"Clean" eating vs. Moderation- what works for you?
Options
Replies
-
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.
May you rest in.......
Oh, never mind.
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.
Let's backtrack. In response to ndj's question...
"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..."
Then you said...
"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."
What is not clear about what I am correcting you on?
0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
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.
Wow... I have no words... You seem very angry.
0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
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.
Wow... I have no words... You seem very angry.
Again with the assumptions. *shrugs* I have no time to waste on a smug troll. If you can't straight up answer my question, then I'll just block you and no harm done. I see the game you're playing, but I have news for you--I've seen the game played better on other forums. Don't compliment yourself by thinking that I care enough about your opinion to get angry. I just want to know what you think my assumption was, since you're the only person who can answer that question. Because you're the only person who lives in your head.
Funny how that works.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
At this point I start drawing pictures. Like A => B or A =/=B.
Calorie Deficit (A) => Weight Loss (B)
Calorie Surplus (C) => Weight Gain (D)
Clean Eating (E) <> Calorie Deficit (A)
Clean Eating (E) <> Calorie Surplus (C)
Clean Eating may or may not get the dieter the results they are hoping for but it is unrelated to gain or loss.
That doesn't make Clean Eating "bad" just unrelated. Why I would keep pushing this is that I don't want policy makers to enforce clean eating in an attempt to stem the obesity epidemic. I demand logic by decision makers.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
At this point I start drawing pictures. Like A => B or A =/=B.
Calorie Deficit (A) => Weight Loss (B)
Calorie Surplus (C) => Weight Gain (D)
Clean Eating (E) <> Calorie Deficit (A)
Clean Eating (E) <> Calorie Surplus (C)
Clean Eating may or may not get the dieter the results they are hoping for but it is unrelated to gain or loss.
That doesn't make Clean Eating "bad" just unrelated. Why I would keep pushing this is that I don't want policy makers to enforce clean eating in an attempt to stem the obesity epidemic. I demand logic by decision makers.
Don't look now, but I don't think you're ever going to get logic from policy/decision makers.
To be honest, I agree with the idea that clean eating exists on a different axis than energy (i.e. you can eat clean and still gain weight). However, when you're looking to address something like obesity on a large scale, it's a complex issue.
I am not an expert, and this just my opinion, but I really think that if all obese individuals made significant improvements to their food quality---momentarily putting aside discussions of what that would look like and how we define "improved food quality"---then, we would probably see some sort of desired impact on obesity.
Now, I don't think it's because there's something magic about food quality. Again, this is just my opinion, but I think there's something to be said for "lower quality" foods being highly palatable and more energy-dense. And if you restrict those, you restrict energy. Ultimately CICO is still king there, it just doesn't require tracking, which is not super popular outside of MFP-like sites. And I also think there are ways to push improved food quality without making people feel like they have to eat 100% clean and feel too restricted.
For a lot of people who just want to lose weight, they really don't care how it works. They're just desperate to feel better.
0 -
Which is truly bizarre, IMHO. Why are you even talking about virtue? I said nothing like that. You are the only person connecting virtue with diet in this thread, and I just don't understand it.mamapeach910 wrote: »No, I asked if you found virtue in a way of thinking about how you ate, or a way of defining yourself.
How so? I ate half a brownie with a friend. I did not take a tray of brownies home with me. That is the difference...and in my case, that difference is the difference between a healthy weight and obesity. YMMV.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.
I don't consider it moderation. I don't mind if you use that word, but it's just not how I think of it. To me moderation implies limited amounts on a regular basis. I have these things so rarely that it is a stretch to call it that. I've restricted them so much that it is more accurate to call it elimination, though that is obviously not 100% accurate either. Severely restricted is probably most accurate. But again, call it what you like...I'll do the same. It seems to me what you do most of the time is what matters, and the vast majority of the time I eat no sweets at all.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.
I never have them at home. Ever. That is an extremely effective strategy for me. I also very rarely have them socially. For many reasons:
1) I don't crave them. Eliminating sweets has eliminated sweet cravings. If I don't want it, there is no reason to eat it. Simple.
2) I have retrained my tastes, and would like to keep my current tastes as they are by not having sweet things too often. This has helped maintain my current habits.
3) It limits calories without even trying. Keeping my taste buds happy with black coffee instead of three sugars and milk makes me naturally consume less calories. It also helps prevent sweet cravings...which also helps consume less calories. It's all related. It all supports my ultimate goal of eating at a proper level without worrying about it and counting every calorie. I don't need to spend much time thinking about it.
4) It is also partially because too much sugar is just not healthy...even ignoring excess calories and weight. Now we can debate how much is "too much", but I don't even need to. I don't eat it daily. Not eating it on a daily basis supports all of my goals. If it is something I have every couple of months, I don't even have to think about how many grams I can have on the extremely rare occasions I do have it. I know that however much I eat, as infrequently as I eat it there most likely will be no adverse effects. I can completely skip the "how much is too much" debate. It is not relevant to me.
So it's a lot of different things. Basically, I want to stay thin and healthy with very little work or stress...and this is the easiest way for me to do it. Virtue has nothing to do with it.
0 -
Don't look now, but I don't think you're ever going to get logic from policy/decision makers.
But I can demand it! That's why we live in a democratic society. I worked for the civil service for twenty-five years so I am familiar with the stupidity that can go on.To be honest, I agree with the idea that clean eating exists on a different axis than energy (i.e. you can eat clean and still gain weight). However, when you're looking to address something like obesity on a large scale, it's a complex issue.
Agreed. But I don't think it is food quality so much as poverty. Obesity and poverty do go together. My suspect is stress (cortisol).For a lot of people who just want to lose weight, they really don't care how it works. They're just desperate to feel better.
Yeah, duh! The desperation feeds the stupid diet industry. One can readily track what our society worries about by watching late-night infomercials. It's obesity and baldness.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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...
That is not at all what was being said. "I" =/= "everyone"
I see you are following me around again commenting on my posts…it is really kind of cute, but I really don't want a puppy..
anyway, the logical outcome of the posters statement is that those that do eat Doritos and what not would have those problems, because the are, you know, eating the things that she says is causing lack of thinness and shortness of breath….
but heaven forbid we ever apply logic in these threads...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.
that is a result of losing 56 pounds, not food choice.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.
that is a result of losing 56 pounds, not food choice.
Um I think she was agreeing with you? Saying she's lost 56 pounds while eating some of the things you listed? I may be wrong.
ETA: apparently I am wrong - sorry!0 -
I eat whatever I want, just a lot less of it than before.0
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Which is truly bizarre, IMHO. Why are you even talking about virtue? I said nothing like that. You are the only person connecting virtue with diet in this thread, and I just don't understand it.mamapeach910 wrote: »No, I asked if you found virtue in a way of thinking about how you ate, or a way of defining yourself.
How so? I ate half a brownie with a friend. I did not take a tray of brownies home with me. That is the difference...and in my case, that difference is the difference between a healthy weight and obesity. YMMV.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.
I don't consider it moderation. I don't mind if you use that word, but it's just not how I think of it. To me moderation implies limited amounts on a regular basis. I have these things so rarely that it is a stretch to call it that. I've restricted them so much that it is more accurate to call it elimination, though that is obviously not 100% accurate either. Severely restricted is probably most accurate. But again, call it what you like...I'll do the same. It seems to me what you do most of the time is what matters, and the vast majority of the time I eat no sweets at all.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.
I never have them at home. Ever. That is an extremely effective strategy for me. I also very rarely have them socially. For many reasons:
1) I don't crave them. Eliminating sweets has eliminated sweet cravings. If I don't want it, there is no reason to eat it. Simple.
2) I have retrained my tastes, and would like to keep my current tastes as they are by not having sweet things too often. This has helped maintain my current habits.
3) It limits calories without even trying. Keeping my taste buds happy with black coffee instead of three sugars and milk makes me naturally consume less calories. It also helps prevent sweet cravings...which also helps consume less calories. It's all related. It all supports my ultimate goal of eating at a proper level without worrying about it and counting every calorie. I don't need to spend much time thinking about it.
4) It is also partially because too much sugar is just not healthy...even ignoring excess calories and weight. Now we can debate how much is "too much", but I don't even need to. I don't eat it daily. Not eating it on a daily basis supports all of my goals. If it is something I have every couple of months, I don't even have to think about how many grams I can have on the extremely rare occasions I do have it. I know that however much I eat, as infrequently as I eat it there most likely will be no adverse effects. I can completely skip the "how much is too much" debate. It is not relevant to me.
So it's a lot of different things. Basically, I want to stay thin and healthy with very little work or stress...and this is the easiest way for me to do it. Virtue has nothing to do with it.
Yeah, I can't have this conversation with you because we're not talking the same language.
0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
that is a result of losing 56 pounds, not food choice.
Um I think she was agreeing with you? Saying she's lost 56 pounds while eating some of the things you listed? I may be wrong.
ETA: apparently I am wrong - sorry!
No, actually I was agreeing. That's why I don't understand the venom. Look at my food diary and see what side of the coin lands face up. Again, I really don't care at this point, but reading comprehension is a lovely thing.
0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
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.
Wow... I have no words... You seem very angry.
Again with the assumptions. *shrugs* I have no time to waste on a smug troll. If you can't straight up answer my question, then I'll just block you and no harm done. I see the game you're playing, but I have news for you--I've seen the game played better on other forums. Don't compliment yourself by thinking that I care enough about your opinion to get angry. I just want to know what you think my assumption was, since you're the only person who can answer that question. Because you're the only person who lives in your head.
Funny how that works.
Wow... just, wow...
I honestly don't know where you're going with this but I am just going to back away...
0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
that is a result of losing 56 pounds, not food choice.
Um I think she was agreeing with you? Saying she's lost 56 pounds while eating some of the things you listed? I may be wrong.
ETA: apparently I am wrong - sorry!
No, actually I was agreeing. That's why I don't understand the venom. Look at my food diary and see what side of the coin lands face up. Again, I really don't care at this point, but reading comprehension is a lovely thing.
Venom... really?
0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
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.
Wow... I have no words... You seem very angry.
Again with the assumptions. *shrugs* I have no time to waste on a smug troll. If you can't straight up answer my question, then I'll just block you and no harm done. I see the game you're playing, but I have news for you--I've seen the game played better on other forums. Don't compliment yourself by thinking that I care enough about your opinion to get angry. I just want to know what you think my assumption was, since you're the only person who can answer that question. Because you're the only person who lives in your head.
Funny how that works.
Wow... just, wow...LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »
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.
Wow... I have no words... You seem very angry.
Again with the assumptions. *shrugs* I have no time to waste on a smug troll. If you can't straight up answer my question, then I'll just block you and no harm done. I see the game you're playing, but I have news for you--I've seen the game played better on other forums. Don't compliment yourself by thinking that I care enough about your opinion to get angry. I just want to know what you think my assumption was, since you're the only person who can answer that question. Because you're the only person who lives in your head.
Funny how that works.
Wow... just, wow...
If you can't answer the question, why bother bumping the thread? Obviously you ignored my last post. But hey, enjoy. Not all of us can be so spectacularly wrong.
0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
that is a result of losing 56 pounds, not food choice.
Um I think she was agreeing with you? Saying she's lost 56 pounds while eating some of the things you listed? I may be wrong.
ETA: apparently I am wrong - sorry!
No, actually I was agreeing. That's why I don't understand the venom. Look at my food diary and see what side of the coin lands face up. Again, I really don't care at this point, but reading comprehension is a lovely thing.
I thought you were being sarcastic. Like that you practice moderation but regardless you somehow lost weight and aren't out of breath and are on the road to thin.
I've been skimming the thread though, I may have missed something. But either I read sarcasm that wasn't actually there, or others are missing sarcasm that was there.
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.
that is a result of losing 56 pounds, not food choice.
if you were agreeing with me ..my bad….
I could not tell ...0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »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.
that is a result of losing 56 pounds, not food choice.
Um I think she was agreeing with you? Saying she's lost 56 pounds while eating some of the things you listed? I may be wrong.
ETA: apparently I am wrong - sorry!
No, actually I was agreeing. That's why I don't understand the venom. Look at my food diary and see what side of the coin lands face up. Again, I really don't care at this point, but reading comprehension is a lovely thing.
I thought you were being sarcastic. Like that you practice moderation but regardless you somehow lost weight and aren't out of breath and are on the road to thin.
I've been skimming the thread though, I may have missed something. But either I read sarcasm that wasn't actually there, or others are missing sarcasm that was there.
I think this thread just needs to die now….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
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions