Do you lose more weight eating clean?
fastfoodietofitcutie
Posts: 524 Member
I've noticed that the weeks I eat clean or cleaner, I lose more weight. It's not because I'm eating less calories/fat/carbs. I keep hearing, it doesn't matter what you eat, calories in, calories out but I really think it does.
I was snowed in a few weeks ago and didn't eat out once. Every meal was made at home for a solid 7 days and I had the best weight loss week ever.
Less sodium perhaps. Maybe it's all in my head!
I was snowed in a few weeks ago and didn't eat out once. Every meal was made at home for a solid 7 days and I had the best weight loss week ever.
Less sodium perhaps. Maybe it's all in my head!
0
Replies
-
I think it's a combination of less sodium, and being able to control what goes into your food and portions much better than eating out. Even restaurants with calories on their menus, it all comes down to how each dish is prepared. One chef can use a little more oil than another, a little more salt, etc.0
-
I think it's a combination of less sodium, and being able to control what goes into your food and portions much better than eating out. Even restaurants with calories on their menus, it all comes down to how each dish is prepared. One chef can use a little more oil than another, a little more salt, etc.
Packaged foods can also be surprisingly off on calories. The manufacturers have too much leeway.
I also find the better I eat the more I move in general, not just exercise, so who knows, maybe having wigglebutt in the chair burns a few more calories every day in addition to faster runs/walks/biking?0 -
I personally think it is the sodium and additives that make a difference. I still eat "boxed" food, but when I don't eat out the lbs come off quicker. I also don't think the nutrition posted on the websites is exactly what you eat when you get restaurant food. The website is the standard portion but the cook for the day could vary things.0
-
I agree with all of what people have said above, plus there's the digestion factor. Whole/unprocessed foods are generally going to take longer to digest, so you're probably full longer and your body spends more energy digesting. Fiber FTW!!0
-
Minimally processed foods generally take more energy to digest then highly processed foods. So 100 calories of raw almonds is actually less net calories then 100 calories of chips. Unfortunately the nutrition data given for foods does not take the info into account.0
-
I would agree with this. Many packaged foods apply their calories to a "serving" (like one cookie for example) and not to the actual grams/weight of what's actually being eaten. A few of these a day could easily add up to 200+ calories more a day.I think it's a combination of less sodium, and being able to control what goes into your food and portions much better than eating out. Even restaurants with calories on their menus, it all comes down to how each dish is prepared. One chef can use a little more oil than another, a little more salt, etc.
Packaged foods can also be surprisingly off on calories. The manufacturers have too much leeway.
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
0 -
Minimally processed foods generally take more energy to digest then highly processed foods. So 100 calories of raw almonds is actually less net calories then 100 calories of chips. Unfortunately the nutrition data given for foods does not take the info into account.
TEF? I am wondering, since you used 100 calories as your example, what would be the TEF for each one of those examples?0 -
Agreed. I actually wrote a paper that touched on this for school last year. Manufacturers can round down on calorie amounts per serving.
I would agree with this. Many packaged foods apply their calories to a "serving" (like one cookie for example) and not to the actual grams/weight of what's actually being eaten. A few of these a day could easily add up to 200+ calories more a day.I think it's a combination of less sodium, and being able to control what goes into your food and portions much better than eating out. Even restaurants with calories on their menus, it all comes down to how each dish is prepared. One chef can use a little more oil than another, a little more salt, etc.
Packaged foods can also be surprisingly off on calories. The manufacturers have too much leeway.
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
How much sodium you eat isn't going to have any bearing on true weight loss. Neither does food additives. Too much may cause a temporary weight gain due to water retention but that water weight will flush out once the sodium has left your body.
Eating "clean" doesn't cause you to lose more weight than eating any other way. The difference is from a more accurate calorie count and probably because you're more aware of what you're eating and filling up on whole foods so are less likely to snack.0 -
if you eat in a 500 calorie deficit of "clean" foods (whatever you define that as) and eat in a 500 calorie of moderate intake and considering same activity level then weight loss should be the same....
Are you sure that you ate the exact same amount of calories? Do you use a food scale to with all solid foods?0 -
I think it's just because you're getting a more accurate calorie count. Recently I started making my own food for almost every meal and I keep losing weight. It wasn't really even for weight loss. It was because the food options around my office taste terrible and are expensive. As a result, since i'm making my own food, I'm measuring everything, whereas when I ate out it was a total guess or I couldn't log it at all because I had no idea how many calories.0
-
I've noticed that the weeks I eat clean or cleaner, I lose more weight. It's not because I'm eating less calories/fat/carbs. I keep hearing, it doesn't matter what you eat, calories in, calories out but I really think it does.
I was snowed in a few weeks ago and didn't eat out once. Every meal was made at home for a solid 7 days and I had the best weight loss week ever.
Less sodium perhaps. Maybe it's all in my head!
0 -
prattiger65 wrote: »Minimally processed foods generally take more energy to digest then highly processed foods. So 100 calories of raw almonds is actually less net calories then 100 calories of chips. Unfortunately the nutrition data given for foods does not take the info into account.
TEF? I am wondering, since you used 100 calories as your example, what would be the TEF for each one of those examples?
It's not just the thermic effect, it's about the overall digestability and "absorbable calories."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
Basically you get about 1/3 less "absorbable calories" from raw almonds then what is listed per their nutrition data. Whereas, highly processed foods are almost completely absorbed.0 -
prattiger65 wrote: »Minimally processed foods generally take more energy to digest then highly processed foods. So 100 calories of raw almonds is actually less net calories then 100 calories of chips. Unfortunately the nutrition data given for foods does not take the info into account.
TEF? I am wondering, since you used 100 calories as your example, what would be the TEF for each one of those examples?
It's not just the thermic effect, it'sabout the overall digestability and "absorbable calories."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
Basically you get about 1/3 less "absorable calories" from raw almonds then what is listed per their nutrition data. Whereas, highly processed foods are almost completely absorbed.
And when you don't have much left to lose, every little bit does count.
Damn shame I can wipe that advantage out completely by eating 3000 calories of them in an evening. I love almonds. If I have a moderation goal for any food on earth, it's not for cake and cookies anymore, it's for trail mix, with or without dried fruit.0 -
Actually, eating food that is actually dirty has the potential to give you a little added weight loss from food poisoning related intestinal distress. Mostly water weight, but, you asked.0
-
if you eat in a 500 calorie deficit of "clean" foods (whatever you define that as) and eat in a 500 calorie of moderate intake and considering same activity level then weight loss should be the same....
Are you sure that you ate the exact same amount of calories? Do you use a food scale to with all solid foods?
One would think, but unfortunately the way a food's caloric content is calculated (Atwater factors) is not accurate for some foods.0 -
prattiger65 wrote: »Minimally processed foods generally take more energy to digest then highly processed foods. So 100 calories of raw almonds is actually less net calories then 100 calories of chips. Unfortunately the nutrition data given for foods does not take the info into account.
TEF? I am wondering, since you used 100 calories as your example, what would be the TEF for each one of those examples?
It's not just the thermic effect, it's about the overall digestability and "absorbable calories."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
Basically you get about 1/3 less "absorbable calories" from raw almonds then what is listed per their nutrition data. Whereas, highly processed foods are almost completely absorbed.
So, 100 cals of chips is 100 cals, but 100 cals of almonds is 66 cals? Or are you saying 100 cals of chips are 133 and almonds are 100? Am I understanding what you are saying?0 -
prattiger65 wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »Minimally processed foods generally take more energy to digest then highly processed foods. So 100 calories of raw almonds is actually less net calories then 100 calories of chips. Unfortunately the nutrition data given for foods does not take the info into account.
TEF? I am wondering, since you used 100 calories as your example, what would be the TEF for each one of those examples?
It's not just the thermic effect, it's about the overall digestability and "absorbable calories."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
Basically you get about 1/3 less "absorbable calories" from raw almonds then what is listed per their nutrition data. Whereas, highly processed foods are almost completely absorbed.
So, 100 cals of chips is 100 cals, but 100 cals of almonds is 66 cals? Or are you saying 100 cals of chips are 133 and almonds are 100? Am I understanding what you are saying?
The former is close enough, but read the link if you want the details. I imagine the exact numbers are affected by whatever else you're eating, and how many almonds you have.0 -
if you eat in a 500 calorie deficit of "clean" foods (whatever you define that as) and eat in a 500 calorie of moderate intake and considering same activity level then weight loss should be the same....
Are you sure that you ate the exact same amount of calories? Do you use a food scale to with all solid foods?
One would think, but unfortunately the way a food's caloric content is calculated (Atwater factors) is not accurate for some foods.
assuming both people are eating in the same 500 calorie deficit then they would both experience the same loss..
clean has nothing to do with it...it is a matter of math and physics...0 -
if you eat in a 500 calorie deficit of "clean" foods (whatever you define that as) and eat in a 500 calorie of moderate intake and considering same activity level then weight loss should be the same....
Are you sure that you ate the exact same amount of calories? Do you use a food scale to with all solid foods?
One would think, but unfortunately the way a food's caloric content is calculated (Atwater factors) is not accurate for some foods.
assuming both people are eating in the same 500 calorie deficit then they would both experience the same loss..
clean has nothing to do with it...it is a matter of math and physics...
I'm not sure if you don't understand or if you're just arguing semantics.
When I read the phrase "500 calorie deficit" then I'm assuming that refers to someone eating 500 calories less then they burn based on calculations for TDEE and calories consumed. Since the calories consumed data is more overestimated for whole foods then it is for highly processed foods, somebody eating clean would theoretically lose slightly faster.
It doesn't make any sense to say that the "500 calorie deficit" is taking absorbability into account since those numbers aren't used and really aren't even available.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The food I cook at home are generally lower calorie than the restaurant versions. Might just be that. or you ate less sodium. Restaurants add a good amount of sodium to their food. When I cook at home, I add very little to no salt....which is probably why I have low blood pressure all the time...
0 -
I knew about the thermic effect, but this I was unaware of...very interesting. If you take two people who save calories for an evening snack...one person eats 300 calories of ice cream, the other eats 300 calories of almonds. Based on the above, the person eating almonds is really only taking in just over 200 calories. That 100 calorie difference x 7 is 700 calories for the week. That's .2 pounds more weight lost that week. Granted, it won't make or break a person's efforts, but most people trying to lose would take the extra .2 pound loss that comes with no additional effort.prattiger65 wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »Minimally processed foods generally take more energy to digest then highly processed foods. So 100 calories of raw almonds is actually less net calories then 100 calories of chips. Unfortunately the nutrition data given for foods does not take the info into account.
TEF? I am wondering, since you used 100 calories as your example, what would be the TEF for each one of those examples?
It's not just the thermic effect, it's about the overall digestability and "absorbable calories."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
Basically you get about 1/3 less "absorbable calories" from raw almonds then what is listed per their nutrition data. Whereas, highly processed foods are almost completely absorbed.
So, 100 cals of chips is 100 cals, but 100 cals of almonds is 66 cals? Or are you saying 100 cals of chips are 133 and almonds are 100? Am I understanding what you are saying?
The former is close enough, but read the link if you want the details. I imagine the exact numbers are affected by whatever else you're eating, and how many almonds you have.
And that is one snack. If somebody makes similar choices with more of their diet, this could be even more significant.
0 -
Debating TEF of mixed diets when eating 100% "clean or whole foods" vs one that includes processed foods really doesn't make much sense. If there were differences it's going to be negligible.
If you are going to compare diets where let's say 1 person eats a lopsided intake such as 10% protein vs 60% protein then the differences would show but those situations are more exteme that the norm.
Alan Aragon and Eric Helms had a great conversation in their video titled The protein roundtable. Look it up if you're interested but be warned both videos together are close to 3 hours long. It's time we'll spen .
It's not just about TEF though. Absorbability is much more significant then TEF. It's true that it might not be all that significant, but most numbers I've seen seem to indicate that it's not negligible.
Although for the record I did not watch the 3 hour video (maybe someday).
Here's an interesting blog post that discusses some of the issues with food label calorie information. Many people don't realize that the calorie information on most foods is just a rough estimate.
http://www.curiousread.com/2009/07/calorie-delusion-why-food-labels-are.html0 -
I've noticed that the weeks I eat clean or cleaner, I lose more weight. It's not because I'm eating less calories/fat/carbs. I keep hearing, it doesn't matter what you eat, calories in, calories out but I really think it does.
I was snowed in a few weeks ago and didn't eat out once. Every meal was made at home for a solid 7 days and I had the best weight loss week ever.
Less sodium perhaps. Maybe it's all in my head!
I am really enjoying the discussion of absorbability/TEF above (very educational), but I feel like I should point out that one week isn't enough time to gauge it. I believe you when you say you had your best loss ever, but I've also had weeks where I've lost 3 pounds out of nowhere.
I ate out exactly once last month. I cook everything and limit prepackaged snacks. I only rarely go over my calories. MFP says I should lose 1.3 pounds a week, or 5.85 pounds in a 4.5-week month. Last month I lost 6 pounds. ETA: I don't think a month is enough time to properly gauge it either.
For me, a calorie is a calorie until there's a tightly-controlled human experiment proving otherwise.0 -
I don't know if I see a difference in the scale but I for sure see a difference in my body shape! After I started eating a lot cleaner with homemade foods and snacking on veggies the scale hasn't really changed that much but I am down a pant size and feel less jiggle when I walk. It might just be all in my head but I am jiggling less than when I was 20lbs lighter.0
-
I've noticed that the weeks I eat clean or cleaner, I lose more weight. It's not because I'm eating less calories/fat/carbs. I keep hearing, it doesn't matter what you eat, calories in, calories out but I really think it does.
I was snowed in a few weeks ago and didn't eat out once. Every meal was made at home for a solid 7 days and I had the best weight loss week ever.
Less sodium perhaps. Maybe it's all in my head!
What the heck? Don't you realize that you don't know the actual calories/fat/carbs when you eat out? I assume someone has already mentioned that but it bears repeating.
It really really doesn't matter where the calories come from. Unless the calories come form some place where you don't actually know what they are.
If you want to try to dispute this use weeks where you eat at home to compare to other weeks where you eat at home. Comparing to weeks where you eat out is just silly.
0 -
Debating TEF of mixed diets when eating 100% "clean or whole foods" vs one that includes processed foods really doesn't make much sense. If there were differences it's going to be negligible.
If you are going to compare diets where let's say 1 person eats a lopsided intake such as 10% protein vs 60% protein then the differences would show but those situations are more exteme that the norm.
Alan Aragon and Eric Helms had a great conversation in their video titled The protein roundtable. Look it up if you're interested but be warned both videos together are close to 3 hours long. It's time we'll spen .
What ahamm002 posits is 33%, that's not negligible.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 397K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 455 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions