You can enjoy some junk food, like my Red Velvet Cake with
Cream Cheese Frosting, without compromising your body composition, health, or
longevity.
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.
This myth is so entrenched that it’s promoted by everyone
from gym rats to doctors to public health authorities.
Most diet books are
based on the idea that “bad” foods will keep you fromlosing weight or slow
your progress.
There’s no doubt that what you eat can have a massive
impact on your health, performance, and body composition. However, there’s no
evidence you can’t achieve all of these things while still enjoying any food
you like.
The Two Kinds of
Clean Eating
- There are
good and bad foods, and you should never eat any of the
bad foods.
- There are
good and bad foods, and you should only eat a small number of the bad
foods to limit the damage.
In this article, you’ll learn why both of these ideas are
irrational, unscientific, and unhealthy.
We’ll start by looking at the three potential ways a food
could decrease your health, lifespan, or body composition. Then we’ll see if
any foods actually meet these criteria for being “unhealthy.”
Why There are No
Good or Bad Foods
There are three ways a food could negatively affect your
health, longevity, or body composition.
1/. Contributing to a caloric excess which leads to
negative health problems from being overweight.(2)
2/. Causing nutrient deficiencies by diluting the nutrient
density of your diet.(3)
3/. Directly interfering with your body’s functions,
causing specific diseases, increasing fat gain, or accelerating aging.
Let’s see if any foods meet these criteria.
Excess Calories
Can be Bad for You — From Any Food
There is no evidence that any
food will cause more fat gain than the excess calories it provides. There is
also no evidence that eating a certain food will help you lose fat.
Fat loss is ultimately about calories in versus calories out.
Any food that has calories can technically be bad for you
— if consumed in excess.
This includes chicken breasts, sweet potatoes, whole
grains, and even vegetables. The reason many people consider these “clean
foods” is because they tend to be harder to overeat than things like cookies or
ice cream.
For this reason, some people refer to things like sweets,
baked goods, soda, and other junk food as “fattening.”
This is an inaccurate and myopic viewpoint. It assumes
that you will over-eat these foods — regardless of the rest of your diet.
If your diet has enough satiating power to keep you
satisfied and happy, then there’s nothing wrong with also consuming some
less-filling indulgences. This idea also assumes that people can’t moderate
their food intake,which they
can.
For some people, eating enough to gain or maintain their
weight can be a struggle.(4-6) In these cases, higher calorie/more palatable
foods can be extremely useful for meeting their calorie needs — not to mention
being more enjoyable. Yet you don’t find people saying ice cream and cookies
are life-saving for an anorexic, or muscle
building for someone who’s trying to get bigger.
People look at these foods in isolation and assume they’re
unhealthy regardless of the context.
Remember these two points:
- The
potential to over-consume a food does not mean that you will.
- Some people
need to eat more — and higher calorie, more palatable, and less filling
foods can be an advantage — even a necessity.
However, you’re also concerned with your long-term health.
You want to make sure you’re giving your body everything it needs to perform
optimally, and you don’t want to deprive your body of essential nutrients.
No Food Causes
Nutrient Deficiencies
The second way a food could potentially be “unhealthy” is
by displacing more nutrient dense foods — by providing “empty calories.”
You’ve probably seen articles about how most people are
deficient in certain nutrients, and how you simply can’t afford to eat any
“empty calories.” You’ve heard that all of your food has to come from
nutrient-dense sources, and even then you should take some supplements.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a formal definition of what
“nutritious” means.(7) Researchers and diet authors have tried repeatedly to
come up with a system that ranks foods based on points or some other means —
unsuccessfully. The problem is that each system uses arbitrary and unscientific
means to grade different foods.(8)
The USDA is still heavily biased against anything high in
saturated fat and favors everything high in whole grains.(8-11) Other ranking
systems like theANDI score place
a greater emphasis on antioxidant levels, despite the fact that there’s still
little evidence a food’s antioxidant or flavanol levels are a good
representation of its overall healthiness.(12,13)
Classifying foods as healthy or unhealthy based on a score
is a pointless and unscientific endeavor. In this case, common sense should
prevail.
It’s true that some foods are far more nutrient dense than
others. Cake icing doesn’t have the same nutrient content as an apple. As long
as the majority of your calories come from whole nutrient dense foods, there’s
no evidence you can’t meet your micronutrient needs while still consuming some
“empty calories.”(14-17)
Research has shown that most people would have to eat
roughly 20% of their total calories from refined sugar before it became
impossible to meet their micronutrient needs.(3,18,19)
People who eat tons of sugar are generally
malnourished.(20,21) However, most people who are serious about their health
aren’t eating anywhere close to 20% of their daily calories from sugar.
The CDC also estimates that around 90% of Americans are
consuming adequate micronutrients.(22)
There is some data that indicates nutrient deficiencies
may be more common among people who are dieting.(23) This makes sense, since
they’re consuming fewer total calories. However, it’s rare for someone to need
to completely eliminate any junk food even when they’re restricting their
calorie intake.
Some studies have also shown that vitamin D and magnesium
deficiency may be more common than once believed.(24-30) However, this data is
based on people eating an average American diet. It’s likely less relevant to
health nuts, like you, who are probably already eating lots of nutrient dense
foods and getting adequate sun exposure.
People often make the mistake of assuming certain foods
are completely devoid of nutrition. This is rarely the case. Take ice cream,
for example. There are multiple studies showing the potential health benefits
of dairy.(31) Just because cream is frozen and mixed with sugar doesn’t mean
these benefits suddenly disappear. There might be less total benefit, but it’s
still there.
White flour is another example. People assume that because
it’s been processed, it must be completely nutrient void. Flour isn’t exactly
nutrient dense, but there are still some micronutrients present, especially if
it’s been fortified.(32) It’s also worth noting that studies have generally
failed to find any major heath benefit of whole wheat flour over white
flour.(33)
Ironically, studies have shown that people who strictly
avoid certain foods or food groups like bodybuilders, athletes, and people with
eating disorders are often deficient in micronutrients.(34-40) As usual, balance and moderationare
the most scientifically supported solutions.
Despite what you’ve been told, you probably aren’t
deficient in most nutrients. You can still indulge in moderate amounts of
“unclean” foods and meet all of your essential nutrition.
While many people accept this, they still believe that
certain foods are still “bad.” They’re wrong.
No Food Directly
Damages Your Health
The third myth is that “unhealthy” foods directly damage
your health. People tell you that you will suffer less damage
from eating less of these foods — but they’re still bad for
you in any amount.
However, because these foods only damage your body a
little, you’re told it’s still normal and healthy to eat them. Here’s the
issue: You’re not happy with normal.
You’re more obsessed with your health and fitness than
other people. “Normal” now means being overweight or obese, and you don’t want
a “normal” physique. Eating “less junk” means “zero junk” in your mind. If a
food is bad — it’s bad — and you don’t want it in your body in any amount.
This is the most ridiculous and harmful misconception of
“clean eating,” largely because it’s promoted by doctors and other health
officials who people trust more than most.
The idea is that regardless of a food’s nutrient density
or calorie content, it is still bad for you. Every group has a different idea
of what this means.
Vegans believe meat is toxic and gives you cancer.
Dr. Robert Lustig and others claim that fructose is
“a poison” and causes obesity and liver damage.
The USDA still tells people that
saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease, and that whole grains should
form the base of your diet.(41,42)
Paleo advocates claim that grains, gluten, beans,
processed oils, and dairy give people cancer and pretty much every other known
disease.
Mycotoxins are lurking in everything you eat, secretly
making you fat and damaging your health.
“Processed” foods and artificial ingredients are
dangerous.
GMO’s cause
cancer and give you tumors.
Pretty much everyone claims all trans-fats are bad for you
in any amount.
All of these claims are either untrue or out of context.
Any food can be damaging in large enough amounts. The real question is whether
or not these foods damage your health in the amounts they are normally
consumed, in the context of a mixed diet.
The scientifically valid answer to this question is “no.”
Despite flawed correlational research,(43,44) there is no
evidence that meat, red or not, causes cancer or heart disease or death. In
contrast, there is controlled evidence showing red meat consumption can improve
health markers as much as other meat sources.(45,46<)
has never found red meat, or most other foods, to damage
your health.
Fructose is not toxic and
it doesn’t cause obesity or liver damage unless it is consumed in massive
amounts and in caloric excess. There is no evidence it’s harmful in smaller
amounts or that it encourages over-eating compared
to sucrose.(47-50)
Consuming moderate amounts of sugar does not decrease
insulin sensitivity or impair your ability to process glucose, as long as you
maintain your weight and don’t over-eat.(51-53)
There is still no good evidence that moderate amounts of
saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease,(54,55) but many of these
studies also have significant limitations.(56,57) Recent evidence indicates
even the correlations between saturated fat and
cholesterol intake and heart disease are weak or nonexistent.(58-63)
Any food may contribute to heart disease if it leads to obesity
or overweight, but there’s little evidence that consuming those calories from
cholesterol-rich foods or saturated fat is worse than getting them elsewhere
for most people.(64-66)
There is little evidence that omega-6 oils contribute to
inflammation or heart disease.(56,67)
Gluten is not harmful to
otherwise healthy people,(68) and there is still no evidence that grains,
dairy, or legumes damage your health. There is also good evidence to the contrary.(31,69,70)
There is no evidence that processed or artificial foods
are necessarily less healthy than natural foods. There is also no clear
definition of what constitutes a “processed” food, and there are many
“processed” foods that have proven health benefits, like whey
protein.<(31,71,72)
There is no evidence that the levels of mycotoxins in the
diets of developed countries have a significant impact on your health.(73-76)
There is no evidence GMO’s are
harmful to humans.(77,78)
There is some evidence that synthetic trans-fats may be
harmful, but the research is still inconclusive.(79-85) There’s little evidence
that consuming a small amount of trans-fat is going to damage your health,
especially since they’ve been removed from most foods. There is also evidence
that some naturally occurring trans-fats like vaccenic acid may have health
benefits.(79,86)
There are specific medical reasons for avoiding certain
foods. And by “medical reason,” I don’t mean some naturopath, acupuncturist, homeopath,
or voodoo priest reading chicken entrails said a certain food is bad for you. I
mean a real doctor diagnosed you with a specific illness, and based their
dietary recommendations on sound scientific evidence.
Here are a few examples.
People with phenylketonuria should avoid aspartame.(87)
People with celiac disease need to avoid gluten.(88)
People with a severe peanut allergy need to avoid
peanuts.(89)
People with familial hypercholesterolemia may need to eat
less cholesterol.(90)
People with insulin resistance may benefit from a lower
carbohydrate intake.(91)
Outside of very specific medical conditions like these,
there is virtually no evidence that any single food can directly damage your
health.
There is also no evidence that certain foods will
accelerate fat loss at the same calorie intake, or that other foods will slow
down or prevent fat loss. You could eat 43% of your calories from table sugar
and still lose just as much fat as someone who only consumed 4% of their
calories from sugar.(92)
Elite athletes sometimes consume up to 20% of their
calories from pure sugar, and stay at around 6-10% body fat year round.(5,6)
This is not a comprehensive list, but when you look at the
evidence, virtually every food that’s ever been labeled as “dangerous” or
“toxic” turns out to be fine in moderation, and sometimes even in large
amounts.
Any food could be “healthy” or “unhealthy” in different
situations. This is something people forget when they talk about “clean
eating,” and it’s something we’re going to address right now.
How to Know
Whether a Food is Bad or Good for You
Whether or not a food is “healthy” or “unhealthy” depends
on who is eating it, and how much they eat.
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.
The athletes can be far more relaxed about their diet.
They can eat more total calories, more calorie dense foods, and assuming
they’re meeting their micro- and macronutrient needs, more “empty calories.”
The office worker needs to eat fewer total calories, and
should probably focus on far more filling, low-calorie foods, less palatable
foods to avoid
over-eating. They may also need to focus on more nutrient-dense
foods since they’re eating fewer calories.
Personal preference also matters. Some people have a hard
time eating in moderation, and it may be smart to remove some foods that they normally binge on, at
least for a while.
A food that is “healthy” for one person might be
inappropriate for another in a given context.
All of these factors matter when deciding if a food is
“healthy” or “unhealthy” for a given individual. In virtually all cases,
there’s room in your diet for a little junk.
Referensi :