Good vs. Bad / Hero vs. Villain Foods

Before you read this think to yourself, what is clean eating? Have you been told you have to eat clean to lose weight? Have you ever been under the impression that a food can be "bad" for you? 

For most I assume that you have been told this before or been lead to think some foods are "bad foods"

There are three clear reasons I can think of that would make a food "bad" 
•The increased caloric density causes weight gain, leading to other negative health issues. 
• Nutrient density
• Direct interference with body function 

Let me start with the increased caloric density. Can not all foods be high in calories in excess? Any food in excess would be considered "bad". These foods we deem "clean" may be harder to over eat, but it does not make them many more of a fat burning food than sodas and cookies. The common idea that sodas, cookies and other "bad" foods are "bad" only comes from the excess and lack of self control most have when consuming such foods. The idea of fattening foods comes solely from assuming the impossibility of moderate intake. Point being we have the ability to over eat and make any food high in calories, we just generally do not choose vegetables or other "clean" foods  to over indulge in. Food is food and bottom line it is essential to life. 

My second argument is about nutrient density. It seems logical that we would choose nutrient dense foods to meet our macros because we will be left more satisfied, correct? The problem here is that when counting to many people believe there is no room for empty calories. This is wrong. You CAN afford empty calories as long as a MAJORITY of your macros are met with nutrient dense foods. This is something you need to assess personally*, and not judge others on. Everyone's macros and goals are different. If a "bad" food is chosen to fight a craving or meet caloric needs who can say it is "bad". In such cases this "bad" food is solving a problem and many would agree that no longer makes something bad. 

Research shows that most people would have to eat roughly 20% of total calories from refined sugar before it became impossible to meet macros.(Gibson et al) If this is the case your issue in weight loss is not your only issue. 

Last I would like to touch on direct interference with body function. I am
sure no one can argue when I say that if a food has a direct interference with body function such food would be a "bad" food. This being said I still believe there is no such thing as "clean" eating given this statement proves it to be different for everyone. Quite simply this would mean those with a peanut allergy should avoid foods that contain peanuts, those with celiacs are the ones who should avoid gluten and the only people the need to avoid aspartame would be those diagnosed with phenylketonuria.

Similarly to previously mentioned, the government says clean eating is not eating too much fat or red meat, while a vegan would suggest that clean eating is not eating animal products or byproducts. Hippies would state that processed or artificial foods are "not clean" and someone who practices a Paleolithic diet would say sugars and alcohols are "bad". This simply proves that clean eating is objective. 

With all of this said it is better to understand that more than anything clean eating is objective, because it is different for each person. This does not mean we should eat junk and hope to be healthy, but rather that denying yourself something you love or judging others of what they eat is more unhealthy than simply fitting foods we enjoy in our macros. 



*Assess personally your goals and if you have room or the ability to moderate to curb a craving or meet the demands of your macros.


Yours in good health,
Lauren A. Ciurzynski