to get your necessary calories for growth!

well for me anyway.

[Louchuck]

I think eating clean and counting calories are one in the same. In both situations you are being mindful of what you are eating, and really that is the important thing. You can definitely get fat eating clean, but it's pretty difficult because you would have to eat so much of the clean foods you would most likely feel like your stomach is going to explode all the time.

I can think of an analogy using alcohol: Let's say Bob and Frank go to a party, where they had to drink alcohol, but they both didn't want to get drunk. Bob says "Well I'm only going to consume 3 ounces of vodka during the night". Frank says "Well I'm only going to drink light (2% alcohol) beer during the night". Both Bob and Frank didn't get drunk. Bob carefully measured the vodka he drank and Frank didn't count how many beers he drank, but he only drank light beer. The point is both Bob and Frank were mindful of their drinking and made changes to the way they behaved in order to achieve a specific goal.

Maybe mindful isn't the best term but here is the definition with some synonyms:
Mindfulness is concentrated awareness of one's thoughts, actions or motivations.
Mindful: Bearing in mind; regardful; attentive; heedful; observant

[Bosun]

One comment to the "protein has a thermic effect" argument. My mom's a doctor and nutrionist and she always laugh when I tell her this. She says the argument has been around since she was in college and that it is one of those things that seems to be true subject to repeating it enough times.

According to her there are no serious studies, i.e. studies performed at top-tier universities, published in top-tier journals (which really is what we should base our information on when it comes to nutrition and health, as there are so many fabricated studies) that show a thermic effect of protein over carbohydrates. However, for people who still believe in this effect I suggest a quick search in Google Scholar to see if you can come up with some good studies actually confirming it. Remember, just because you read it in a book doesn't make it true, and with respect to the popular literature on health, nutrition and bodybuilding it is actual probable that it isn't true.

I currently do a PhD in finance, and the field of finance is actually very similar to the field of nutrition (lots of bullshit, lots of 'truths' that have never been confirmed, heaps of books claiming to have figured it out whitout any research supporting the claims).

Just to point it out, I am not contending that having a diet more balanced towards proteins is a bad thing. I am just saying that protein in itself has no thermic effect. The reason why people might think such an effect is there might be that a diet more focused on protein will either be cleaner, have a lower calorie content than the previous diet or lead to a lower (higher) calorie surplus (loss) due to increased excercise.

I have had some great results cleaning up my diet. Keep up the good work guys!

[Vlad]

There is no need to perform any studies for showing that there is a " thermic" effect of proteins, unless you do not beleive in the law of conservation of energy. The degradation pathways for proteins are such that some energy should be supplied in order to utilise the proteins as a source of energy. This means that proteins appear to contain 10% less energy than what they are expected to contain.

This difference (thermic effect) is negligible IMO. Let me illustrate this. If you eat 200 g carbs, you get 800 calories. If you eat 200 g protein, you get 800 calories minus 10% for thermic effect, which is 720 calorties. Thus, you have a reduction of 80 calories. This is a negligible difference, unless you eat ONLY protein as the source of energy.