The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
I'm not suggesting the above ratio is ideal, and it's in grams not calories. This is how the North American diet currently shakes out.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »So instead of telling people "calories are the only thing that matters for weight loss", which I've seen repeated again and again on this forum, why not modify that advice to "it's ok to get 15% of your calories from junk (or insert word of your choice) if you want to, but no more or you'll be missing out on nutrition".
It's been said repeatedly that for weight loss, calories are king, and for body composition and well-being, macros/micros matter. But even that doesn't address clean vs. unclean.
If you and I eat essentially the same foods, but I get mine pre-cooked from a can or frozen dinner, then I might be getting more salt, and some preservatives, and there might be some diminished micronutrients. But do you think those things happen at a rate that will negatively impact my health? That would be the argument of clean vs. unclean. Bringing differences in macros is irrelevant, because I can match your macros and still not eat clean.
0 -
billieljaime wrote: »Because I have had days I have made a conscience choice to eat my calorie allotment in cake.....no regrets.....
Because I know I will like it, it won't kill me and the next day won't be a day of cake but of more nutritional choices.
Also because people get weak and do dumb stuff and eat their calories in junk one day and it is ok, one day a couple times a month or 15-20 percent of the time won't kill you.
I don't think u should eat your calories in cake everyday though. I think after a while you would feel poorly.
I'm actually not judging one day--I can imagine one day of just about anything--but the idea that someone would think that anyone considered a diet of only cake, all the time (but only 1500 calories worth), to be desirable and something we'd all choose to do, if not warned away or scared into thinking we'd get fat.
I don't think anyone in the "moderate" camp eats that way. Such people exist only in the imaginations of the "clean" eaters, which causes me to wonder why it's assumed that they are so common.
0 -
I'm not suggesting the above ratio is ideal, and it's in grams not calories. This is how the North American diet currently shakes out.
If it's supposed to be indicating grams the numbers on it make no sense. What do the 53.5%, 28% and 13.5% stand for?
And you've posted the same picture twice, so there's nothing to compare.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It's easier to eat 1500 clean than 1500 junk. They doc who ate 1500 in junk food has strong will power and a fixed period to focus on (he's a doctor!). You can eat 1500 calories of doritos and be REALLY hungry throughout the day -- who in the normal population can sustain that? No one. I'm eating less than 1500 calories per day, but my macros are like ~50g carb, 160 g protein, 60-80g fat and i feel fine. This is 'good' food like chicken, greek yogurt, cheese, avocados, some chocolate, vegetables, etc.
Please point to any post in this thread, or any other thread in the history of MFP, where someone suggested that someone should eat nothing but 1500 calories of doritos all day long.
I will never fail to be astounded that the argument from clean eaters is that they get to eat a variety of foods, while the alternative is one single food, all day, every day. Whether it be cake (brought up in this thread) or doritos (see quoted post above) or donuts (often referenced in other threads).
I am completely onboard with CICO.
But I am also trying to lose weight to feel better. And you feel better when you eat vitamin rich products than when you eat doritos/donuts/cake. And a 500 calorie salad with protein and healthy fat is going to be more satiating than 500 calories of the aforementioned stuff. So, while on a weight basis alone there probably isn't a large chasm between the two, there are still differences in how you feel when you eat more clean food vs more junk food.
We run around the same arguments all the time. The truth is many people can stick with clean diets longer because they don't get the same cravings, etc.
I want to see you eat 3500 calories worth of salad.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The pro-clean-eating people are, as usual.janejellyroll wrote: »It's easier to eat 1500 clean than 1500 junk. They doc who ate 1500 in junk food has strong will power and a fixed period to focus on (he's a doctor!). You can eat 1500 calories of doritos and be REALLY hungry throughout the day -- who in the normal population can sustain that? No one. I'm eating less than 1500 calories per day, but my macros are like ~50g carb, 160 g protein, 60-80g fat and i feel fine. This is 'good' food like chicken, greek yogurt, cheese, avocados, some chocolate, vegetables, etc.
Please point to any post in this thread, or any other thread in the history of MFP, where someone suggested that someone should eat nothing but 1500 calories of doritos all day long.
I will never fail to be astounded that the argument from clean eaters is that they get to eat a variety of foods, while the alternative is one single food, all day, every day. Whether it be cake (brought up in this thread) or doritos (see quoted post above) or donuts (often referenced in other threads).
I am completely onboard with CICO.
But I am also trying to lose weight to feel better. And you feel better when you eat vitamin rich products than when you eat doritos/donuts/cake. And a 500 calorie salad with protein and fat is going to be more satiating than the aforementioned stuff. So, while on a weight basis alone there probably isn't a large chasm, there are still differences in how you feel when you eat more clean food vs more junk food.
We run around the same arguments all the time. The truth is many people can stick with clean diets longer because they don't get the same cravings, etc.
You are missing the point. Who said to eat doritos/donut/cake instead of vitamin rich products? What they said was if you eat the 500 calorie salad with protein and fat, eat other nutritionally dense foods throughout the day, and then choose to top your day off with 200 cals of gelato, or oreos, there is nothing wrong with that.
Here is my pre-logged day so far:
Breakfast: Greek Yogurt, Coffee with Coffeemate creamer
Lunch: leftover grilled tilapia with homemade mango avocado salsa and a package of frozen mixed vegetables
Snack: Luna Protein Bar
Dinner: chicken sausage saute with squash and zucchini and a wedge of laughing cow cheese, over either pasta or rice (need to see what's in the pantry).
That's about 1200 cals. I have close to 700 left. I will probably try to get some protein in, maybe some peanut butter or another greek yogurt, but I will still have calories left over. Wine and Gelato will likely be my go to's.
Is my day unhealthy because of the gelato? Because many of the foods were processed?
I'm not arguing your diet at all. Looks great to me. Merely the notion that it doesn't matter where your calories come from. Because if you aren't eating vitamin rich foods it IS going to be more difficult to stay within your calories, to stick to the diet long term, etc.
Who is arguing against eating vitamin-rich foods?
0 -
billieljaime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »So instead of telling people "calories are the only thing that matters for weight loss", which I've seen repeated again and again on this forum, why not modify that advice to "it's ok to get 15% of your calories from junk (or insert word of your choice) if you want to, but no more or you'll be missing out on nutrition".
We do, but facts matter.
So we both say "for weight loss, calories are what matter." And "what you eat will probably affect how good you feel while on a calorie deficit, whether you are able to sustain it, and whether you will be energetic enough to exercise" and also "of course, what you eat matters for health/nutrition."
In addition, if asked whether one could eat 1500 calories of cake and still lose weight (or some such)--which is a bizarre thing to occur to anyone, again--I always do say "in theory, if you could manage that and felt sufficiently good while doing it that you could keep up your normal activity, but I personally could not and prefer to eat in a way that makes me feel good."
The bigger question is why people seem to jump from person B--someone who eats in a moderate fashion, a mostly nutritious diet--to 1500 calories of cake? Do you secretly want to eat only cake? Because frankly that's weird, and yet it's what it sounds like.
Because it's not really advice calories are all that matters for weight loss
80/20 or 85/15 is just my personal preferences
I'm not sure what you mean in response to my post.
Oh, is this a response to Chrysalid?0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I'm not suggesting the above ratio is ideal, and it's in grams not calories. This is how the North American diet currently shakes out.
If it's supposed to be indicating grams the numbers on it make no sense. What do the 53.5%, 28% and 13.5% stand for?
And you've posted the same picture twice, so there's nothing to compare.
This is where I got the cluster diet information from:
http://www.who.int/nutrition/landscape_analysis/nlis_gem_food/en/
This is the average consumption data for cluster C/G10, which includes North America.
The pictures are slightly different. The "clean" diet uses earth-toned colors in it's graph.
Which about sums up the difference between the two diets. You have your "clean" turkey and your regular turkey. Same macros, same calories. Identical health-wise.
0 -
It's easier to eat 1500 clean than 1500 junk. They doc who ate 1500 in junk food has strong will power and a fixed period to focus on (he's a doctor!). You can eat 1500 calories of doritos and be REALLY hungry throughout the day -- who in the normal population can sustain that? No one. I'm eating less than 1500 calories per day, but my macros are like ~50g carb, 160 g protein, 60-80g fat and i feel fine. This is 'good' food like chicken, greek yogurt, cheese, avocados, some chocolate, vegetables, etc.
Please point to any post in this thread, or any other thread in the history of MFP, where someone suggested that someone should eat nothing but 1500 calories of doritos all day long.
I will never fail to be astounded that the argument from clean eaters is that they get to eat a variety of foods, while the alternative is one single food, all day, every day. Whether it be cake (brought up in this thread) or doritos (see quoted post above) or donuts (often referenced in other threads).
I am completely onboard with CICO.
But I am also trying to lose weight to feel better. And you feel better when you eat vitamin rich products than when you eat doritos/donuts/cake. And a 500 calorie salad with protein and fat is going to be more satiating than the aforementioned stuff. So, while on a weight basis alone there probably isn't a large chasm, there are still differences in how you feel when you eat more clean food vs more junk food.
We run around the same arguments all the time. The truth is many people can stick with clean diets longer because they don't get the same cravings, etc.
You are missing the point. Who said to eat doritos/donut/cake instead of vitamin rich products? What they said was if you eat the 500 calorie salad with protein and fat, eat other nutritionally dense foods throughout the day, and then choose to top your day off with 200 cals of gelato, or oreos, there is nothing wrong with that.
Here is my pre-logged day so far:
Breakfast: Greek Yogurt, Coffee with Coffeemate creamer
Lunch: leftover grilled tilapia with homemade mango avocado salsa and a package of frozen mixed vegetables
Snack: Luna Protein Bar
Dinner: chicken sausage saute with squash and zucchini and a wedge of laughing cow cheese, over either pasta or rice (need to see what's in the pantry).
That's about 1200 cals. I have close to 700 left. I will probably try to get some protein in, maybe some peanut butter or another greek yogurt, but I will still have calories left over. Wine and Gelato will likely be my go to's.
Is my day unhealthy because of the gelato? Because many of the foods were processed?
I'm not arguing your diet at all. Looks great to me. Merely the notion that it doesn't matter where your calories come from. Because if you aren't eating vitamin rich foods it IS going to be more difficult to stay within your calories, to stick to the diet long term, etc.
The only people who say it has to be one or the other are clean eaters. Most of the people advocating for Team Moderation are eating just as many, if not more, nutrient dense foods as the clean eaters. They just don't restrict certain foods because it doesn't meet an ever changing definition of what is clean or unclean. They finish their day off with whatever they have room for, that fits within their day.
I don't know why we are arguing. I agree with everything you are saying. When people say CICO and that it doesn't matter what your calories are its pretty easy to take it as "eat junk food, just less". And its been my experience that this doesn't work.
It's been your experience that you don't know what moderation means.0 -
The way ndj1979 put it, I just assumed that these two people did the same type of strength training, since everything else was the same. I don't think he would put out a scenario where one person did weights and the other one did Tracy Anderson. Thanks ndj1979, I like all of your input0
-
This content has been removed.
-
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »It's easier to eat 1500 clean than 1500 junk. They doc who ate 1500 in junk food has strong will power and a fixed period to focus on (he's a doctor!). You can eat 1500 calories of doritos and be REALLY hungry throughout the day -- who in the normal population can sustain that? No one. I'm eating less than 1500 calories per day, but my macros are like ~50g carb, 160 g protein, 60-80g fat and i feel fine. This is 'good' food like chicken, greek yogurt, cheese, avocados, some chocolate, vegetables, etc.
Please point to any post in this thread, or any other thread in the history of MFP, where someone suggested that someone should eat nothing but 1500 calories of doritos all day long.
I will never fail to be astounded that the argument from clean eaters is that they get to eat a variety of foods, while the alternative is one single food, all day, every day. Whether it be cake (brought up in this thread) or doritos (see quoted post above) or donuts (often referenced in other threads).
I am completely onboard with CICO.
But I am also trying to lose weight to feel better. And you feel better when you eat vitamin rich products than when you eat doritos/donuts/cake. And a 500 calorie salad with protein and fat is going to be more satiating than the aforementioned stuff. So, while on a weight basis alone there probably isn't a large chasm, there are still differences in how you feel when you eat more clean food vs more junk food.
We run around the same arguments all the time. The truth is many people can stick with clean diets longer because they don't get the same cravings, etc.
You are missing the point. Who said to eat doritos/donut/cake instead of vitamin rich products? What they said was if you eat the 500 calorie salad with protein and fat, eat other nutritionally dense foods throughout the day, and then choose to top your day off with 200 cals of gelato, or oreos, there is nothing wrong with that.
Here is my pre-logged day so far:
Breakfast: Greek Yogurt, Coffee with Coffeemate creamer
Lunch: leftover grilled tilapia with homemade mango avocado salsa and a package of frozen mixed vegetables
Snack: Luna Protein Bar
Dinner: chicken sausage saute with squash and zucchini and a wedge of laughing cow cheese, over either pasta or rice (need to see what's in the pantry).
That's about 1200 cals. I have close to 700 left. I will probably try to get some protein in, maybe some peanut butter or another greek yogurt, but I will still have calories left over. Wine and Gelato will likely be my go to's.
Is my day unhealthy because of the gelato? Because many of the foods were processed?
I'm not arguing your diet at all. Looks great to me. Merely the notion that it doesn't matter where your calories come from. Because if you aren't eating vitamin rich foods it IS going to be more difficult to stay within your calories, to stick to the diet long term, etc.
The only people who say it has to be one or the other are clean eaters. Most of the people advocating for Team Moderation are eating just as many, if not more, nutrient dense foods as the clean eaters. They just don't restrict certain foods because it doesn't meet an ever changing definition of what is clean or unclean. They finish their day off with whatever they have room for, that fits within their day.
I don't know why we are arguing. I agree with everything you are saying. When people say CICO and that it doesn't matter what your calories are its pretty easy to take it as "eat junk food, just less". And its been my experience that this doesn't work.
It's been your experience that you don't know what moderation means.
I know exactly what moderation means. It also means different things to different people. And while there is room in almost all diets for empty calories, there needs to be more discussion around here about the costs of a lack of balance in diets. Because the repeated battlecry of "all calories are created equal" is not a reasonable thing to scream here at all times.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
We do, but facts matter.
So we both say "for weight loss, calories are what matter." And "what you eat will probably affect how good you feel while on a calorie deficit, whether you are able to sustain it, and whether you will be energetic enough to exercise" and also "of course, what you eat matters for health/nutrition."
In addition, if asked whether one could eat 1500 calories of cake and still lose weight (or some such)--which is a bizarre thing to occur to anyone, again--I always do say "in theory, if you could manage that and felt sufficiently good while doing it that you could keep up your normal activity, but I personally could not and prefer to eat in a way that makes me feel good."
The bigger question is why people seem to jump from person B--someone who eats in a moderate fashion, a mostly nutritious diet--to 1500 calories of cake? Do you secretly want to eat only cake? Because frankly that's weird, and yet it's what it sounds like.
The reason that jump is made is because the facts are not always presented as you just described. Quite often it's just "the only thing that matters is calories in vs. calories out". If the facts are always presented in full, then I'm sure the Twinkie Diet will never be heard of here again.0 -
stillnot2late wrote: »The way ndj1979 put it, I just assumed that these two people did the same type of strength training, since everything else was the same. I don't think he would put out a scenario where one person did weights and the other one did Tracy Anderson. Thanks ndj1979, I like all of your input
you are correct, and you are welcome0 -
for the people that were in here earlier saying "well yea, you can eat that stuff but if you eat clean you will feel better had have better workouts" …well here is my lunch today: (we had a cookout for some birthdays at the office)
bratwurst with hot dog bun
grilled chicken breast
brownie
coleslaw
about a slice and a half of oreo chocolate cake
and here is my workout:
back and calves today..
deadlift 315# 4x5; barbell bent over row 125# 3x7; lat pulldown 160# 3x8; cable row 120# 2x40; barbell calf raise 245# 4x5; dumbbell calf raise 85# 3x25 …..
^ for the record this was one of my more energized deadlift sessions in the past two weeks…must be all that dirty food that I ate….0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
We do, but facts matter.
So we both say "for weight loss, calories are what matter." And "what you eat will probably affect how good you feel while on a calorie deficit, whether you are able to sustain it, and whether you will be energetic enough to exercise" and also "of course, what you eat matters for health/nutrition."
In addition, if asked whether one could eat 1500 calories of cake and still lose weight (or some such)--which is a bizarre thing to occur to anyone, again--I always do say "in theory, if you could manage that and felt sufficiently good while doing it that you could keep up your normal activity, but I personally could not and prefer to eat in a way that makes me feel good."
The bigger question is why people seem to jump from person B--someone who eats in a moderate fashion, a mostly nutritious diet--to 1500 calories of cake? Do you secretly want to eat only cake? Because frankly that's weird, and yet it's what it sounds like.
The reason that jump is made is because the facts are not always presented as you just described. Quite often it's just "the only thing that matters is calories in vs. calories out". If the facts are always presented in full, then I'm sure the Twinkie Diet will never be heard of here again.
Every single time I see the question asked if it is calories that matter or the type of food the vast majority of answers are always something along "calories for weight loss, macros/micros for health/body composition". Without fail. Even if a couple of people chime in with only calories matter for weight loss there is always a number of people who take it the next step further and explain it all.
Here is one example
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10162781/calories-vs-nutrition-weight-loss#latest0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
We do, but facts matter.
So we both say "for weight loss, calories are what matter." And "what you eat will probably affect how good you feel while on a calorie deficit, whether you are able to sustain it, and whether you will be energetic enough to exercise" and also "of course, what you eat matters for health/nutrition."
In addition, if asked whether one could eat 1500 calories of cake and still lose weight (or some such)--which is a bizarre thing to occur to anyone, again--I always do say "in theory, if you could manage that and felt sufficiently good while doing it that you could keep up your normal activity, but I personally could not and prefer to eat in a way that makes me feel good."
The bigger question is why people seem to jump from person B--someone who eats in a moderate fashion, a mostly nutritious diet--to 1500 calories of cake? Do you secretly want to eat only cake? Because frankly that's weird, and yet it's what it sounds like.
The reason that jump is made is because the facts are not always presented as you just described. Quite often it's just "the only thing that matters is calories in vs. calories out". If the facts are always presented in full, then I'm sure the Twinkie Diet will never be heard of here again.
that is hogwash and you know it..
how many times are there threads and everyones reply is along the lines of the following:
calorie deficit for weight loss
micro/macro adherence and stricter intake for body recomp, overall health, etc
AND
100 calories of donuts = 100 calories of carrots from an energy standpoint; however, they are not nutritional twins.
Then you or someone in your crew jumps in with the 1500 calories of cake all day example, AFTER the above has been pointed out…
just stop with the nonsensical nonsense...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.
so you are comparing cigarette smoking to "junk" food now?
I don't eat fake food, everything I eat is real.
Why don't you list some examples of junk food and explain why they are junk?
I don't need to swap any foods out because I have already hit my micros and macros for the day. Do you really think you get an added benefit from extra micros?
I think this proves a point; first you should not have asked a question. It is apparent that you do not really want to hear from people with opinions different than yours. You can't ask for an opinion then tell someone their personal experience is irrelevant. If I did not have personal experience what the hell would I base my reply on? By the way you asked me to define what I consider crap food. Well I don't really believe there is a such thing as crap food. Everything can be eaten in moderation. AKA I love me some pizza, but if I destroy half of a large I feel like crap. I eat more than 2 donuts I feel like crap. Do I think white carbs or sugar are the enemy? NO, As a matter of fact if there was ever a place to eat a little crap its right after a workout when you blood sugar is depleted. Anyway, this is my last reply on this topic. I don't have time for this.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.
so you are comparing cigarette smoking to "junk" food now?
I don't eat fake food, everything I eat is real.
Why don't you list some examples of junk food and explain why they are junk?
I don't need to swap any foods out because I have already hit my micros and macros for the day. Do you really think you get an added benefit from extra micros?
I think this proves a point; first you should not have asked a question. It is apparent that you do not really want to hear from people with opinions different than yours. You can't ask for an opinion then tell someone their personal experience is irrelevant. If I did not have personal experience what the hell would I base my reply on? By the way you asked me to define what I consider crap food. Well I don't really believe there is a such thing as crap food. Everything can be eaten in moderation. AKA I love me some pizza, but if I destroy half of a large I feel like crap. I eat more than 2 donuts I feel like crap. Do I think white carbs or sugar are the enemy? NO, As a matter of fact if there was ever a place to eat a little crap its right after a workout when you blood sugar is depleted. Anyway, this is my last reply on this topic. I don't have time for this.
wait, so your saying that if I post a topic, I can't challenge other peoples assertions? That poster specifically said that I should replace junk with real food, so I want to to know what she thinks junk food and why it is junk. I also want to know what this fake food that I am eating consists of. My diary is open and anyone is welcome to list all the fake foods that I eat.
So you said that food is crap, but you don't believe in crap food, OK that makes no sense. But since you are not replying any more, I won't even bother….0 -
With the assumptions exactly as they are stated in your question, of course they would both lose at roughly the same rate.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….
The question, though, is whether those assumptions are reasonable. It is far easier to maintain a balanced diet than any kind of a fad diet; be that fad diet all junk food or all "clean" food. Over time, if one doesn't balance one's own likings and cravings with health and nutrition, one is less likely to be able to maintain either the caloric intake or the "cleanliness" of the diet. If you love ice cream but your "clean" diet requires you to shun it, your body will most likely find a way to beat you and make you binge eat that ice cream. If on the other hand you have something to prove and just eat McDonald's all the time, over the long run it is also likely that you will increase your intake of that food, adding calories. It will also make you feel stressed, less energetic, and and thus make you less likely to keep up with your workout regimen. A "clean" dieter who is actively denying themselves things they like may experience stress and depression to give up as well.
So the right answer, I think, is that while a caloric deficit is the only relevant question in terms of weight loss, certain diets, given the individual, may make it more likely they would stick to such deficit while others may make it more likely they won't.0 -
With the assumptions exactly as they are stated in your question, of course they would both lose at roughly the same rate.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….
The question, though, is whether those assumptions are reasonable. It is far easier to maintain a balanced diet than any kind of a fad diet; be that fad diet all junk food or all "clean" food. Over time, if one doesn't balance one's own likings and cravings with health and nutrition, one is less likely to be able to maintain either the caloric intake or the "cleanliness" of the diet. If you love ice cream but your "clean" diet requires you to shun it, your body will most likely find a way to beat you and make you binge eat that ice cream. If on the other hand you have something to prove and just eat McDonald's all the time, over the long run it is also likely that you will increase your intake of that food, adding calories. It will also make you feel stressed, less energetic, and and thus make you less likely to keep up with your workout regimen. A "clean" dieter who is actively denying themselves things they like may experience stress and depression to give up as well.
So the right answer, I think, is that while a caloric deficit is the only relevant question in terms of weight loss, certain diets, given the individual, may make it more likely they would stick to such deficit while others may make it more likely they won't.
can you please name the fad diet that calls for eating 100% mcdonalds?0 -
The term "clean" on MFP keeps throwing me off. Growing up we ate a strict kosher diet, i.e.no unclean animals like swine, camel, predator birds, animals from the sea without scales like lobster and crab, etc.,,,
Here on these posts it means something completely different but every time I see that term, that's where my mind goes. I guess it's cause many of relatives still eat traditionally religious clean as mentioned above and use the same language.
0 -
Are you effing serious? You are applying your dietary formula and saying everyone, universally, is the exact same as you. That's bs, and calling it bs is not libel.tedboosalis7 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »I lose much more weight on a diet that includes processed foods because I will actually keep to that diet. I'm having a lot of success eating what I'm used to eating.
If I tried to eat "clean" 100% of the time I would give up completely, go back to my old way of eating, and then just keep slowly gaining weight. I think that many of the people pushing "clean" diets are perfectly happy eating that way.
If you are eating a diet that satisfies you, you are much more likely to have success with it. "Clean" eaters may actually lose more weight if they comply with their diet more consistently when they eat that way than they do otherwise.
Whatever is most comfortable for the individual is what is most likely to work long-term.
This. Find what you buy into and what enables you to eat a variety, get the macros/micros you need and the right calorie deficit, and that you most easily can follow long-term.
If that isn't true, it doesn't matter one iota if there is some small advantage to one eating plan or another. And, any advantage is frankly speculative at this point with the bulk of studies pointing to the dodo effect with diet plans. People lose the same amount, regain the same amount, and when eating ad libitum end up pretty much consuming the same macros.
Okay - eat 1500 calories of cake - and I will eat 1500 calories of pure nutritious food (as I do now but MORE) and I will flat out not only lose fat pounds but I will retain my muscle mass over the course of one year.
I did the above - it doesn't work. DOESN'T WORK.
You can't outrun a bad diet.
But, it's worked for other people who have actually documented it working. I wonder why you are different?
I was per-diabetic - on the diet I had for the course of 6 years owning the business PLUS three years post-sale of the business, I ate like crap.
I have to exercise, have to eat right. That's it. I cannot eat any other way. There's no way around it. If you want to continue to dispute it and libel me, we can let a judge decide.
And yeah, labs have your result, but we have to take you at your word for the food intake stuff before you say you "cleaned up" your diet, don't we? Was some medical professional shadowing you and logging your intake for 6 years while you were on what you claim to be crap diet? Were they hooking you up to medical equipment to measure your exercise burns during those years? Are those tracking info also in your labs? No? Then you have no documentation that you are actually being truthful or accurate about your diet or exercise; there's only documentation that you weren't losing weight and were a prediabetic and other labs.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
billieljaime wrote: »Just for the record I don't buy into clean or dirty like I said I am just very tiny and my calorie allotment is small so I can eat a larger volume of foods if I chose fruits veg lean meats low fat dairy and avoid fatty meats and breads and processed foods
This does not mean I demonize those foods, I love those foods I just can't afford them all the time that is why I do a split.
Just my mental preference. There is no science or data to back it up just works for me is all.
What's your calorie allowance?
I'm a lot older than you and pretty short. I'm on 1200 calories and fit in small treats almost every day.
A treat doesn't have to be a huge portion. I regularly eat half servings of things, single cookies, and fun-sized candy bars. Things that are around 120 calories or less. I'm happy with my little taste of something yummy too.
0 -
Yes. McDonald's. The only difference between 100% McDonald's "dieters" and "clean" dieters is that the clean dieters do so consciously while most people eating McDonald's for all or most of their meals aren't conscious about their choice (or their caloric intake).
With the assumptions exactly as they are stated in your question, of course they would both lose at roughly the same rate.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….
The question, though, is whether those assumptions are reasonable. It is far easier to maintain a balanced diet than any kind of a fad diet; be that fad diet all junk food or all "clean" food. Over time, if one doesn't balance one's own likings and cravings with health and nutrition, one is less likely to be able to maintain either the caloric intake or the "cleanliness" of the diet. If you love ice cream but your "clean" diet requires you to shun it, your body will most likely find a way to beat you and make you binge eat that ice cream. If on the other hand you have something to prove and just eat McDonald's all the time, over the long run it is also likely that you will increase your intake of that food, adding calories. It will also make you feel stressed, less energetic, and and thus make you less likely to keep up with your workout regimen. A "clean" dieter who is actively denying themselves things they like may experience stress and depression to give up as well.
So the right answer, I think, is that while a caloric deficit is the only relevant question in terms of weight loss, certain diets, given the individual, may make it more likely they would stick to such deficit while others may make it more likely they won't.
can you please name the fad diet that calls for eating 100% mcdonalds?
While your point is valid that I intentionally picked an extreme example that isn't true in the real world, so did you. Most people who eat "clean" only do so for only a majority of their diet. They allow treats now and then, and they will satisfy their cravings with moderate amounts of junk food now and then too. I'm actually agreeing with you that it's a balanced diet that incorporates our individual choices of pleasure foods is important in order to stick to a habit long term.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions