The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
annaskiski wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »My answer is that it would be more useful to think of the subject of clean eating in terms that actually have some relevance to real life.
The real life relevance is that no one can eat 'clean' (whatever that is) forever.
I'm skeptical that even those who claim they do, really eat clean 100% of the time.
(Really? you don't eat cake on someone's birthday? You don't indulge on vacation? You never eat out?)
I think the real life relevance is that in reality, the type A person doesn't exist. They claim that they do, but when caught with (gasp, coffee creamer), there is some excuse......
They can if they choose to, and they certainly can during a phase of weight reduction.
So are you saying that you don't eat clean all of the time? You eat clean for some weeks, months?
...and during that time you never used coffee creamer, ate out (restaurant or friend's house), etc?
Funnily enough, I have never once said that I "eat clean", on this thread or any other. I have said on other threads that I have a massive problem with sugar and for that reason I have recently taken the bull by the horns and cut added sugar and most fruits out completely. But I eat all kinds of dairy products and I drink tea and coffee, and stuff out of tins, so I don't eat clean by that definition.
Personally I hope one day to live by the 80%/20% rule, after I get to my ideal weight. The opportunities for the 20% are presented often enough in our society (other people's birthday cakes, the odd drink in the pub, the occasional meal out, the aformentioned coffee creamer) without having to seek them out in the form of daily 'treats'. In the meantime I don't see the point of wasting calories on that kind of stuff.
0 -
I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
It's a loaded question because you didn't define "clean food" and there isn't any real definition. Furthermore your "moderate diet" could be almost anything. For the sake of argument, I'll just assume the person eating "clean" is eating mostly minimally processed foods. And I'll assume the moderate diet includes a lot of highly processed foods.
In that case the person eating "clean" would lose slightly more weight. This is because calories are determined by "Atwater" calculations. Atwater tends to underestimate calories in highly processed foods and overestimate calories in minimally processed foods. The reason is that highly processed and cooked foods are absorbed more readily in your GI tract (nothing to do with "thermal effect").0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.
if you did not do it then why do you keep telling everyone else to do it?
The twinkie diet guy lost weight AND had improved blood panels, so not sure how he was not healthier post twinkie diet...
The problem with discussions like these is that people want to use ridiculous comparison points like 1500 calories of cake VS 1500 calories of clean food.
He admitted that the long-term ramifications for his diet were very inconclusive - he did so in interviews. Short-term, yes - long-term, not so fast. That assumes he would have to maintain his diet by increasing his caloric intake to a "maintenance" level - which is where I go and suggest that anyone doing so is just putting themselves in a no-win position health-wise - it's not sustainable.
I am making a point by positing the above - no one in their right mind would ever eat 1500 calories of cake and only cake for one year because of the health ramifications of doing so.
That's why I tie good dietary nutrition to CICO. Inevitably, people will flee choices like the one I am made above for a more rounded dietary profile.
I am doing so to make a point. You validate the point that you (or anyone) would ever do that - or has done it. That's the point.
Here we go again with the "nothing but cake" strawman. Hate to break it to you, Ted, but nobody in the IIFYM camp ever recommended that.
Why don't we just add "excluding the middle" to your logical fallacy BINGO card?
Oh the irony! Most people in the "clean eating" camp never advocated eating 100% clean all the time. Yet here you guys go with that strawman!0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.
if you did not do it then why do you keep telling everyone else to do it?
The twinkie diet guy lost weight AND had improved blood panels, so not sure how he was not healthier post twinkie diet...
The problem with discussions like these is that people want to use ridiculous comparison points like 1500 calories of cake VS 1500 calories of clean food.
He admitted that the long-term ramifications for his diet were very inconclusive - he did so in interviews. Short-term, yes - long-term, not so fast. That assumes he would have to maintain his diet by increasing his caloric intake to a "maintenance" level - which is where I go and suggest that anyone doing so is just putting themselves in a no-win position health-wise - it's not sustainable.
I am making a point by positing the above - no one in their right mind would ever eat 1500 calories of cake and only cake for one year because of the health ramifications of doing so.
That's why I tie good dietary nutrition to CICO. Inevitably, people will flee choices like the one I am made above for a more rounded dietary profile.
I am doing so to make a point. You validate the point that you (or anyone) would ever do that - or has done it. That's the point.
Here we go again with the "nothing but cake" strawman. Hate to break it to you, Ted, but nobody in the IIFYM camp ever recommended that.
Why don't we just add "excluding the middle" to your logical fallacy BINGO card?
Never said they did. I am the one taking the Twinkie diet and taking it to its logical conclusion.
Someone did apply the Cake diet and succeeded - short-term. There's no long-term answer because nobody has ever attempted to achieve the goal of maintenance after weight loss with that same diet but at a maintenance level. That's suicide.
Hence the point - you can't just eat cake and live to tell about it - long-term.0 -
TIL "moderate" = "a lot".0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »No person A will lose more weight ***Period*** What everyone fails to take into consideration is that person A who eats a balanced diet and probably has slow releasing complex carbs in their diet will be able to expend more energy than person B eating donuts. While person B will have a burst of energy up front that will be short lived and the workout will end quicker than person A's who is on a steady energy release path.
Please re-read my original post, I specifically said that Person B hits their macros/micros, eats some nutrient dense foods, and fills in rest with treats like ice cream.
That does not change my answer. I have done a clean diet and I have done a somewhat clean diet with some level of crap. I can state without repudiation that I cannot workout with the same intensity and focus when there is crap even in smallish quantities. I am not saying that is bad or good; because I certainly enjoy my crap food; but I do know without doubt; I feel more sluggish and unable to perform at the same level; which mean I burn less calories.
What are you labeling "crap" food?
And your n=1 does not prove anything. I have no issues with energy and workouts and I more than likely eat the foods that you are labeling as "crap"....
Finally, my OP did not ask for your personal experience, I asked for a discussion based on parameters that I laid out.
In my experience people don't realise how 'crap' they actually feel until they're forced (quite often by some health issue) to try another way. And one person's potential for feeling good may be much higher than someone else's.
I'm curious, have you ever actually tried substituting the junk for extra 'real' food?
To use an analogy, my friend smokes two packs a day, has more energy than most people and and says she feels fine. I tell her if she quit smoking she'd be bloody Wonderwoman.
I feel better now, with multiple health problems, eating my occasional "junk" than I did when I was avoiding it.
0 -
I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
It's a loaded question because you didn't define "clean food" and there isn't any real definition. Furthermore your "moderate diet" could be almost anything. For the sake of argument, I'll just assume the person eating "clean" is eating mostly minimally processed foods. And I'll assume the moderate diet includes a lot of highly processed foods.
In that case the person eating "clean" would lose slightly more weight. This is because calories are determined by "Atwater" calculations. Atwater tends to underestimate calories in highly processed foods and overestimate calories in minimally processed foods. The reason is that highly processed and cooked foods are absorbed more readily in your GI tract (nothing to do with "thermal effect").
Wow - now there's something to be considered. I will have to look up Atwater - interesting.
Now we have something to REALLY discuss. Great post @ahamm0020 -
I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
It's a loaded question because you didn't define "clean food" and there isn't any real definition. Furthermore your "moderate diet" could be almost anything. For the sake of argument, I'll just assume the person eating "clean" is eating mostly minimally processed foods. And I'll assume the moderate diet includes a lot of highly processed foods.
In that case the person eating "clean" would lose slightly more weight. This is because calories are determined by "Atwater" calculations. Atwater tends to underestimate calories in highly processed foods and overestimate calories in minimally processed foods. The reason is that highly processed and cooked foods are absorbed more readily in your GI tract (nothing to do with "thermal effect").
how are you defining minimally process vs highly processed?
and most clean eaters stipulate the processed foods are "bad" and do not distinguish between one form or another.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.
if you did not do it then why do you keep telling everyone else to do it?
The twinkie diet guy lost weight AND had improved blood panels, so not sure how he was not healthier post twinkie diet...
The problem with discussions like these is that people want to use ridiculous comparison points like 1500 calories of cake VS 1500 calories of clean food.
He admitted that the long-term ramifications for his diet were very inconclusive - he did so in interviews. Short-term, yes - long-term, not so fast. That assumes he would have to maintain his diet by increasing his caloric intake to a "maintenance" level - which is where I go and suggest that anyone doing so is just putting themselves in a no-win position health-wise - it's not sustainable.
I am making a point by positing the above - no one in their right mind would ever eat 1500 calories of cake and only cake for one year because of the health ramifications of doing so.
That's why I tie good dietary nutrition to CICO. Inevitably, people will flee choices like the one I am made above for a more rounded dietary profile.
I am doing so to make a point. You validate the point that you (or anyone) would ever do that - or has done it. That's the point.
Here we go again with the "nothing but cake" strawman. Hate to break it to you, Ted, but nobody in the IIFYM camp ever recommended that.
Why don't we just add "excluding the middle" to your logical fallacy BINGO card?
Oh the irony! Most people in the "clean eating" camp never advocated eating 100% clean all the time. Yet here you guys go with that strawman!
ummm yes they do, go search the forums and search clean eating...0 -
Again, you make no sense.
How would clean eating make you able to have a higher deficit? If your TDEE is 2500 then a 500 calorie deficit is going to be 2000 regardless of clean eating or not.
Forget about the 500 calorie deficit for a minute. I said the clean eater could have a higher defict (i.e. greater than 500 calories) than the non clean eater, whilst maintaining his nutritional needs . In other words he can eat fewer calories and still be healthy; the junk eater needs more calories to get his macro/micronutrients in because he is eating stuff that doesn't have a good calorie to nutrient ratio. 'Empty calories', dare I use the term.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.
if you did not do it then why do you keep telling everyone else to do it?
The twinkie diet guy lost weight AND had improved blood panels, so not sure how he was not healthier post twinkie diet...
The problem with discussions like these is that people want to use ridiculous comparison points like 1500 calories of cake VS 1500 calories of clean food.
He admitted that the long-term ramifications for his diet were very inconclusive - he did so in interviews. Short-term, yes - long-term, not so fast. That assumes he would have to maintain his diet by increasing his caloric intake to a "maintenance" level - which is where I go and suggest that anyone doing so is just putting themselves in a no-win position health-wise - it's not sustainable.
I am making a point by positing the above - no one in their right mind would ever eat 1500 calories of cake and only cake for one year because of the health ramifications of doing so.
That's why I tie good dietary nutrition to CICO. Inevitably, people will flee choices like the one I am made above for a more rounded dietary profile.
I am doing so to make a point. You validate the point that you (or anyone) would ever do that - or has done it. That's the point.
Here we go again with the "nothing but cake" strawman. Hate to break it to you, Ted, but nobody in the IIFYM camp ever recommended that.
Why don't we just add "excluding the middle" to your logical fallacy BINGO card?
Oh the irony! Most people in the "clean eating" camp never advocated eating 100% clean all the time. Yet here you guys go with that strawman!
ummm yes they do, go search the forums and search clean eating...
Usually is see how to eat 1200 calories while eating clean.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »My answer is that it would be more useful to think of the subject of clean eating in terms that actually have some relevance to real life.
The real life relevance is that no one can eat 'clean' (whatever that is) forever.
I'm skeptical that even those who claim they do, really eat clean 100% of the time.
(Really? you don't eat cake on someone's birthday? You don't indulge on vacation? You never eat out?)
I think the real life relevance is that in reality, the type A person doesn't exist. They claim that they do, but when caught with (gasp, coffee creamer), there is some excuse......
They can if they choose to, and they certainly can during a phase of weight reduction.
So are you saying that you don't eat clean all of the time? You eat clean for some weeks, months?
...and during that time you never used coffee creamer, ate out (restaurant or friend's house), etc?
Funnily enough, I have never once said that I "eat clean", on this thread or any other. I have said on other threads that I have a massive problem with sugar and for that reason I have recently taken the bull by the horns and cut added sugar and most fruits out completely. But I eat all kinds of dairy products and I drink tea and coffee, and stuff out of tins, so I don't eat clean by that definition.
Personally I hope one day to live by the 80%/20% rule, after I get to my ideal weight. The opportunities for the 20% are presented often enough in our society (other people's birthday cakes, the odd drink in the pub, the occasional meal out, the aformentioned coffee creamer) without having to seek them out in the form of daily 'treats'. In the meantime I don't see the point of wasting calories on that kind of stuff.
That's true - that's what I went through - what you have gone through. Now some people can do it, no question. But the conservative route and outcomes-based approach would be to do exactly as you stated above. Good post @Chrysalid20140 -
I find it curious that those who believe in "clean" eating spend more time finding loopholes in scenarios than actually defending their belief.
In a perfect world where all things could be controlled perfectly, if person A and person B had the exact same height, weight, metabolic rate, activity level and body composition, and any other parameter not listed that might allow someone to attempt to weasel instead of providing a simple answer...and they eat the same calories with the same macro breakdown, and the same 500 calorie deficit...person A eats "clean" and person B does not. Does the clean eater lose weight faster, and why?
Remember, same macros. Lets even say largely the same food, but A is eating clean, organic versions minimally prepared, while B is eating versions which are ultra processed...canned, frozen, mixed, pureed, and includes preservatives. They're eating the same amount of sugar, even, although A gets his from bananas, and B gets his from ice cream or doughnuts....or Li'l Debbies cakes.0 -
I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
It's a loaded question because you didn't define "clean food" and there isn't any real definition. Furthermore your "moderate diet" could be almost anything. For the sake of argument, I'll just assume the person eating "clean" is eating mostly minimally processed foods. And I'll assume the moderate diet includes a lot of highly processed foods.
In that case the person eating "clean" would lose slightly more weight. This is because calories are determined by "Atwater" calculations. Atwater tends to underestimate calories in highly processed foods and overestimate calories in minimally processed foods. The reason is that highly processed and cooked foods are absorbed more readily in your GI tract (nothing to do with "thermal effect").
how are you defining minimally process vs highly processed?
and most clean eaters stipulate the processed foods are "bad" and do not distinguish between one form or another.
Really, you're not familiar with those terms? Here some basic info for you:
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/teaching-the-food-system/curriculum/_pdf/Food_Processing-Background.pdf0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
Forget about the 500 calorie deficit for a minute. I said the clean eater could have a higher defict (i.e. greater than 500 calories) than the non clean eater, whilst maintaining his nutritional needs . In other words he can eat fewer calories and still be healthy; the junk eater needs more calories to get his macro/micronutrients in because he is eating stuff that doesn't have a good calorie to nutrient ratio. 'Empty calories', dare I use the term.
Or the clean eater could eat more than the dirty eater based on volume and calories and still retain the fabled 500 calorie deficit. So a 1500 calorie diet of "dirty" foods would be equivalent to let's say 1800 in a clean eater because of the metabolics involved. Either way - you are right - the clean eater wouldn't have to eat 1500 to obtain the nutrients that a dirty eater would obtain at 1500. Nice point.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
Forget about the 500 calorie deficit for a minute. I said the clean eater could have a higher defict (i.e. greater than 500 calories) than the non clean eater, whilst maintaining his nutritional needs . In other words he can eat fewer calories and still be healthy; the junk eater needs more calories to get his macro/micronutrients in because he is eating stuff that doesn't have a good calorie to nutrient ratio. 'Empty calories', dare I use the term.
Not necessarily. If someone were to eat "clean," but only a few different foods, they could very well be lacking in a great many nutrients. If someone were to eat more "junk," but made smart choices (because they were aware of what they were doing/needing), they could very well get most, if not all, of their nutrients.0 -
Hey @tedboosalis7, did you ever explain your very first comment as to why you think person A would lose more weight?0
-
Care to explain what you mean by "dem metabolics", Ted?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »No person A will lose more weight ***Period*** What everyone fails to take into consideration is that person A who eats a balanced diet and probably has slow releasing complex carbs in their diet will be able to expend more energy than person B eating donuts. While person B will have a burst of energy up front that will be short lived and the workout will end quicker than person A's who is on a steady energy release path.
Please re-read my original post, I specifically said that Person B hits their macros/micros, eats some nutrient dense foods, and fills in rest with treats like ice cream.
That does not change my answer. I have done a clean diet and I have done a somewhat clean diet with some level of crap. I can state without repudiation that I cannot workout with the same intensity and focus when there is crap even in smallish quantities. I am not saying that is bad or good; because I certainly enjoy my crap food; but I do know without doubt; I feel more sluggish and unable to perform at the same level; which mean I burn less calories.
What are you labeling "crap" food?
And your n=1 does not prove anything. I have no issues with energy and workouts and I more than likely eat the foods that you are labeling as "crap"....
Finally, my OP did not ask for your personal experience, I asked for a discussion based on parameters that I laid out.
In my experience people don't realise how 'crap' they actually feel until they're forced (quite often by some health issue) to try another way. And one person's potential for feeling good may be much higher than someone else's.
I'm curious, have you ever actually tried substituting the junk for extra 'real' food?
To use an analogy, my friend smokes two packs a day, has more energy than most people and and says she feels fine. I tell her if she quit smoking she'd be bloody Wonderwoman.
Oooh, I have!
A while back I did a three month experiment eating vegetarian/focusing on whole, plant based foods. Lost my period and started losing my hair. I did not however, lose weight.
Then I decided to do a three month experiment eating 'paleo', with a focus on local grass fed meat and eggs and organic produce. Developed stomach issues, potty issues, and horrible bad breath (to the point where my husband started commenting on it). However, I did not lose weight. And I almost went broke.
And many years ago a girlfriend and I really got into the whole Nourishing Traditions/Weston Price thing. No noticeable health changes with this one. However, I gained a few pounds.
The connection with all of the above-I was NOT counting calories/eating at a calorie deficit. Nothing magical happened while I was eating 'healthier' or by restricting certain food groups.
Soooo when I found out my glucose number was creeping up, along with the scale back in 2012, I decided to not try to restrict the foods I liked with a fad diet, not focus on exercise, which I had never done before, and instead- only pay attention to calories, and create a calorie deficit (no macro tracking at that point either). Not only did I lose the weight, but my health IMPROVED, including no longer having a high glucose number.
I've been able to maintain the loss for over two years now, pretty easily. And shockingly-my glucose number is still in the normal rang and I'm healthy by every marker that my doctor goes by.
eta: if someone prefers to eat a certain way (low carb, paleo, low added sugar etc), I have no issues with them-we all have to figure out what works best for our lifestyles, schedules etc. However, when someone puts forth their preferences as the only Truth, that's when I start rolling my eyes.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
Forget about the 500 calorie deficit for a minute. I said the clean eater could have a higher defict (i.e. greater than 500 calories) than the non clean eater, whilst maintaining his nutritional needs . In other words he can eat fewer calories and still be healthy; the junk eater needs more calories to get his macro/micronutrients in because he is eating stuff that doesn't have a good calorie to nutrient ratio. 'Empty calories', dare I use the term.
Or the clean eater could eat more than the dirty eater based on volume and calories and still retain the fabled 500 calorie deficit. So a 1500 calorie diet of "dirty" foods would be equivalent to let's say 1800 in a clean eater because of the metabolics involved. Either way - you are right - the clean eater wouldn't have to eat 1500 to obtain the nutrients that a dirty eater would obtain at 1500. Nice point.
What? Do you even math?
If your TDEE is 2000 calories per day, and you have a 500 calorie deficit...you believe that it's possible to...eat...1800 calories?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions