Moderation vs Clean Eating
Options
Replies
-
One is for weight loss ( moderation if it means caloric deficit ) and the other is for overall /general health.
I have eaten a natural diet all my life and still gained weight, because I ate too much of it.
I started to eat the same things at a deficit and lost 55 pounds.
So a diet for weight loss can't be appropriate for achieving or maintaining overall/general health?
0 -
deannaxsmithx wrote: »are you more successful with your weight loss when eating foods in moderation or eating strictly healthy foods?
moderation in this case meaning eating whatever you'd like as long as it's within your calorie goal. following serving sizes. weighing your food.
clean eating meaning eating only healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, lean meats, organic products, etc
0 -
im trying to set some healthy goals because
i have high colesterol, and high blood pressure
6 foot , 210 pounds aint bad but i should be around 175
gota ways to go
cb.0 -
both. and recently, i didn't see a change until i reigned in my moderation. basically, i had to practice moderation for my moderation.0
-
If you had to rein in your moderation, then you were not eating in moderation.0
-
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »If you had to rein in your moderation, then you were not eating in moderation.
maybe i should explain myself better...
i lost a lot of weight, and then tried to follow the "everything in moderation" style of eating. a treat here, a treat there. after my initial weight loss, i would basically just be losing the same 5-10 pounds over and over.
about a three months ago i basically tightened up my diet, started weighing and measuring everything, using the recipe builder on this site, and choosing more healthy "clean" foods than quick processed, packaged snacks and meals. since then, i've noticed a difference and started dropping weight again.
was i not eating in moderation? nope. was i probably over eating? yup. but the two tend to go hand and hand for the beginner, and like i said, when i started moderating my moderation, i started to lose weight again.0 -
Capt_Apollo wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »If you had to rein in your moderation, then you were not eating in moderation.
maybe i should explain myself better...
i lost a lot of weight, and then tried to follow the "everything in moderation" style of eating. a treat here, a treat there. after my initial weight loss, i would basically just be losing the same 5-10 pounds over and over.
about a three months ago i basically tightened up my diet, started weighing and measuring everything, using the recipe builder on this site, and choosing more healthy "clean" foods than quick processed, packaged snacks and meals. since then, i've noticed a difference and started dropping weight again.
was i not eating in moderation? nope. was i probably over eating? yup. but the two tend to go hand and hand for the beginner, and like i said, when i started moderating my moderation, i started to lose weight again.
Regardless, you were not eating in moderation.0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Capt_Apollo wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »If you had to rein in your moderation, then you were not eating in moderation.
maybe i should explain myself better...
i lost a lot of weight, and then tried to follow the "everything in moderation" style of eating. a treat here, a treat there. after my initial weight loss, i would basically just be losing the same 5-10 pounds over and over.
about a three months ago i basically tightened up my diet, started weighing and measuring everything, using the recipe builder on this site, and choosing more healthy "clean" foods than quick processed, packaged snacks and meals. since then, i've noticed a difference and started dropping weight again.
was i not eating in moderation? nope. was i probably over eating? yup. but the two tend to go hand and hand for the beginner, and like i said, when i started moderating my moderation, i started to lose weight again.
Regardless, you were not eating in moderation.
Thanks
0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Capt_Apollo wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »If you had to rein in your moderation, then you were not eating in moderation.
maybe i should explain myself better...
i lost a lot of weight, and then tried to follow the "everything in moderation" style of eating. a treat here, a treat there. after my initial weight loss, i would basically just be losing the same 5-10 pounds over and over.
about a three months ago i basically tightened up my diet, started weighing and measuring everything, using the recipe builder on this site, and choosing more healthy "clean" foods than quick processed, packaged snacks and meals. since then, i've noticed a difference and started dropping weight again.
was i not eating in moderation? nope. was i probably over eating? yup. but the two tend to go hand and hand for the beginner, and like i said, when i started moderating my moderation, i started to lose weight again.
Regardless, you were not eating in moderation.
I'll go back to the comparison I used earlier. If you eat 100 calories of something instead of 160, that's moderation. If you eat 80 instead of 100 that's also moderation. If you go from 160 to 100 to 80, they're all moderation.0 -
The numbers of calories you list are arbitrary. What is moderation for you might not be moderation for me. If you are gaining weight while eating in "moderation," then you are not eating in moderation, no matter how many calories you are eating.0
-
Capt_Apollo wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »If you had to rein in your moderation, then you were not eating in moderation.
maybe i should explain myself better...
i lost a lot of weight, and then tried to follow the "everything in moderation" style of eating. a treat here, a treat there. after my initial weight loss, i would basically just be losing the same 5-10 pounds over and over.
about a three months ago i basically tightened up my diet, started weighing and measuring everything, using the recipe builder on this site, and choosing more healthy "clean" foods than quick processed, packaged snacks and meals. since then, i've noticed a difference and started dropping weight again.
was i not eating in moderation? nope. was i probably over eating? yup. but the two tend to go hand and hand for the beginner, and like i said, when i started moderating my moderation, i started to lose weight again.
If you'd 'tightened up' your diet and started weighing and measuring earlier, then you still could've enjoyed the odd 'processed' snack. I weighed some ice cream the other day and was still within calories. I didn't have much, but enough that it was a nice treat.0 -
IMO it's really just a question of emphasis, most useful diets look pretty similar on paper. i.e. What matters is the way people need to lean when they think about food. Some people who need to "tighten up" their diet do better when they think about "healthy" or "clean" or whole food. Some people who feel deprived do better when they think about moderation.
People talk about context. If the context is that most of the diet lacks nutritional density but has lots of calories, OR that for that person, 2-3 such meals act as a slippery slope or a "gateway", as someone put it above, to many more of the same (ie too many to be able stick to or feel full within calorie goals), then whatever tricks people use to stay on track is fine by me.
And, it's possible to use a rule of thumb, a shorthand, like "healthy", without it necessarily demonizing foods outside that categorization, or without it meaning more than "veg and meat and whatnot you cook at home, basically not in a box" - I guess, the DIY approach people talked about above (I like that btw). It's just a way for people to make quick decisions when they're vulnerable.
I eat moderately, including fast food, but it helps me to think about "home-cooked" food. Additionally, eating "home-cooked" food most of the time helps me stay not hungry. Ie I'd be hungrier eating fries with my burger and pancakes with sausages for breakfast.0 -
IMO it's really just a question of emphasis, most useful diets look pretty similar on paper. i.e. What matters is the way people need to lean when they think about food. Some people who need to "tighten up" their diet do better when they think about "healthy" or "clean" or whole food. Some people who feel deprived do better when they think about moderation.
I think this is right on, except I continue to hate and not see the point of the term "clean." I just think it's weird.People talk about context. If the context is that most of the diet lacks nutritional density but has lots of calories, OR that for that person, 2-3 such meals act as a slippery slope or a "gateway", as someone put it above, to many more of the same (ie too many to be able stick to or feel full within calorie goals), then whatever tricks people use to stay on track is fine by me.
Agree with this too! I would say that if eating something you perceive as "bad" or "unhealthy" actually causes you (the general you) to slide down a slippery slope, that's a sign that there's something wrong, to be worked on. I feel the same way when people start claiming that a day off (or "cheat" or "treat" day) invariably turns into 6 or 7. If so, that really should be a concern, not simply a reason to say that days off are always bad.
I do agree, however, that at a broader level what we are talking about is a strategy choice. If you feel extra tempted when eating sweets to eat more sweets, and usually don't think about them much if you don't eat them, then it makes sense to eat them only rarely. If declaring that you don't eat something causes you to want it, whereas simply eating it only when the calories allow means that you rarely think about it (or eat only small amounts that fit in your calories), great.
Where I jump in is when people (usually self-proclaimed "clean" eaters) start insisting that it's inherently healthier to declare that you never eat whatever it is, and that it's somehow unhealthy to eat it even in true moderation. If people don't make those kinds of statements, I am happy, since as I often say different strategies work for different people. Heck, I change my own strategy somewhat from time to time, although the biggest elements remain the same.And, it's possible to use a rule of thumb, a shorthand, like "healthy", without it necessarily demonizing foods outside that categorization, or without it meaning more than "veg and meat and whatnot you cook at home, basically not in a box" - I guess, the DIY approach people talked about above (I like that btw). It's just a way for people to make quick decisions when they're vulnerable.
I don't actually have any problem when people talk about healthy food or junk food (junk food is a term that most people who eat it use happily and without it meaning anything shameful). I do think that it's in fact more accurate to talk about diets that better promote health and promote health less well (which may depend on individual specifics, like how much exercise one does, among other things). My pet peeve is just the whole "clean eater" thing.I eat moderately, including fast food, but it helps me to think about "home-cooked" food. Additionally, eating "home-cooked" food most of the time helps me stay not hungry. Ie I'd be hungrier eating fries with my burger and pancakes with sausages for breakfast.
I eat mostly home cooked food and find it helpful to focus on eating nutrient dense foods, etc. (and I suspect that's true for most who eat moderately, which is one reason this discussion bugs me so). I also find that--for me--focusing on eating seasonally and locally when possible and gardening and so on (just like exercise) tends to make me more likely to eat well, even though it is not required to eat well, since I tend to find that way of thinking about food enjoyable. I just don't understand why people want to divide the world into "clean eaters" and the rest of us heathens. Especially since there's a huge and overlapping range when you look at how people really eat.
I'm totally willing to accept that reasonable people can differ on whether particular food items that I eat are health promoting (say sat fat), but I get annoyed when others get all smug about their own exclusions without seeming to realize that in fact others make different choices not because they don't care about nutrition, but have different, yet reasonable, ideas about it.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Where I jump in is when people (usually self-proclaimed "clean" eaters) start insisting that it's inherently healthier to declare that you never eat whatever it is, and that it's somehow unhealthy to eat it even in true moderation. If people don't make those kinds of statements, I am happy, since as I often say different strategies work for different people. Heck, I change my own strategy somewhat from time to time, although the biggest elements remain the same.
The thing is? Most of them might not eat whatever they get declarative about, but they'll eat something else that's just as "bad". They make nebulous distinctions in their minds which absolve them in the case of the "non-clean" stuff they do eat. And that's what's so pointless about the whole "clean" thing. They all still end up eating what they like. They just put a label on it. While acting like their choices are superior.
At least most of them do. Not all of them.
0 -
I have found that one has led to the other. My "clean eating" plan makes eating in moderation very easy. I know in my head without even having to feel tempted what is worth the splurge in terms of how it tastes, how it will make me feel afterwards, and the company I am with.0
-
I understand the idea of "everything in moderation", but for some people (ME ME ME), it isn't possible. At least not seven weeks into this it isn't. I can't even keep pies, cakes and cookies in the house without the mental downward spiral I get:
1 Brain scans around itself doing a mental inventory of the sugary-carby-fatty foods in the house.
2 Lightbulb goes off -- OOH! There's a whole Edward's Hershey's Creme Pie in the freezer!! I can have just a little sliver and work it into my diary!
3 Nom nom nom, this pie is TO DIE FOR, but that little sliver didn't do the business. Another little sliver won't hurt....
4 Nom nom nom....oh, what the hey, let's just have a whole slice, it's probably partially defrosted now!
5 (An hour later) THUNK. CRASH. TWO HOUR NAP.
6 (Waking up two hours later) Holy cow, WHY DID I DO THAT?
So knowing myself, being a pragmatist and never setting goals that aren't achievable, I'm eating as cleanly as I can until I feel I can deal with adding in some of the "crack" I used to eat compulsively every day. My husband is onboard with me on this. He is going without desserts and opting for a candy bar he pulls out of his briefcase. He is a 22-year recovering alcoholic and he gets it.
BTW, those Edwards frozen pies really are food-crack.
0 -
I have been a moderate eater for ages. Unfortunately, and this is only recently, I've stalled. I've kind of gone backward and started to gain a little. Even worse, I've hit a wall on reducing body fat without also losing muscle, no matter how much I lift. So I've cleaned it up in the sense that I have cut out alcohol completely, cut out my morning creamer and drink 1 sad, lonely cup of black coffee, I cut out many overly processed foods and try to stick to grilled or roasted leaner cuts of meat, veggies, legumes, yogurt and other sources of dairy, and limit it to one Cherry Coke Zero every few days.
I'm starting to see the scale move again. My calorie allotment hasn't changed, but I'm getting to eat a greater volume of food. Once I'm finished with this cut, I will bring back the things I enjoy more. If I still had a lot or even a medium amount to lose, I would still be enjoying all the things in moderation. This is only an issue I have when I get closer to goal. If you have more than 10 or 15 pounds, or you don't care to have a body fat percent below 18-20% (for women), you don't need to be so strict.0 -
I definitely still eat junk in moderation while eating clean. I'll have a tsp of mayo on a sandwich or a tbsp of caesar dressing on a huge salad. I still eat bad foods while eating "clean" but in just much smaller and more controlled portions. It helps me not get rebellious and eat the whole fridge.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Where I jump in is when people (usually self-proclaimed "clean" eaters) start insisting that it's inherently healthier to declare that you never eat whatever it is, and that it's somehow unhealthy to eat it even in true moderation. If people don't make those kinds of statements, I am happy, since as I often say different strategies work for different people. Heck, I change my own strategy somewhat from time to time, although the biggest elements remain the same.
The thing is? Most of them might not eat whatever they get declarative about, but they'll eat something else that's just as "bad". They make nebulous distinctions in their minds which absolve them in the case of the "non-clean" stuff they do eat. And that's what's so pointless about the whole "clean" thing. They all still end up eating what they like. They just put a label on it. While acting like their choices are superior.
At least most of them do. Not all of them.
Yes, absolutely.
For example, I eat according to a way that works for me, and that I think is nutrition focused. And I eat ice cream and chocolate. But the things I do (normally, not at the moment, since I'm currently eating no meat but fish) that are most subject for criticism by those who obsessively follow the nutrition guidelines are (1) eat lots of red meat and chicken with skin on it, (2) salt my food during the cooking process, and (3) laugh at the recommendations to eat lots of grains, including whole grains (I'm not against them for anyone else, but usually I'd rather spend my calories on other things, although I'm experimenting with more at the moment). While I have my reasons for thinking this is a fine way to eat anyway, I am self-aware of this potential criticism and don't insist that I have somehow discovered the best (or "cleanest") way to eat and eat better than those who may have made different decisions based on what works for them, what makes them feel good, and their analysis of the various sources on nutrition. What's especially funny about this, to me, is that many of the most loud "clean" eaters share the same faults I do on these matters, and yet they seem to have no self-awareness that some might say that's not such a healthy way to eat. (Not me, of course, as I think all these things are fine.)
This is also why when people proclaim as a truth that "processed" foods are bad for a diet (or in general) I think it's fair game to ask why I'd be healthier if I gave up some of my favorite processed foods (lists are above). So far not one has answered.0 -
I eat healthily, and for me that means body and mind. Therefore, if I feel like chips or chocolate or ice cream and can work it into my day, I'll have it. If I start denying myself stuff like that it's the beginning of a slippery slope into more and more restrictive eating. Been there, done that, kind of like the sanity that goes along with my body being properly nourished.
(NB I'm not by any stretch saying that everyone who chooses to cut out certain foods is going to end up with an eating disorder, but that is one of the reasons I choose to eat the way I do).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions