EATING CLEAN VERSUS EATING LESS
Options
Replies
-
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »lisaabenjamin wrote: »Good luck with this. Personally, I don't think you will lose weight, but you might feel better for getting rid of junk food from your diet. Interested to see how you get on!
Thank you... well this whole thread started somewhere else where people are claiming that you lose the same amount of weight whether you eat pizza or salad because its totally calorie based. I said you will lose more weight eating the same amount of calories of spinach than you would pizza and they all acted like I was insane. SO then I said you could lose more fat eating more salad and less pizza, despite calorie difference. Which I stand behind. Then I decided to just jump off a cliff and try this because no one will do a comparative with me, people hate to be wrong but IDK why, to error is human... I think in reality they know when you eat food like baked fish you will lose more weight then eating the same calories in a junior burger but don't want to admit it for some odd reason...
No they won't ...but they may find it easier to reach their nutritional goals ... Because that's what we do, eat everything with an eye on macros and then micros for nutritional balance and non-deprivation
Still if you wish to deprive yourself of various foods in order to hit your calorie goal, that's completely your decision
And if you want to run an experiment please follow the guidelines: establish your true TDEE over 6-8 weeks, eat everything at maintenance for the next 6-8 weeks, eat "clean" at maintenance for the next 6-8 weeks. Do not vary your activity / exercise.
Look forward to following it0 -
But wouldn't you prefer being able to eat your burger or pizza when you want to within your calories
Cos that works too
And the lack of deprivation can be extremely motivating
No, I would rather just eat when i am hungry without counting at all... which I think is possible with clean eating ... yes im keeping the tem bc I dont know what else to call it lol0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »But wouldn't you prefer being able to eat your burger or pizza when you want to within your calories
Cos that works too
And the lack of deprivation can be extremely motivating
No, I would rather just eat when i am hungry without counting at all... which I think is possible with clean eating ... yes im keeping the tem bc I dont know what else to call it lol
So you mean selecting low calorie foods then ...ok
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »lisaabenjamin wrote: »Good luck with this. Personally, I don't think you will lose weight, but you might feel better for getting rid of junk food from your diet. Interested to see how you get on!
Thank you... well this whole thread started somewhere else where people are claiming that you lose the same amount of weight whether you eat pizza or salad because its totally calorie based. I said you will lose more weight eating the same amount of calories of spinach than you would pizza and they all acted like I was insane. SO then I said you could lose more fat eating more salad and less pizza, despite calorie difference. Which I stand behind. Then I decided to just jump off a cliff and try this because no one will do a comparative with me, people hate to be wrong but IDK why, to error is human... I think in reality they know when you eat food like baked fish you will lose more weight then eating the same calories in a junior burger but don't want to admit it for some odd reason...
I'm looking forward to reading about your experiment.
I'd volunteer as a comparison but I'm active, male, not the same weight and eat about what you might call 60% clean, 40% whatever.
Awww thank you anyway...0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Hi all, welcome to my experiment...
I will be eating almost 800 calories over what the suggested amount is for losing 2lbs a week
What I entered :
Weight 260
Height 5'7
Lifestyle: sedentary
The suggest 1390 a day
I will be eating 2100
I believe I will still lose weight without starving myself because eating clean and burning fat is far different than eating junk and burning muscle... whats more I think I will lose more weight this way...
I will also be drinking approximation 120 ounces of water a day to help flush fat cells
I will be posting my diary link so that you can check it, I will be logging in every day, and weighing myself once a week...
I am excited to see these results!!!
I don't get it...
You're going to compare eating "junk food" with eating "clean" how are you going to compare them? You mention nothing of how long of clean or dirty eating you're going to do.
Also if you lose weight one way, it can have a hormonal impact that will effect the other way of eating. I am pretty sure you're not even using a a good method to determine TDEE...
BTW I lost most of my weight "eating dirty"
ETA: I also realized, your title. "Eating clean vs eating less" which is contradictory to what you posted.
I am not eating both... I am doing one...
INSTEAD of eating below TDEE and whatever I want....like pizza... I am eating ABOVE TDEE stuff like protein shake... thats all....0 -
I don't understand how you're supporting this. You know it's bad science, n=1...EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
You can edit a post for an hour. Mouse rollover the post and click on the right corner gear icon.
Well that time is gone... thank you for letting me know....
We understand your update, just reflect it in your diary and start it up. Good luck!
I always support doing your own personal research and learning by observation. The OP isn't doing something harmful, readers that follow her wouldn't be doing something harmful so there is no reason not to support her - science can stand to be challenged by personal observation.
Whatever the outcome - the OP will have an overall healthier diet.
0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Hi all, welcome to my experiment...
I will be eating almost 800 calories over what the suggested amount is for losing 2lbs a week
What I entered :
Weight 260
Height 5'7
Lifestyle: sedentary
The suggest 1390 a day
I will be eating 2100
I believe I will still lose weight without starving myself because eating clean and burning fat is far different than eating junk and burning muscle... whats more I think I will lose more weight this way...
I will also be drinking approximation 120 ounces of water a day to help flush fat cells
I will be posting my diary link so that you can check it, I will be logging in every day, and weighing myself once a week...
I am excited to see these results!!!
I don't get it...
You're going to compare eating "junk food" with eating "clean" how are you going to compare them? You mention nothing of how long of clean or dirty eating you're going to do.
Also if you lose weight one way, it can have a hormonal impact that will effect the other way of eating. I am pretty sure you're not even using a a good method to determine TDEE...
BTW I lost most of my weight "eating dirty"
ETA: I also realized, your title. "Eating clean vs eating less" which is contradictory to what you posted.
I am not eating both... I am doing one...
INSTEAD of eating below TDEE and whatever I want....like pizza... I am eating ABOVE TDEE stuff like protein shake... thats all....
Hold on, I thought you weren't doing processed. Protein shakes is about as processed as you get. A McDonalds burger has more real food in it than a protein shake.0 -
I don't understand how you're supporting this. You know it's bad science, n=1...EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
You can edit a post for an hour. Mouse rollover the post and click on the right corner gear icon.
Well that time is gone... thank you for letting me know....
We understand your update, just reflect it in your diary and start it up. Good luck!
@ PU_239 Well sir you are the go to guy for bad science! I doubt the OP will be half as arrogant or grandstanding as yourself conducting her experiment.
But I'm with EvgeniZyntx on this one, go for it OP. Take into considerations the advice you have been given.
0 -
I believe there is no harm in the OP from learning from first hand experience, sometimes borrowed knowledge just isn't satisfying enough.0
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
Welllll, I'm gonna get nitpicky here, and point out that any domesticated crop is a GMO (genetically modified organism) by definition, and spelt is a hybrid of domesticated wheat and wild goat-grass (or of domesticated emmer and domesticated bread wheat). The earliest archaeological evidence of its existence is from around the 5th millennium BCE. In the grand scheme of things that's not very original. But okay.
Nit picky just here huh? LOL. Actually its believed that hexaploid wheat originated via hybridization of hulled tetraploid emmer with Aegilops tauschii (genomes DD) and that the nascent hexaploid was spelt, from which free-threshing wheat evolved by mutations.
And anyway, GMO means genetically modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination... so just any crop is hybrid does not mean its considered GMO.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I don't understand how you're supporting this. You know it's bad science, n=1...EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
You can edit a post for an hour. Mouse rollover the post and click on the right corner gear icon.
Well that time is gone... thank you for letting me know....
We understand your update, just reflect it in your diary and start it up. Good luck!
I always support doing your own personal research and learning by observation. The OP isn't doing something harmful, readers that follow her wouldn't be doing something harmful so there is no reason not to support her - science can stand to be challenged by personal observation.
Whatever the outcome - the OP will have an overall healthier diet.
Agreed!
0 -
Peoples' negative responses, in such arrogant manner, are the reason I've stopped posting to either help, defend or assist anyone in any way on the forums.. Nor will I ever ask for advice or post opinion regarding health and nutrition again.0
-
OP I think there are some things for you to consider here--
You were talking about a small cut, then maintenance, and in your last post you said you're going to be eating in a surplus. It sounds like a surplus is really what you want (to prove that eating "clean" allows you to eat over your maintenance calories), so I'd aim for a couple of hundred calories over your TDEE. The problem is that you don't really know your TDEE. Might I suggest a month or two of logging to establish your actual tested maintenance? For example, MFP says my maintenance is 1600 calories but it's actually at least 100 calories higher than that, plus exercise calories. So if I ate at "maintenance" without having tested it first I'd still lose weight. That's going to throw off your results. Also are you going to have a control? That is, a month where you don't eat "clean" to compare the results?
Secondly you need to define what you mean by "clean." I would not consider protein shakes to be unprocessed. Quite the opposite. I also wouldn't consider things like cheese, preserved meats like sausage, bread of any kind, etc. to be "clean." Other people might think some of those are okay-- I think if you're Paleo, for example, you can have butter but it has to be grass fed. Personally I'd think butter would be out.
I agree that an open diary is a must. Specifically I'm not interested so much in whether you lose more weight but in how your adherence is. Because to me even if I wanted to eat "clean" it just isn't practical. Like you pointed out, that's a lot of meat and vegetables. That's one reason why the IIFYM crowd say that it won't hurt anything to include some foods that aren't considered "clean." If your TDEE is 3500 like some of the guys here it just isn't practical not to include some of those foods.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Hi all, welcome to my experiment...
I will be eating almost 800 calories over what the suggested amount is for losing 2lbs a week
What I entered :
Weight 260
Height 5'7
Lifestyle: sedentary
The suggest 1390 a day
I will be eating 2100
I believe I will still lose weight without starving myself because eating clean and burning fat is far different than eating junk and burning muscle... whats more I think I will lose more weight this way...
I will also be drinking approximation 120 ounces of water a day to help flush fat cells
I will be posting my diary link so that you can check it, I will be logging in every day, and weighing myself once a week...
I am excited to see these results!!!
I don't get it...
You're going to compare eating "junk food" with eating "clean" how are you going to compare them? You mention nothing of how long of clean or dirty eating you're going to do.
Also if you lose weight one way, it can have a hormonal impact that will effect the other way of eating. I am pretty sure you're not even using a a good method to determine TDEE...
BTW I lost most of my weight "eating dirty"
ETA: I also realized, your title. "Eating clean vs eating less" which is contradictory to what you posted.
I am not eating both... I am doing one...
INSTEAD of eating below TDEE and whatever I want....like pizza... I am eating ABOVE TDEE stuff like protein shake... thats all....
Hold on, I thought you weren't doing processed. Protein shakes is about as processed as you get. A McDonalds burger has more real food in it than a protein shake.
Oh no please do not assume anything.... I mean greens, natural chi seeds, garbanzo beans, and maybe some pineapple.... a protein shake is a skake with protien, lol...
Processed is like orange juice
0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
Welllll, I'm gonna get nitpicky here, and point out that any domesticated crop is a GMO (genetically modified organism) by definition, and spelt is a hybrid of domesticated wheat and wild goat-grass (or of domesticated emmer and domesticated bread wheat). The earliest archaeological evidence of its existence is from around the 5th millennium BCE. In the grand scheme of things that's not very original. But okay.
Nit picky just here huh? LOL. Actually its believed that hexaploid wheat originated via hybridization of hulled tetraploid emmer with Aegilops tauschii (genomes DD) and that the nascent hexaploid was spelt, from which free-threshing wheat evolved by mutations.
And anyway, GMO means genetically modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination... so just any crop is hybrid does not mean its considered GMO.
Ya see @Nony_Mouse understands what she wrote whereas I doubt you have the slightest inkling of the meaning of what you copied and pasted
And over here we are lead to believe that US grains are indeed GM crops ...we were surprised that this was allowed as there was a huge uproar in the UK re GM0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
Welllll, I'm gonna get nitpicky here, and point out that any domesticated crop is a GMO (genetically modified organism) by definition, and spelt is a hybrid of domesticated wheat and wild goat-grass (or of domesticated emmer and domesticated bread wheat). The earliest archaeological evidence of its existence is from around the 5th millennium BCE. In the grand scheme of things that's not very original. But okay.
Nit picky just here huh? LOL. Actually its believed that hexaploid wheat originated via hybridization of hulled tetraploid emmer with Aegilops tauschii (genomes DD) and that the nascent hexaploid was spelt, from which free-threshing wheat evolved by mutations.
And anyway, GMO means genetically modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination... so just any crop is hybrid does not mean its considered GMO.
You missed the domesticated part. I fully admit that I'm being facetious, but it just intrigues me how 'clean eaters' decide one thing is okay and something else isn't (eg one form of wheat vs another).0 -
billieljaime wrote: »I already did this exirament way before you for the sake of science.......
ate 500 plus calories and cut out "processed" aka "dirty" foods
I did not eat pasta or bread either
I gained weight
good luck.
A defecit is a defecit.
There is a benefit to eating nutrient dense aka "cleaner" foods as in they have an overall better impact on your health and leave you feeling better, but in terms of weight loss it boils down to thermogenics and science.
You are like a decade late on your expirament, and a month is worthless in terms of time. It needs to be a minimum of 90 days for lasting results.
I am currently in a "vegetarian" expirament. I just did a nine month "plant based" expirament. I did two years of full on Atkins, the whole book, every phase, for science. Thirty days is nothing.
30 days gets you no where.
For the sake of fun though, good luck!
Ok I hear ya.... its like I said I could be completely wrong but at least I tried it...decade late and dollar short but gotta start somewhere... let me know how your vegetarian thing turns out...0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
Welllll, I'm gonna get nitpicky here, and point out that any domesticated crop is a GMO (genetically modified organism) by definition, and spelt is a hybrid of domesticated wheat and wild goat-grass (or of domesticated emmer and domesticated bread wheat). The earliest archaeological evidence of its existence is from around the 5th millennium BCE. In the grand scheme of things that's not very original. But okay.
Nit picky just here huh? LOL. Actually its believed that hexaploid wheat originated via hybridization of hulled tetraploid emmer with Aegilops tauschii (genomes DD) and that the nascent hexaploid was spelt, from which free-threshing wheat evolved by mutations.
And anyway, GMO means genetically modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination... so just any crop is hybrid does not mean its considered GMO.
Ya see @Nony_Mouse understands what she wrote whereas I doubt you have the slightest inkling of the meaning of what you copied and pasted
And over here we are lead to believe that US grains are indeed GM crops ...we were surprised that this was allowed as there was a huge uproar in the UK re GM
No GMO has the same definition everywhere, you can genetically change items through interbreeding its considered natural and not GMO, but I wont argue terms you can look up yourself.
Meantime, many botanist believe that wheat originated through spelt, not the other way around but because it was so long ago you are going to have differing opinions. Not really relent but its not GMO based on recombination, that has never been part of the definition. Again, look it up yourself.
0 -
EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »EatMoreJustBetter wrote: »Does anyone know how I change the original post to reflect my new goal of 2309 or do I have to start over??? Original grains = non GMO's like spelt
Welllll, I'm gonna get nitpicky here, and point out that any domesticated crop is a GMO (genetically modified organism) by definition, and spelt is a hybrid of domesticated wheat and wild goat-grass (or of domesticated emmer and domesticated bread wheat). The earliest archaeological evidence of its existence is from around the 5th millennium BCE. In the grand scheme of things that's not very original. But okay.
Nit picky just here huh? LOL. Actually its believed that hexaploid wheat originated via hybridization of hulled tetraploid emmer with Aegilops tauschii (genomes DD) and that the nascent hexaploid was spelt, from which free-threshing wheat evolved by mutations.
And anyway, GMO means genetically modified in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination... so just any crop is hybrid does not mean its considered GMO.
Ya see @Nony_Mouse understands what she wrote whereas I doubt you have the slightest inkling of the meaning of what you copied and pasted
And over here we are lead to believe that US grains are indeed GM crops ...we were surprised that this was allowed as there was a huge uproar in the UK re GM
Several years of drumming theories of domestication into the minds of 18/19 year olds who didn't really care
.
I do know what the popular usage of GMO refers to, I just like to be a brat
0
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
- 390 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions