"Clean" eating vs. Moderation- what works for you?
Options
Replies
-
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Food selection had little to do with any of those results...
Explain, please? The only thing I did differently was limit my carbs and eliminate most added sugars (due to a diabetes diagnosis). I started losing the weight before I added more activity, but as I lost the weight I found the activity in which I engaged was actually easier and more enjoyable. I now look forward to going out and doing yardwork instead of dreading it.
When you limit carbs and added sugars (really the same thing) you are ultimately limiting calories. That's the lions share of your results...
To be clear, I think what you did is great. You feel great and you lost weight... so more power to you. It worked and that's what matters... just IMO did not work for the reasons you think it worked. But again, who really cares right?
0 -
Katerina9408 wrote: »if by "clean" you mean normal homemade meals without the junk...it is for me
moderation never helped me because junk is junk no matter how you look at it , cholesterols is still cholesterol and fat is still fat (the flip side is cal from clean eating are still cal so don't overeat).This is my religion.
Nothing at all wrong with dietary cholesterol or fats.0 -
This is why these debates go on and on... because many people view food like religion...Katerina9408 wrote: »if by "clean" you mean normal homemade meals without the junk...it is for me moderation never helped me because junk is junk no matter how you look at it , cholesterols is still cholesterol and fat is still fat (the flip side is cal from clean eating are still cal so don't overeat).This is my religion.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If you are both saying the same thing, but using different terms, what does it matter. Why is it worse to say "I'm a clean eater (most of the time)" than "I eat in moderation"?
Because moderation (eating at a deficit) will result in weight loss, while clean eating in excess won't.
The big assumption is that MFP'ers are here to lose weight. Maybe not but I think that's generally the goal. One can eat "clean" and lose weight, too. But that's a side-benefit, not it's chief aim.
I don't think it is my imagination either but the successful bulkers here on MFP generally aren't in the clean camp either. It's hard enough to cram in the calories to stop and wonder if it's the "healthiest" choice at the moment. At their calorie load it's a pretty good bet they are hitting their macros and their micros.0 -
You're the one choosing words like "virtue" to describe eating habits. Not sure how else to read that...I can only respond to what you write. I think connecting virtue with diet is bizarre. Sorry, that is an odd idea to me. No offense meant, but I just can't relate to that way of thinking.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Not sure why you are befuddled. It seems pretty straight forward to me. I think you are making this much more complicated and mysterious than it is.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
If you consider having sweets once every couple of months moderation, then sure. In that sense, yes. I don't have any foods about which I have said I will never ever have it again.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
For me, "clean" eating works much better...though I don't use that term. But it is all lean meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, yogurt, eggs, natural peanut butter, etc. I eat almost zero added sugar or wheat...just on rare occasions when I am out.In the past 5 years or so, I have really noticed what seems to be an enormous shift in what is considered the "ideal" diet. So much emphasis is now placed on eating only whole, unprocessed foods, no added sugar, nothing artificial, ditch "white" carbs, etc. Paleo this, Whole 30 that, don't eat gluten, don't eat bread, etc. I totally get that nutrition and weight loss are two totally different things. What I am curious about is how are "real" people who are currently *successfully* losing weight actually eating? Do you have the occasional bowl of sugar cereal if it fits into your calorie allowance, or are your 1200 calories (or whatever your number is) strictly filled with vegetables, nuts, and organic chicken breasts? I want to know what REALLY works for you, not just what is "ideal".
I feel much better eating this way...I never get cravings or sluggish after a meal and I have more energy. Psychologically, it also makes it much easier to not overeat. When I am eating healthy, I tend to find it very easy to stick with it. I also exercise more often. The two good habits seem to reinforce each other for me.
You see to me that is moderation... Just stricter then others. How strict an individual moderates is determined by their preference and goals..
However, things that aren't part of my daily, weekly, or even monthly diet...I would say it is more accurate to say I generally just don't eat them. And I never have them at home...for me, it is just too much of a slippery slope. If my rare exceptions become the new rule, then I will regain all I have worked to lose. But I won't quibble over the language. Whatever you call it, I have found what works best for me.
I'm befuddled by this because to be honest, I eat treats about as often as you do. (In my 100 days logging, I've logged cookies once, chocolate once and potato chips once... to give an example.) I don't want them frequently enough to work them into my calorie allowance, it's nothing more than that as far as I'm concerned.
For me, though, it's freeing to think to myself that if I want something, it's okay to have it. I don't feel the need to play a semantic game with myself and say that I "generally just don't eat treats". I like saying that I eat what I like, because that's what I DO. Is that what you're doing too, on the balance? Why is it important to you to classify yourself as a clean eater? Honest question here, no snark.
Serious question here, I am not poking at a stereotype or anything. Do you feel like you're adhering to a certain plan or virtue that you've set for yourself by having the mindset you do about the way you eat?
First of all, if you actually read my entire post you would see that I very clearly said that I don't use the term "clean eating". So obviously, if I don't use the term, it can't be important to think of myself that way. This is just common sense and I'm not sure why you even need me to address it.
Second, I don't consider them "treats" like you do. That in itself is a strange way to look at it to me. It's just food. If I want a "treat", I will take a vacation or a relaxing bath or watch a movie or buy something that I want but don't really need. Food is just food...I don't associate it with rewarding myself. That is not my mentality, and not a habit I want to develop. I could see bad things happening if I looked at it that way. If it works for you, okay...I think it's strange but you aren't me.
It's not a semantic game at all. These foods are not part of my normal diet. I don't even want them to be. Not sure why you can't understand that. Sweets are not the end all be all to everybody. On the rare occasions I have them, it is typically more of a social thing...I had pumpkin pie on thanksgiving and half of a Korean doughnut when I shared it with an out of town friend who was visiting. It was the occasion that called for it...not any great wanting or craving on my part. I enjoyed it, or I wouldn't have eaten it at all...but I don't ever get cravings for these things. I do not ever feel deprived in any way.
Also, I lost 90 pounds. For most of that I didn't count calories at all. I am only doing it now to play with macros and I don't intend to count calories forever. I don't want to be in a situation where I have to figure out every single day if I can "fit" something I want to eat. The way I eat now, I don't have to do that. I don't want to deal with that BS on a daily basis. I don't do it now, and don't want to have to watch every bite of food that closely in the future. That is much easier to do (and not gain weight!) if you are mainly eating nutrient dense, and not calorie dense, foods. Within reason, I can have anything I want.
If I am hungry, even if I sat on my butt all day and got no exercise, then I eat more. I can do that because the things I eat don't have empty calories. Also, I don't even get hungry that often because the things I eat tend to be very filling...lots of protein and fat will keep you full. Most carbs will not. Again, this simplifies things and reduces the urge to eat too many calories. Again, this prevents me from ever feeling deprived. This is all very practical.
Finally, as to your question about virtue, frankly that is a very bizarre way to look at diet. Diet has nothing to do with virtue...I'm not sure why you think it does. I eat the foods I do because 1) they contain the vitamins, minerals, protein, etc. that my body needs 2) they taste good 3) they are filling. It's that simple. Again, you are making things WAY too complicated. We aren't trying to split the atom here. It's just food.
Sorry I confused what you were saying with what other people were saying.
You are reading an awful lot into my word choices that might not make it easy to have a productive discussion.
However I would like to say this:That is much easier to do (and not gain weight!) if you are mainly eating nutrient dense, and not calorie dense, foods. Within reason, I can have anything I want.
is pretty much how everyone who adheres to moderation operates.
Having what I want within reason only works for me if I am not eating added sugar. If I eat added sugar it causes massive cravings that are extremely difficult for me to control and "moderation", however you define it, flies out the window. The irony is that even at my heaviest, if offered something salty or something sweet I would almost always choose salty. The problem was, once I did eat sweet, I then wanted more and more and more.
So for me, I really cannot have sweets in moderation. It just does not work for me. A small amount with friends outside the home is acceptable, only because I never really overate in public. Other people being around makes it much easier to limit the serving size. Being occupied doing other things also made it easier.
At home, these limits do not exist. By myself, it is very easy to eat while I watch TV. So one bowl of ice cream led to the entire pint. If it's not in the house, life is easy and I stay at a healthy weight. There is no secret ingredient in Ben & Jerry's that extends life. I am not missing anything by cutting this off of my shopping list permanently.
This is not even something I worry about any more. I found my method, and I'm happy with it. If the lack of cookies in my kitchen bothers somebody else, that is not my problem.
0 -
When you limit carbs and added sugars (really the same thing) you are ultimately limiting calories. That's the lions share of your results...
To be clear, I think what you did is great. You feel great and you lost weight... so more power to you. It worked and that's what matters... just IMO did not work for the reasons you think it worked. But again, who really cares right?
No, I mean two different things by restricting carbs and sugars--I know, they both break down to the same thing, but I tend to think of carbs as potatoes, pasta, and the like and make myself aware of the added sugars in foods such as ice cream and cookies, of which I eat the no-sugar-added varieties.
I'm not sure why you are targeting or what you think I'm saying and you have ABSOLUTELY no reason to claim that you can be in my head tell me why I think anything "worked." I'm a realist and a moderation eater. You're jumping on me like white on rice . . . why?:
0 -
@livelyJS, "The worst of them are designed by PhD's to create an insatiable craving (e.g. Goldfish, Doritos, Cheetos, Captain Crunch, etc)".
I had a girlfriend who had a degree and also worked on dog food formulations. I don't think they ever gave her marching orders to create a crave. The "crave" in all the above except for Captain Crunch is salt. One doesn't need a PhD to figure that out.
Deer at a salt lick:
I blame taste test focus groups. We'll chow down on the sample with the fastest salt/sugar/fat hit. That's the formulation that gets made. We vote with our taste buds.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If you are both saying the same thing, but using different terms, what does it matter. Why is it worse to say "I'm a clean eater (most of the time)" than "I eat in moderation"?
Because moderation (eating at a deficit) will result in weight loss, while clean eating in excess won't.
The big assumption is that MFP'ers are here to lose weight. Maybe not but I think that's generally the goal. One can eat "clean" and lose weight, too. But that's a side-benefit, not it's chief aim.
I don't think it is my imagination either but the successful bulkers here on MFP generally aren't in the clean camp either. It's hard enough to cram in the calories to stop and wonder if it's the "healthiest" choice at the moment. At their calorie load it's a pretty good bet they are hitting their macros and their micros.
I don't understand your response.
Bulkers aren't trying to lose weight and aren't necessarily healthier than non-bulkers so I'm not sure why their diets would be relevant.
I realize clean eating has no one clear definition, but there are high calorie clean foods.
I just don't see how any of what you wrote addresses different terms. If you are doing same thing, calling it one thing or the other won't change outcome.0 -
For me personally, clean eating is the ONLY way I can lose. If I eat in moderation and just have a calorie deficit, I am able to maintain somewhat decently. However, if I want the weight to actually come off, I have to be diligent eating TONS of veggies, meat, and fruit. It's really frustrating that carbs are the one thing that make it so hard for me to lose weight. I wish I were one of those people that could just eat at a deficit and lose.
If you are losing, you are eating at a deficit. Job well done!
0 -
Nah, all weight gain in winter can be attributed to eating too much. I know, I've gained plenty of weight over winters due to hibernation and eating too much.tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »DebHutton55 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »DebHutton55 wrote: »Eat the right carbs, proteins and fats. Watch the quantity. Move! There's the key to healthy living and an outcome in your later years that has you with your memory and the ability to move around with ease. If you are just eating for your weight, wise up. It's taken me most of my life to figure that out.
Someone said, sugar is nothing unless you have a medical condition. So wrong! Read, read, read. What all this stuff is doing to your brain, is more important than what it is doing to your butt.
Of course, eat an occasional bad but if you start eating correctly, you don't have that desire anymore.
This is awesome. I love this statement: "What all this stuff is doing to your brain, is more important than what it is doing to your butt." Very well put. ♥
Some people tolerate a high carb diet better than others, certainly I am not in the lot of that kind of tolerance. I was borderline Type II and have an auto-immune disorder and had to change my diet completely - I lost the weight, gained muscle and strength, lost many of the symptoms of the auto-immune disorder (not all), and now awaiting my physical this week to check my blood work one year after I made this change.
I can say I have cheated maybe 5 times in one year - and during that time, it was morsels - I still eat chocolate but it has to be pure dark chocolate. I know what is good because I was a chocolatier at one time - successfully owned a business and sold it 5 years ago. I know what goes into confections and there's no way I would eat any of them now unless its pure dark chocolate. Chocolate has fiber - that makes it palatable to eat.
There's a real difference calorie for calorie between different foods - meat <> broccoli, for example. Both provide specific nutrients (or densities of nutrients) the other doesn't have. Further, to achieve the caloric equivalent of meat, it takes a hellalot of broccoli. Say an 8oz hamburger or salmon or tenderloin - take those three calorically and you would need to eat ALOT of broccoli - in fact, all three meats contain differences in nutrition unto themselves.
I do believe CICO matters but it matters within the context of your macros. For instance, not all fiber is digestible (insoluble v. soluble). Not all soluble fiber is digestible - those calories can essentially be thrown out - fiber is used by the body in a much different way than the "net" carb of that food. You can't store fiber (or most of it) because it's not made to be stored. It's made to be moved through the body and aids in the elimination process.
Protein requires protein calories to process it - then some protein is used for muscle synthesis and hypertrophy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11255140
"Resistance exercise improves muscle protein balance, but, in the absence of food intake, the balance remains negative (i.e., catabolic)."
So one can "move around" but if one doesn't eat the required macro, one creates a catabolic state that in essence wipes out the whole concept of "moving around"!
The remaining protein is then "storable." So figure 33% of your protein calories are convertible to fat.
I don't think there's a magic number when it comes to weight loss - for instance, many purport that eating 1500 calories would garner weight loss - but 1500 calories of what - does that figure exercise into it, and is that enough to sustain muscles over the long-term? Does that raise the metabolic set point to where you need to eat even less once your metabolism slows to 1500?
That's the problem with looking at things from just the CICO perspective. I do agree (and often get mislabeled on here) that CICO matters, but it matters within the perspective of your macros, the kinds of foods you are eating, the processing (or lack thereof) of that food, and your body's metabolic resistance (or lack thereof) to certain macros and foods.
Thanks Ted! So many haters when it comes to "food talk". I stay informed and read everything I can. Looks like you do, also. Stress is another factor and I think I will walk away from this forum and instead, walk in the beautiful sunshiny eighteen below morning.
♥ Yeah I hear ya. Hormones - awesome suggestion.
Another is what you just described - it's much harder to lose fat during the winter months because the body is preserving as much fat as possible to stay warm. I find it very easy to lose fat during the summer.
LOL OK ...
so if I eat in a deficit during winter, I won't lose as much fat...??
http://www.burnthefat.com/cold_weather_fat_loss.html
I never said that was meant for all but some people do have issues losing fat in the winter versus the summer. Some of that can be attributed to activity as well - summer is a very active time - I don't find myself at home at all really during the summer - so moving around helps achieve a greater use of calories than in the winter.
0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »When you limit carbs and added sugars (really the same thing) you are ultimately limiting calories. That's the lions share of your results...
To be clear, I think what you did is great. You feel great and you lost weight... so more power to you. It worked and that's what matters... just IMO did not work for the reasons you think it worked. But again, who really cares right?
No, I mean two different things by restricting carbs and sugars--I know, they both break down to the same thing, but I tend to think of carbs as potatoes, pasta, and the like and make myself aware of the added sugars in foods such as ice cream and cookies, of which I eat the no-sugar-added varieties.
I'm not sure why you are targeting or what you think I'm saying and you have ABSOLUTELY no reason to claim that you can be in my head tell me why I think anything "worked." I'm a realist and a moderation eater. You're jumping on me like white on rice . . . why?:
Wow...
Why are you so defensive?
You got results from being in a state of negative energy balance, that's it. I don't have to be "in your head" to know that... it's basic human physiology.
I am not targeting you nor am I on you like "white on rice". You made an incorrect assumption as to why you got results. I was merely clearing up your confusion...0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I'm eating a Sci MX strawberry and cream protein bar. It's processed beyond belief, full of dem chemicals, and sweeteners. It's also 20g if protein and 20g of carbs for 230 Kcal and tastes yummy.
So there.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
You're the one choosing words like "virtue" to describe eating habits. Not sure how else to read that...I can only respond to what you write. I think connecting virtue with diet is bizarre. Sorry, that is an odd idea to me. No offense meant, but I just can't relate to that way of thinking.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Not sure why you are befuddled. It seems pretty straight forward to me. I think you are making this much more complicated and mysterious than it is.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
If you consider having sweets once every couple of months moderation, then sure. In that sense, yes. I don't have any foods about which I have said I will never ever have it again.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
For me, "clean" eating works much better...though I don't use that term. But it is all lean meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, yogurt, eggs, natural peanut butter, etc. I eat almost zero added sugar or wheat...just on rare occasions when I am out.In the past 5 years or so, I have really noticed what seems to be an enormous shift in what is considered the "ideal" diet. So much emphasis is now placed on eating only whole, unprocessed foods, no added sugar, nothing artificial, ditch "white" carbs, etc. Paleo this, Whole 30 that, don't eat gluten, don't eat bread, etc. I totally get that nutrition and weight loss are two totally different things. What I am curious about is how are "real" people who are currently *successfully* losing weight actually eating? Do you have the occasional bowl of sugar cereal if it fits into your calorie allowance, or are your 1200 calories (or whatever your number is) strictly filled with vegetables, nuts, and organic chicken breasts? I want to know what REALLY works for you, not just what is "ideal".
I feel much better eating this way...I never get cravings or sluggish after a meal and I have more energy. Psychologically, it also makes it much easier to not overeat. When I am eating healthy, I tend to find it very easy to stick with it. I also exercise more often. The two good habits seem to reinforce each other for me.
You see to me that is moderation... Just stricter then others. How strict an individual moderates is determined by their preference and goals..
However, things that aren't part of my daily, weekly, or even monthly diet...I would say it is more accurate to say I generally just don't eat them. And I never have them at home...for me, it is just too much of a slippery slope. If my rare exceptions become the new rule, then I will regain all I have worked to lose. But I won't quibble over the language. Whatever you call it, I have found what works best for me.
I'm befuddled by this because to be honest, I eat treats about as often as you do. (In my 100 days logging, I've logged cookies once, chocolate once and potato chips once... to give an example.) I don't want them frequently enough to work them into my calorie allowance, it's nothing more than that as far as I'm concerned.
For me, though, it's freeing to think to myself that if I want something, it's okay to have it. I don't feel the need to play a semantic game with myself and say that I "generally just don't eat treats". I like saying that I eat what I like, because that's what I DO. Is that what you're doing too, on the balance? Why is it important to you to classify yourself as a clean eater? Honest question here, no snark.
Serious question here, I am not poking at a stereotype or anything. Do you feel like you're adhering to a certain plan or virtue that you've set for yourself by having the mindset you do about the way you eat?
First of all, if you actually read my entire post you would see that I very clearly said that I don't use the term "clean eating". So obviously, if I don't use the term, it can't be important to think of myself that way. This is just common sense and I'm not sure why you even need me to address it.
Second, I don't consider them "treats" like you do. That in itself is a strange way to look at it to me. It's just food. If I want a "treat", I will take a vacation or a relaxing bath or watch a movie or buy something that I want but don't really need. Food is just food...I don't associate it with rewarding myself. That is not my mentality, and not a habit I want to develop. I could see bad things happening if I looked at it that way. If it works for you, okay...I think it's strange but you aren't me.
It's not a semantic game at all. These foods are not part of my normal diet. I don't even want them to be. Not sure why you can't understand that. Sweets are not the end all be all to everybody. On the rare occasions I have them, it is typically more of a social thing...I had pumpkin pie on thanksgiving and half of a Korean doughnut when I shared it with an out of town friend who was visiting. It was the occasion that called for it...not any great wanting or craving on my part. I enjoyed it, or I wouldn't have eaten it at all...but I don't ever get cravings for these things. I do not ever feel deprived in any way.
Also, I lost 90 pounds. For most of that I didn't count calories at all. I am only doing it now to play with macros and I don't intend to count calories forever. I don't want to be in a situation where I have to figure out every single day if I can "fit" something I want to eat. The way I eat now, I don't have to do that. I don't want to deal with that BS on a daily basis. I don't do it now, and don't want to have to watch every bite of food that closely in the future. That is much easier to do (and not gain weight!) if you are mainly eating nutrient dense, and not calorie dense, foods. Within reason, I can have anything I want.
If I am hungry, even if I sat on my butt all day and got no exercise, then I eat more. I can do that because the things I eat don't have empty calories. Also, I don't even get hungry that often because the things I eat tend to be very filling...lots of protein and fat will keep you full. Most carbs will not. Again, this simplifies things and reduces the urge to eat too many calories. Again, this prevents me from ever feeling deprived. This is all very practical.
Finally, as to your question about virtue, frankly that is a very bizarre way to look at diet. Diet has nothing to do with virtue...I'm not sure why you think it does. I eat the foods I do because 1) they contain the vitamins, minerals, protein, etc. that my body needs 2) they taste good 3) they are filling. It's that simple. Again, you are making things WAY too complicated. We aren't trying to split the atom here. It's just food.
Sorry I confused what you were saying with what other people were saying.
You are reading an awful lot into my word choices that might not make it easy to have a productive discussion.
However I would like to say this:That is much easier to do (and not gain weight!) if you are mainly eating nutrient dense, and not calorie dense, foods. Within reason, I can have anything I want.
is pretty much how everyone who adheres to moderation operates.
No, I asked if you found virtue in a way of thinking about how you ate, or a way of defining yourself. Not the same thing as what you're saying. Please,Having what I want within reason only works for me if I am not eating added sugar. If I eat added sugar it causes massive cravings that are extremely difficult for me to control and "moderation", however you define it, flies out the window. The irony is that even at my heaviest, if offered something salty or something sweet I would almost always choose salty. The problem was, once I did eat sweet, I then wanted more and more and more.
So for me, I really cannot have sweets in moderation. It just does not work for me. A small amount with friends outside the home is acceptable, only because I never really overate in public. Other people being around makes it much easier to limit the serving size. Being occupied doing other things also made it easier.
But... you said in another post that you ate half a brownie offered to you and then moved on with your life. This flies in the face of what you're saying here.
So, which is it?At home, these limits do not exist. By myself, it is very easy to eat while I watch TV. So one bowl of ice cream led to the entire pint. If it's not in the house, life is easy and I stay at a healthy weight. There is no secret ingredient in Ben & Jerry's that extends life. I am not missing anything by cutting this off of my shopping list permanently.
This is not even something I worry about any more. I found my method, and I'm happy with it. If the lack of cookies in my kitchen bothers somebody else, that is not my problem.
So, it's just not having it in your house that's the big issue for you, so your idea of moderation is limiting things to items consumed on rare occasions when you're not at home.
Got it.
0 -
Wow.. Lots of 'moderation' people out there.. Well, it's great if you can make it work. For me, however, it doesn't work. Simply put, I am an all or nothing person. I avoid high fat foods and processed sugars/corn syrup... ALWAYS. Someone wrote "the goal of moderation ...is.. not having to deprive yourself of the things you love. ".. Well I love being thin and in shape and not having aching joints and not being out of breath.. I don't 'love' the taste of ice cream or oreos or deep fried cheesecake, I consider them addicting. If I have one bite, I just want more and more and more. And there is a scientific basis for it, based on insulin, blood sugar, etc. The worst of them are designed by PhD's to create an insatiable craving (e.g. Goldfish, Doritos, Cheetos, Captain Crunch, etc). I have never been successful eating junk foods in moderation. I try to never have them in my house, its much easier to say "no" once at the store than 20-30 times in the house. My two cents.. Stay strong all of you.
so people who eat the occasional Dorito, ice cream, etc are not going to say stay thin, or be able to breath properly....?? Wow, I guess we are all screwed...
And here I thought my aches were from my workout yesterday.... might actually be from the m&ms I wolfed down earlier. Damn.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I'm eating a Sci MX strawberry and cream protein bar. It's processed beyond belief, full of dem chemicals, and sweeteners. It's also 20g if protein and 20g of carbs for 230 Kcal and tastes yummy.
So there.
You dirty, dirty boy.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I'm eating a Sci MX strawberry and cream protein bar. It's processed beyond belief, full of dem chemicals, and sweeteners. It's also 20g if protein and 20g of carbs for 230 Kcal and tastes yummy.
So there.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »I'm eating a Sci MX strawberry and cream protein bar. It's processed beyond belief, full of dem chemicals, and sweeteners. It's also 20g if protein and 20g of carbs for 230 Kcal and tastes yummy.
So there.
I expect to spontaneously combust or something.
Let us know where to send flowers.0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
so people who eat the occasional Dorito, ice cream, etc are not going to say stay thin, or be able to breath properly....?? Wow, I guess we are all screwed...
Absolutely, because 56 pounds gone later, I am no longer panting when I walk fast or go up stairs and my pants are sliding of the hips from which I've lost 8.5 inches since last April. I guess I'm not really on the road to "thin" after all.
Huh.
Go figure.
Went to a party on Saturday. I'd saved up some calories over the week, and also intended to eat less on Sunday, so I could enjoy the sweet foods love so much. I was eating a piece of rum cake and I told someone else how good it was, so sweet, and that love sugar. She said, "Really, you don't look like you leat a lot of sugar."
I just smiled, knowing that I can indeed have those wonderful gooey treats, whether it be cake or chips.
0 -
Wow...
Why are you so defensive?
You got results from being in a state of negative energy balance, that's it. I don't have to be "in your head" to know that... it's basic human physiology.
I am not targeting you nor am I on you like "white on rice". You made an incorrect assumption as to why you got results. I was merely clearing up your confusion...
You still don't say what you think my misconception might be. I'm sorry, but I just don't respond well to condescending people who put words into my mouth making assumptions about what they think I mean. So, if you please, tell me what you think my error is, since I know full well why I lost the weight.
My simple point was, other than restricting the things I needed to restrict for my health, I did not have to do anything special or "eat clean."
So, how far off was your assumption?
And yes, if you're quoting me, you're targeting me. Sorry--that's just the facts.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions