The Junk Food Diet (seriously)
JustRobby1
Posts: 674 Member
Hello all. I posted the following as a blog a couple of weeks ago and some of the folks on my friends list thought posting it here for others to check out might be a good idea also. I embarked on this diet in the early part of 2017 as a rather extreme method of testing the calories in vs. calories out mantra. I have posted it in it's entirely below:
The fitness industrial complex (as I like to call it) is about as fickle as a 12 year old girl. They latch onto things in an almost pop culture type fashion and then before you know it they have moved on to something else.
Most of these obsessions are macro related in one way or another. Fats, carbs, protein, etc. etc. have all spent time being both hailed and vilified depending on the time period. These have also spawned numerous diets that take advantage of this mentality like Keto, South Beach, Mediterranean, Zone, Paleo, Volumetrics, and the list goes on and on and on. "Eating clean", whatever the hell that means today, has become about as mindless as any other fad or social movement.
What I have managed to find over time is that people get far too wrapped up in these fads and fail to pay attention to the most critical of aspect of weight loss: calories in vs. calories out. We often hear that "a calorie is a calorie", right? No matter if it comes in the form of a skinless chicken breast or a hot fudge sundae. If this is really the case, then why the people who are so obsessed with macros?
Back in 2010 a nutritionist at Kansas State University got the same inclination as me. He decided to conduct an experiment he called the "convenience store diet". You can read the full story here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
To give a summation, this gentleman spent 2 months on a diet of total crap. He ate mostly snack cakes, chips, swiss rolls, chocolate muffins, doughnuts, etc. for two months straight. He did keep his calorie count under 1800 and got in his normal exercise, but he consumed food that I think all of us would agree is inherently unhealthy.
Just about anybody in the fitness world would tell you that such a diet is an awful idea and sure to pack on the pounds. However, defying all the odds the college professor not only lost lots of weight, but his clinical markers improved dramatically (LDL, lipids, triglycerides, etc.) If the doctor doing his physical would not of known better, he would be convinced that his patient had recently embarked on a positive change towards healthy eating. The reality was his patient had been gobbling down Little Debbie snack cakes and Cool Ranch Doritos for the past 10 weeks.
This would seem to point out that the macros obsessed people are obsessed for little good reason. Is it true that a calorie really is just a calorie? About 6 months ago I decided to find out for myself first hand by conducting a personal experiment.
So I live in downtown Chicago and there is a 7-11 chain less than 2 blocks from my apartment. After reading about the story I described above, I wanted to test this theory out myself. I decided that if I started gaining weight I could always just come off of it, but I wanted to give it a shot for 30 days and only consume food available to me from 7-11. I also decided to eat a daily multivitamin and to limit calorie count to 1800. I followed my exercise routine just like normal.
So for 30 days, I was off and running. I typically skipped breakfast on my way to work and then ate the rest of my food strictly from 7-11. I got really close to the clerks during this time period since they saw me at least a couple of times a day for a month. I do not really have a huge sweet tooth, so my plan was not a 1:1 comparison to the K-State nutritionist, but I consumed a diet that anybody would tell you is awful.
It had probably been since I was a stoner in college several years ago that I actually ate one of the nacho trays from 7-11 with self serve and pump action chilli and cheese. I can now honestly report that one must really have to be stoned to truly appreciate it. One day I was really busy at work and only managed to accumulate 500 calories from eating Flamin Hot Cheetos at my desk for the day. To make up the difference, on my way home from work I stopped in and got 2 Lanshire microwave double cheese burgers for dinner. One day I pounded down one of those microwaveable bean and cheese burritos that is the size of your forearm. Believe it or not, even those big *kitten* only pack on 675 calories and trust me when I tell you that you are full for most of the day from it. Even 2 big slices of 7-11 pizza (crappy pizza BTW) only tacks on 600. Some days it was honestly a challenge just to get my calories in.
By the end of week two I was down almost 7 pounds, but things were starting to get VERY dull and boring. If you do not think it is possible to get sick of eating junk food I can tell you 100% that this is not the case. It was cool at first eating nothing but garbage, but the novelty wears off fast. After awhile I forced myself to get something from the 7-11 that was not pure stoner food. They occasionally have wraps and deli sandwiches available in the cooler that were a nice change of pace from the endless hot wings and taquitos that comprised most of my "diet".
By the end of the month I was pretty much desperate for some real food. I had to force myself to stay the course. By this time a couple of my coworkers became interested in my "experiment" so I felt compelled to finish out strong. My last official meal the last night of the experiment was a dinner consisting of a "big bite" hot dog and loaded Dorito mozzarella sticks. That night when I was going to bed I was SO glad that when I woke up the next morning I could go back to my old way of eating.
So the final results? I lost just shy of 15 pounds in a month. I also had blood work done at my doctor's office to verify my other metrics. While I do not remember the specifics, both my blood pressure and clinical markers were within normal range and my doctor reported that I was perfectly healthy. He also congratulated me on the weight loss and "deciding to adopt more healthy eating habits". This statement almost made me laugh dead in his face from the irony. I did not have the heart to tell him what was really going on.
So I guess the logical next question from this experience is what can be learned from it? While I would never in a million years suggest to anyone that following a diet like mine and the professor’s is a good idea, it’s success in achieving weight loss certainly does fly in the face of conventional wisdom. From my perspective, it simply reinforces the notion that a calorie really is just a calorie. It also suggests that the health benefits of caloric restriction FAR outweigh any assumed benefit or negative consequence from obsessing over any individual macro. The scientific and medical community is slowly merging in this direction. One of the more comprehensive papers out there on the subject is from the NIH and can be found here:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/pathways-underlying-benefits-calorie-restriction
Not going to lie, since this experience in my life I have come to view most of the fad diet and macro obsessed crowd as rather silly and simply following a herd mentality.
The fitness industrial complex (as I like to call it) is about as fickle as a 12 year old girl. They latch onto things in an almost pop culture type fashion and then before you know it they have moved on to something else.
Most of these obsessions are macro related in one way or another. Fats, carbs, protein, etc. etc. have all spent time being both hailed and vilified depending on the time period. These have also spawned numerous diets that take advantage of this mentality like Keto, South Beach, Mediterranean, Zone, Paleo, Volumetrics, and the list goes on and on and on. "Eating clean", whatever the hell that means today, has become about as mindless as any other fad or social movement.
What I have managed to find over time is that people get far too wrapped up in these fads and fail to pay attention to the most critical of aspect of weight loss: calories in vs. calories out. We often hear that "a calorie is a calorie", right? No matter if it comes in the form of a skinless chicken breast or a hot fudge sundae. If this is really the case, then why the people who are so obsessed with macros?
Back in 2010 a nutritionist at Kansas State University got the same inclination as me. He decided to conduct an experiment he called the "convenience store diet". You can read the full story here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
To give a summation, this gentleman spent 2 months on a diet of total crap. He ate mostly snack cakes, chips, swiss rolls, chocolate muffins, doughnuts, etc. for two months straight. He did keep his calorie count under 1800 and got in his normal exercise, but he consumed food that I think all of us would agree is inherently unhealthy.
Just about anybody in the fitness world would tell you that such a diet is an awful idea and sure to pack on the pounds. However, defying all the odds the college professor not only lost lots of weight, but his clinical markers improved dramatically (LDL, lipids, triglycerides, etc.) If the doctor doing his physical would not of known better, he would be convinced that his patient had recently embarked on a positive change towards healthy eating. The reality was his patient had been gobbling down Little Debbie snack cakes and Cool Ranch Doritos for the past 10 weeks.
This would seem to point out that the macros obsessed people are obsessed for little good reason. Is it true that a calorie really is just a calorie? About 6 months ago I decided to find out for myself first hand by conducting a personal experiment.
So I live in downtown Chicago and there is a 7-11 chain less than 2 blocks from my apartment. After reading about the story I described above, I wanted to test this theory out myself. I decided that if I started gaining weight I could always just come off of it, but I wanted to give it a shot for 30 days and only consume food available to me from 7-11. I also decided to eat a daily multivitamin and to limit calorie count to 1800. I followed my exercise routine just like normal.
So for 30 days, I was off and running. I typically skipped breakfast on my way to work and then ate the rest of my food strictly from 7-11. I got really close to the clerks during this time period since they saw me at least a couple of times a day for a month. I do not really have a huge sweet tooth, so my plan was not a 1:1 comparison to the K-State nutritionist, but I consumed a diet that anybody would tell you is awful.
It had probably been since I was a stoner in college several years ago that I actually ate one of the nacho trays from 7-11 with self serve and pump action chilli and cheese. I can now honestly report that one must really have to be stoned to truly appreciate it. One day I was really busy at work and only managed to accumulate 500 calories from eating Flamin Hot Cheetos at my desk for the day. To make up the difference, on my way home from work I stopped in and got 2 Lanshire microwave double cheese burgers for dinner. One day I pounded down one of those microwaveable bean and cheese burritos that is the size of your forearm. Believe it or not, even those big *kitten* only pack on 675 calories and trust me when I tell you that you are full for most of the day from it. Even 2 big slices of 7-11 pizza (crappy pizza BTW) only tacks on 600. Some days it was honestly a challenge just to get my calories in.
By the end of week two I was down almost 7 pounds, but things were starting to get VERY dull and boring. If you do not think it is possible to get sick of eating junk food I can tell you 100% that this is not the case. It was cool at first eating nothing but garbage, but the novelty wears off fast. After awhile I forced myself to get something from the 7-11 that was not pure stoner food. They occasionally have wraps and deli sandwiches available in the cooler that were a nice change of pace from the endless hot wings and taquitos that comprised most of my "diet".
By the end of the month I was pretty much desperate for some real food. I had to force myself to stay the course. By this time a couple of my coworkers became interested in my "experiment" so I felt compelled to finish out strong. My last official meal the last night of the experiment was a dinner consisting of a "big bite" hot dog and loaded Dorito mozzarella sticks. That night when I was going to bed I was SO glad that when I woke up the next morning I could go back to my old way of eating.
So the final results? I lost just shy of 15 pounds in a month. I also had blood work done at my doctor's office to verify my other metrics. While I do not remember the specifics, both my blood pressure and clinical markers were within normal range and my doctor reported that I was perfectly healthy. He also congratulated me on the weight loss and "deciding to adopt more healthy eating habits". This statement almost made me laugh dead in his face from the irony. I did not have the heart to tell him what was really going on.
So I guess the logical next question from this experience is what can be learned from it? While I would never in a million years suggest to anyone that following a diet like mine and the professor’s is a good idea, it’s success in achieving weight loss certainly does fly in the face of conventional wisdom. From my perspective, it simply reinforces the notion that a calorie really is just a calorie. It also suggests that the health benefits of caloric restriction FAR outweigh any assumed benefit or negative consequence from obsessing over any individual macro. The scientific and medical community is slowly merging in this direction. One of the more comprehensive papers out there on the subject is from the NIH and can be found here:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/pathways-underlying-benefits-calorie-restriction
Not going to lie, since this experience in my life I have come to view most of the fad diet and macro obsessed crowd as rather silly and simply following a herd mentality.
33
Replies
-
Well if you look at long term consumption of foods in low quality on a daily basis for EVERY meal, you need look no further than state penitentiaries. Inmates eat 3 meals a days of the lowest quality food. And yet the obesity rate is non existent, lots of dudes get jacked looking while in prison, and there are inmates in their for YEARS eating this same way day after day, where "gurus" would say that eating a year of bad nutrition would kill a person.
The body doesn't discriminate when it comes to absorption of calories for use. It just takes what's available and makes due.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
21 -
Well if you look at long term consumption of foods in low quality on a daily basis for EVERY meal, you need look no further than state penitentiaries. Inmates eat 3 meals a days of the lowest quality food. And yet the obesity rate is non existent, lots of dudes get jacked looking while in prison, and there are inmates in their for YEARS eating this same way day after day, where "gurus" would say that eating a year of bad nutrition would kill a person.
The body doesn't discriminate when it comes to absorption of calories for use. It just takes what's available and makes due.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The prison scenario never really dawned on me, but that is an incredibly insightful point to be made on the subject.3 -
Sorry long term adherence to a diet consistently of low nutrient food, even if it results in weight loss due to less calories in vs out is not healthy in the long term.
How about just a reasonable diet composed of 80-90% nutrient dense foods and an appropriate level of calories? Not a fad, not "cool: but very effective from a weight and health perspective.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Sorry long term adherence to a diet consistently of low nutrient food, even if it results in weight loss due to less calories in vs out is not healthy in the long term.
How about just a reasonable diet composed of 80-90% nutrient dense foods and an appropriate level of calories? Not a fad, not "cool: but very effective from a weight and health perspective.
From the OP: "While I would never in a million years suggest to anyone that following a diet like mine and the professor’s is a good idea, it’s success in achieving weight loss certainly does fly in the face of conventional wisdom."
It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan, it was something one guy did for 30 days.21 -
I know OP was not doing this, but if you wanted to you could get a nutritionally okay diet from the 7-11 nearest me.
I also think I could eat at a deficit eating just from the 7-11 for 30 days (let's say 1400 calories) and would probably do so more consistently than I seem to be able to now, since it would be an interesting experiment and having a reason to do it is what I need.
It would actually make it easier, as I couldn't eat random foods that show up at work that might be more tasty.
On the other hand, the diet would be depressing, although not so much as the "military" diet, so there's that!
8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I know OP was not doing this, but if you wanted to you could get a nutritionally okay diet from the 7-11 nearest me.
I also think I could eat at a deficit eating just from the 7-11 for 30 days (let's say 1400 calories) and would probably do so more consistently than I seem to be able to now, since it would be an interesting experiment and having a reason to do it is what I need.
It would actually make it easier, as I couldn't eat random foods that show up at work that might be more tasty.
On the other hand, the diet would be depressing, although not so much as the "military" diet, so there's that!
You should give it a try then, and you have the perfect platform here at MFP to document your progress. Since I see you are also from Chicago, you know as well as I do that you are never terribly far from a 7-11 since they dot the landscape
2 -
I can't imagine how tired I would feel on a 7-11 diet. It's so neat to see how that works, but I think i would be permanently sluggish from lack of nutrients.
Very interesting post. thank you for sharing!
Also, this reminds me of the twinkie diet! https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/oh-dear-the-twinkie-diet-actually-works-268743/0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Sorry long term adherence to a diet consistently of low nutrient food, even if it results in weight loss due to less calories in vs out is not healthy in the long term.
How about just a reasonable diet composed of 80-90% nutrient dense foods and an appropriate level of calories? Not a fad, not "cool: but very effective from a weight and health perspective.
From the OP: "While I would never in a million years suggest to anyone that following a diet like mine and the professor’s is a good idea, it’s success in achieving weight loss certainly does fly in the face of conventional wisdom."
It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan, it was something one guy did for 30 days.
Understand the OP, mentioned it would not be a long term solution. but it is down the second to last paragraph of a long post. How many people quit reading when they saw lose weight eating junk food.
Also, since you and the OP both agree this is not sustainable, how does it help anyone who is actually looking to lose weight in a sustainable, long term way? Now if someone is morbidly obese and losing weight is a life and death situation and something like this is the only way they could do it, different story. For most people not a good idea IMO.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Sorry long term adherence to a diet consistently of low nutrient food, even if it results in weight loss due to less calories in vs out is not healthy in the long term.
How about just a reasonable diet composed of 80-90% nutrient dense foods and an appropriate level of calories? Not a fad, not "cool: but very effective from a weight and health perspective.
From the OP: "While I would never in a million years suggest to anyone that following a diet like mine and the professor’s is a good idea, it’s success in achieving weight loss certainly does fly in the face of conventional wisdom."
It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan, it was something one guy did for 30 days.
Understand the OP, mentioned it would not be a long term solution. but it is down the second to last paragraph of a long post. How many people quit reading when they saw lose weight eating junk food.
Also, since you and the OP both agree this is not sustainable, how does it help anyone who is actually looking to lose weight in a sustainable, long term way? Now if someone is morbidly obese and losing weight is a life and death situation and something like this is the only way they could do it, different story. For most people not a good idea IMO.
The point is that if this was already the way an overweight person was eating, this could give them a framework to begin losing weight (which, in and of itself, is going to result in health improvements for them). The idea that you don't have to radically overhaul your diet to lose weight is a foreign concept to many people right now because we're frequently told that we have to cut carbohydrates or "eat clean" or do whatever in order to lose weight.
Would this be sustainable for me? No. I think I'd feel pretty gross just eating like that (and OP did too). But some people do eat like this and they shouldn't be barred from weight loss just because they aren't interested in eating 80-90% nutrient-dense foods. If they're interested in making that change to promote their health or achieve a specific outcome, they're totally free to do so.
People who would read this post and decide to adopt the strategy *are already eating this way*. Losing weight would only be a good thing for them.17 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Sorry long term adherence to a diet consistently of low nutrient food, even if it results in weight loss due to less calories in vs out is not healthy in the long term.
How about just a reasonable diet composed of 80-90% nutrient dense foods and an appropriate level of calories? Not a fad, not "cool: but very effective from a weight and health perspective.
From the OP: "While I would never in a million years suggest to anyone that following a diet like mine and the professor’s is a good idea, it’s success in achieving weight loss certainly does fly in the face of conventional wisdom."
It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan, it was something one guy did for 30 days.
Understand the OP, mentioned it would not be a long term solution. but it is down the second to last paragraph of a long post. How many people quit reading when they saw lose weight eating junk food.
Also, since you and the OP both agree this is not sustainable, how does it help anyone who is actually looking to lose weight in a sustainable, long term way? Now if someone is morbidly obese and losing weight is a life and death situation and something like this is the only way they could do it, different story. For most people not a good idea IMO.
I guess my number one takeaway from the experience now that some time has passed is that I no longer worry if I slip up on occasion and eat some unhealthy snack food. This used to fill me with guilt, but not so much anymore. I have learned that if my body is incredibly resilient even under extreme circumstances, then the occasional slip up is no big deal provided my calorie count is still on point.
Also, my former level of obsession with Macros is now out the window. Most people that are even mildly health conscious will get more than enough nutrients to satisfy their daily needs. If I was a vegan/vegetarian I might care for obvious reasons. Or perhaps if I engaged in one of the various fad diets (keto, paleo, etc.) that specifically neglects certain nutrients I might pay more attention.
What I have found is that In the diet industry many people make a living by trying to sell bogus fitness plans containing "secrets" to folks too naive to realize they have essentially been trolled. The truth is there are only so many ways you can tell people to cut calories to lose weight and eat more protein and increase calories to gain muscle. To keep people coming back they've got to make something up. It has to be something that is over the head of most laymen, but which sounds reasonably scientific so people are willing to accept it as the truth without too much debate. This is where all these macro specific fad diets come from.16 -
chelseahatch24 wrote: »I can't imagine how tired I would feel on a 7-11 diet. It's so neat to see how that works, but I think i would be permanently sluggish from lack of nutrients.
Very interesting post. thank you for sharing!
Also, this reminds me of the twinkie diet! https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/oh-dear-the-twinkie-diet-actually-works-268743/
Hence the multi-vitamin the OP took. Whether you would be sluggish or not, who knows.
3 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I guess my number one takeaway from the experience now that some time has passed is that I no longer worry if I slip up on occasion and eat some unhealthy snack food. This used to fill me with guilt, but not so much anymore. I have learned that if my body is incredibly resilient even under extreme circumstances, then the occasional slip up is no big deal provided my calorie count is still on point.
Losing guilt over food is a good thing. I'm finding it easier to eat "better" than to eat "clean" or "healthy" and do so without apologizing for having a burger.Also, my former level of obsession with Macros is now out the window. Most people that are even mildly health conscious will get more than enough nutrients to satisfy their daily needs. If I was a vegan/vegetarian I might care for obvious reasons. Or perhaps if I engaged in one of the various fad diets (keto, paleo, etc.) that specifically neglects certain nutrients I might pay more attention.
Only caveat I would have is to be sure your protein is high enough. I aim for over 100 grams, a lot less than some here advocate, but more than the minimum RDA for someone my size.What I have found is that In the diet industry many people make a living by trying to sell bogus fitness plans containing "secrets" to folks too naive to realize they have essentially been trolled. The truth is there are only so many ways you can tell people to cut calories to lose weight and eat more protein and increase calories to gain muscle. To keep people coming back they've got to make something up. It has to be something that is over the head of most laymen, but which sounds reasonably scientific so people are willing to accept it as the truth without too much debate. This is where all these macro specific fad diets come from.
To be fair, a lot of those in the diet industry do believe the "woo" they are selling. Yes, a lot of it is BS, but people are trying to help and think they have what will help. That confuses the whole "diet" thing even more when those who are actively and knowingly sell BS have convinced PT's and the like that it's "science". It's a sad state of affairs and does make it tougher.
2 -
rileysowner wrote: »chelseahatch24 wrote: »I can't imagine how tired I would feel on a 7-11 diet. It's so neat to see how that works, but I think i would be permanently sluggish from lack of nutrients.
Very interesting post. thank you for sharing!
Also, this reminds me of the twinkie diet! https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/oh-dear-the-twinkie-diet-actually-works-268743/
Hence the multi-vitamin the OP took. Whether you would be sluggish or not, who knows.
It was just a statement. I wasn't expecting a response. I would be sluggish, because that's how my body is. I know my body better than anyone else. Thanks for the comment, though.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »chelseahatch24 wrote: »I can't imagine how tired I would feel on a 7-11 diet. It's so neat to see how that works, but I think i would be permanently sluggish from lack of nutrients.
Very interesting post. thank you for sharing!
Also, this reminds me of the twinkie diet! https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/oh-dear-the-twinkie-diet-actually-works-268743/
Hence the multi-vitamin the OP took. Whether you would be sluggish or not, who knows.
I did not really get noticeably weak or anything. My exercise routine went pretty much like normal. Even on days I went heavy at the gym I was still fine. The main sticking point for me was boredom and a desire for variety more than anything else. Most of 7-11's hot and fried food items all pretty much taste the same after awhile. For like a week it was lovely, but it got old really quickly after that.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Sorry long term adherence to a diet consistently of low nutrient food, even if it results in weight loss due to less calories in vs out is not healthy in the long term.
How about just a reasonable diet composed of 80-90% nutrient dense foods and an appropriate level of calories? Not a fad, not "cool: but very effective from a weight and health perspective.
POINT === missed22 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Sorry long term adherence to a diet consistently of low nutrient food, even if it results in weight loss due to less calories in vs out is not healthy in the long term.
How about just a reasonable diet composed of 80-90% nutrient dense foods and an appropriate level of calories? Not a fad, not "cool: but very effective from a weight and health perspective.
where did OP recommend this for the long term?11 -
This reminds me of the experiment @MityMax96 did: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10534218/fast-food-for-the-month
Pretty much the same result.3 -
Fantastic information! Thanks so much for sharing this!0
-
There are a lot of takeaways I think but the main point OP is trying to make is that don't be obsessive. If you are running late and you stop by a convenience store and get a hot dog one day instead of your grilled chicken it will have 0 impact on you when calories are equate. If he can do it for an entire month successfully, you doing once a week or month will not impact your success and not to worry about it. Thanks for the input OP, I think it was very valuable.14
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Sorry long term adherence to a diet consistently of low nutrient food, even if it results in weight loss due to less calories in vs out is not healthy in the long term.
How about just a reasonable diet composed of 80-90% nutrient dense foods and an appropriate level of calories? Not a fad, not "cool: but very effective from a weight and health perspective.
where did OP recommend this for the long term?
Please see my earlier post.
"Understand the OP, mentioned it would not be a long term solution. but it is down the second to last paragraph of a long post. How many people quit reading when they saw lose weight eating junk food?"
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions