The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I think we all agree with that and that's why you will see so many requests for the purported 100% clean eaters to open their diaries. Never happens though...
0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I have yet to find the mythical person that is eating 100% cake every day …..0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I think we all agree with that and that's why you will see so many requests for the purported 100% clean eaters to open their diaries. Never happens though...
true, but that does not make clean eating a straw man argument...0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I think we all agree with that and that's why you will see so many requests for the purported 100% clean eaters to open their diaries. Never happens though...
true, but that does not make clean eating a straw man argument...
Agreed. I've seen plenty of examples (2 in this thread that I can think of) of proclaimed 100% clean eaters. As I pointed out earlier I think it's unfair that in the "which is better" argument they always offer me a single "dirty" food for the rest of my days while they get a balanced and varied "clean" diet. That's the straw man.
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.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
One of the 'clean' eaters posted a challenge yesterday (Pu?), challenging someone to eat only Mcds for one year. I'd do it in a heartbeat, and my husband is on board with the idea. I actually sent McDs corporate an email yesterday pitching the challenge-I'd blog about eating only Mcds for 365 days, they'd get some publicity and in return-they pay for all the food. It it goes further, MFP will be the first to know
0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I have yet to find the mythical person that is eating 100% cake every day …..
If I didn't think my body would go into sugar shock I would defining be that person for you...if you could add pie to that.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »
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.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
One of the 'clean' eaters posted a challenge yesterday (Pu?), challenging someone to eat only Mcds for one year. I'd do it in a heartbeat, and my husband is on board with the idea. I actually sent McDs corporate an email yesterday pitching the challenge-I'd blog about eating only Mcds for 365 days, they'd get some publicity and in return-they pay for all the food. It it goes further, MFP will be the first to know
well you would be the first person that I know that does it …
0 -
As you just admitted, the people whose claims you are going by to create the 100% "clean" dieter example exist on the Internet with closed diaries. You don't actually know anyone in real life who eats 100% "clean", do you? I don't. When you do find someone who claims to, I guarantee you a little pushing and prodding will reveal occasional departures from the strictest protocols 9 time out of 10.
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.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
So between us, we can't find real data on the prevalence on 100% adherence to either a strict clean-only diet or a strict junkfood only diet. Hence, both examples are extreme.
so the moderate eater is an extreme example too?
i dont agree with your premise, so we can just agree to disagree….
No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
So clean eating is a straw man argument, really??
That's what I said, yes.
interesting, given the amount of people that advocate for it….
yet, I can't find anyone that advocates for your mcdonalds diet….
Deciding whether an example is extreme/straw man is not related to the existence of the practice's advocates, it's related to the practice's actual adherents. And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that there are actually more people who eat a primarily fast food diet in the US than there are people who eat a primarily clean diet.
Just because a practice has advocates doesn't mean it's a prevalent practice, and just because a practice lacks advocates doesn't mean it isn't prevalent. In fact, the more ubiquitous a practice is, the fewer advocates it needs, since it's a generally accepted practice. I don't know a lot of smoking advocates, but I do know a lot of smokers.
Methinks you don't understand what a straw man is.
A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man
It has everything to do with the claims made, and nothing to do with actual practices.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
I've never seen the topic be raised and the full facts not be brought up, typically repeatedly beginning in the first response or two. The Twinkie thing is not to the contrary--the point is that you will lose. I've always said that being able to maintain such an unpleasant eating plan for the sake an an illustration doesn't mean most could normally. I couldn't (also something I always say in these threads).
I heard a podcast with the Twinkie prof--it was reasonably interesting. He doesn't recommend dieting eating only Twinkies (obviously).0 -
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.
So then why are they going nuts about the idea that Person B--who does the same--might lose as well?
I think because they have this idea that how they eat is special and better than how the rest of us (who eat perhaps majority "clean"--depending on how it's defined--but feel no need to proclaim that that makes us special, and also some treats and so on)? As most of us have been saying, in reality there's usually no difference.
IMO, a lot of the so-called "clean" eaters are probably the people who ate "worst" before their recent conversions and that's why they seem something like 100% McD or cake or donuts as something that people might desire (because they secretly kind of still do or used to eat that way, because until eating clean that's how they imagined "eating what you want" to be). It's more revealing about them than anything else.
Of course, it's also possible that it just makes them feel superior to imagine that anyone who doesn't eat clean is eating that way and losing only through pain and struggle and hunger, but to continue to hold such beliefs they must actively ignore reality and how most people in these conversations actually eat.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »
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.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
One of the 'clean' eaters posted a challenge yesterday (Pu?), challenging someone to eat only Mcds for one year. I'd do it in a heartbeat, and my husband is on board with the idea. I actually sent McDs corporate an email yesterday pitching the challenge-I'd blog about eating only Mcds for 365 days, they'd get some publicity and in return-they pay for all the food. It it goes further, MFP will be the first to know
I did that but Pu could've as well.0 -
No one on MFP ever claims they eat 100% clean?
As you just admitted, the people whose claims you are going by to create the 100% "clean" dieter example exist on the Internet with closed diaries. You don't actually know anyone in real life who eats 100% "clean", do you? I don't. When you do find someone who claims to, I guarantee you a little pushing and prodding will reveal occasional departures from the strictest protocols 9 time out of 10.
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.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
So between us, we can't find real data on the prevalence on 100% adherence to either a strict clean-only diet or a strict junkfood only diet. Hence, both examples are extreme.
so the moderate eater is an extreme example too?
i dont agree with your premise, so we can just agree to disagree….
No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
So when someone starts going on about the benefits of a "clean" diet vs. moderation can we just say "no one eats 'clean' really" and be done with it?
That would be nice.
Now if only they would drop the "not clean"=100% donuts...0 -
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I think we all agree with that and that's why you will see so many requests for the purported 100% clean eaters to open their diaries. Never happens though...
Diary open - has been for months. I have several people on my friends list who eat clean and their diaries are open.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »One of the 'clean' eaters posted a challenge yesterday (Pu?), challenging someone to eat only Mcds for one year. I'd do it in a heartbeat, and my husband is on board with the idea. I actually sent McDs corporate an email yesterday pitching the challenge-I'd blog about eating only Mcds for 365 days, they'd get some publicity and in return-they pay for all the food. It it goes further, MFP will be the first to know
What, are you thinking this is going to be the rebuttal to Super Size Me? I confidently predict that McD's won't touch your proposal with a stick.
And why would you even put yourself through it? If you adhere to the 'rules' of the challenge (I believe it was specifically stated that you would be ordering typical McD meals not the salads) then you will become very unhealthy very quickly. The SSM guy gained 24lbs in 30 days as well as myriad other health problems and it took him over a year to recover.0 -
I thought about this late yesterday - Person A Clean, Person B Not Clean (meaning some level of junk food not all) - Person A eats more fiber technically - so for 1500 calories per person, Person A loses the most weight. Why? Insoluble fiber is not digestible - and it's proven metabolically that not all of a whole foods calories are digestible - but certainly the processed foods eaten by Person B would be digestible - that difference right there means Person A will always lose the most weight.0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
Sure we are discussing what people really do. The two examples the OP originally sites doesn't say "who would lose more weight if one person claims to do this and the other person claims to do that", it very specifically sets up scenarios of what they do.
Again, whether an example is reality-based depends on what people DO, not what people claim or advocate.No, the moderate eater is not an extreme example. But the example of a person who strictly adheres to 100% "clean" diet IS an extreme example. My point partly is that you are comparing an extreme case to a balanced case, and that is no less a strawman than people who say "ok you eat 1500 calories of cake a day then."
It's very different in that "unclean" eaters don't claim to eat 100% junk food but there are several on here who advocate no treats ever. Whether they actually adhere to that is beside the point, no one here is making things up about clean eaters or accusing them of this, this is their own claim.
But we're not discussing what they really do, we're discussing the fact that many of them, as evidenced in the past 21 pages, urge others to eat 100% clean and that anything less is unhealthy.
and based on the previous 21 pages they obviously do that …
or have you not read through the whole thread?
it appears that you came in here just to argue, which is cool. however, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that clean eating is a straw man argument when people are advocating for it almost every day on here.
Based on this thread and real life, very few can prove adherence to a strict clean eating regimen. Fewer than actually eat junk food all the time.
I think we all agree with that and that's why you will see so many requests for the purported 100% clean eaters to open their diaries. Never happens though...
Diary open - has been for months. I have several people on my friends list who eat clean and their diaries are open.
Most of the clean eaters only have their diaries open to those on their friends like.
And you aren't necessarily a clean eater because you know, protein shakes, chipotle (awesome), and milk. In fact, I would probably put you in the IIFYM think more than clean eating. That is how many of us eat..
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »I thought about this late yesterday - Person A Clean, Person B Not Clean (meaning some level of junk food not all) - Person A eats more fiber technically - so for 1500 calories per person, Person A loses the most weight. Why? Insoluble fiber is not digestible - and it's proven metabolically that not all of a whole foods calories are digestible - but certainly the processed foods eaten by Person B would be digestible - that difference right there means Person A will always lose the most weight.
That is an assumption about B. I am not a clean eater and frequently have 30g of fiber a day.
0 -
And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that there are actually more people who eat a primarily fast food diet in the US than there are people who eat a primarily clean diet.
Sure, and as I said I think those people are probably overrepresented in the camp of those on MFP who blather on about eating clean.
But for the most part people in the US who eat 90% fast food don't think that's a great thing to do, they just like it and don't care. It's like how I used to eat more calories than I needed (reasonably "clean" under some definitions, though) and not think that was great or healthy or to be recommended, I just didn't care.
Among people who discuss nutrition on MFP, there are those who say it's good to eat mostly nutrient dense foods and get your macros and micros covered, but it's fine to have some treats and processed foods (and even highly processed foods) are fine if they help you meet your goals. In other words, person B.
And there are people who claim that's NOT Healthy (we see them in this thread) and the only way to be healthy is to "eat clean." Of course, they don't agree on what they mean and I also suspect they don't eat that way any more than I do (even though I'm not trying to) or have coherent standards (see, e.g., Ted and his claim to avoid processed foods while eating boxed almond milk and protein powder and Chipotle, as well as who knows what else).
So long as there are claims that Person B is at a nutritional and weight loss disadvantage and the better thing to do is to aspire to be Person A, it's worth discussing.
For the record, I personally do believe that it can be harmful to aspire to be Person A and think of yourself as "not being good" or the like when failing, even though I don't think many actually are Person A. And I think the talk about nutrition that surrounds us due to the elevation of being Person A actually probably discourages many who are more like your 90% fast food person (although to be honest such people are rarer in my experience than people on weird diets, which I'm sure is a social circle thing) from making a serious effort to lose weight. The number of people who show up on MFP and think extreme measures or giving up all treats is necessary are legion, and I suspect that's discouraging--they think they have to learn complicated rules and ways of eating and not just eat a normal healthy diet with some extras.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »I thought about this late yesterday - Person A Clean, Person B Not Clean (meaning some level of junk food not all) - Person A eats more fiber technically - so for 1500 calories per person, Person A loses the most weight. Why? Insoluble fiber is not digestible - and it's proven metabolically that not all of a whole foods calories are digestible - but certainly the processed foods eaten by Person B would be digestible - that difference right there means Person A will always lose the most weight.
That is an assumption about B. I am not a clean eater and frequently have 30g of fiber a day.
Person A will always eat more fiber - because there won't be anything processed to eat - just whole foods. Person B will always be replacing something in their 1500 calories with processed food and we all know that most processed food will not contain the fiber equivalent to Person A.
Again - we have to know what Person A and Person B are eating and have to define what a typical day would be for each. Otherwise, this conversation is pointless.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that there are actually more people who eat a primarily fast food diet in the US than there are people who eat a primarily clean diet.
Sure, and as I said I think those people are probably overrepresented in the camp of those on MFP who blather on about eating clean.
But for the most part people in the US who eat 90% fast food don't think that's a great thing to do, they just like it and don't care. It's like how I used to eat more calories than I needed (reasonably "clean" under some definitions, though) and not think that was great or healthy or to be recommended, I just didn't care.
Among people who discuss nutrition on MFP, there are those who say it's good to eat mostly nutrient dense foods and get your macros and micros covered, but it's fine to have some treats and processed foods (and even highly processed foods) are fine if they help you meet your goals. In other words, person B.
And there are people who claim that's NOT Healthy (we see them in this thread) and the only way to be healthy is to "eat clean." Of course, they don't agree on what they mean and I also suspect they don't eat that way any more than I do (even though I'm not trying to) or have coherent standards (see, e.g., Ted and his claim to avoid processed foods while eating boxed almond milk and protein powder and Chipotle, as well as who knows what else).
So long as there are claims that Person B is at a nutritional and weight loss disadvantage and the better thing to do is to aspire to be Person A, it's worth discussing.
For the record, I personally do believe that it can be harmful to aspire to be Person A and think of yourself as "not being good" or the like when failing, even though I don't think many actually are Person A. And I think the talk about nutrition that surrounds us due to the elevation of being Person A actually probably discourages many who are more like your 90% fast food person (although to be honest such people are rarer in my experience than people on weird diets, which I'm sure is a social circle thing) from making a serious effort to lose weight. The number of people who show up on MFP and think extreme measures or giving up all treats is necessary are legion, and I suspect that's discouraging--they think they have to learn complicated rules and ways of eating and not just eat a normal healthy diet with some extras.
Funny stuff. Chipotle is whole foods - what processing do you speak of? The menu is limited.
I log everything. You don't want to believe it, that's not my problem. That's yours.
Almond milk - I can make that at home - it would be the same thing - I don't want to, therefore, I outsource that to someone else.
Protein powder - Natural Force or Legion or AllMax - if you read the ingredients, it's pure stuff. Yeah is there a "process" absolutely. Natural Force is endorsed by the Paleo Foundation - the only endorsed supplement product on the market by that very foundation. They don't throw their name around.
Done with thread. Have fun. Hope you didn't stay up all night and lose sleep over this.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
So long as there are claims that Person B is at a nutritional and weight loss disadvantage and the better thing to do is to aspire to be Person A, it's worth discussing.
Person B is either at a nutritional disadvantage or a weight loss disadvantage, not necessarily both.
If he chooses to match Person A's nutrition, he will have to consume more calories than Person A because he's including foods that are less nutrient dense. So he will be at a weight loss disadvantage.
If he chooses to match Person A's weight loss, he will not be getting the same amount of nutrition as Person A, for the same reason as above. So in that case he will be at a nutritional disadvantage.
Ted also raised the point about the amount of fibre in the foods, and how the same number of calories in does not necessarily equate to the same amount of calories being available to utilize as energy, so that also has to be factored into the weight loss equation.
The better thing to do depends on (a) how quickly you want to lose the excess weight and (b) whether you feel your life won't be worth living if you can't have your nightly Twinkie for a certain period of time. Now, I've been accused of disordered thinking in relation to food but to me statement (b) surely qualifies as the same thing.
0 -
Nope, just got up bright and early!0
-
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »
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.
hmmm I don't know anyone that eats 100% mcdonalds….
however, according to the clean eaters on here they eat 100% clean all the time, of course most of them have private diaries so there is now way to to know…
how was my example extreme? i said one person was clean (this is a real world example) and one person is moderation (another real world example)
I agree that two people would probably not have the same exact macros and workout routine, but I don't think it was an extreme example.
One of the 'clean' eaters posted a challenge yesterday (Pu?), challenging someone to eat only Mcds for one year. I'd do it in a heartbeat, and my husband is on board with the idea. I actually sent McDs corporate an email yesterday pitching the challenge-I'd blog about eating only Mcds for 365 days, they'd get some publicity and in return-they pay for all the food. It it goes further, MFP will be the first to know
May I ask, why you would be willing to accept that challenge?
Because the challenge was put forth, stating that after someone ate Mcdonalds for a year, they'd be overweight and in bad health. I disagree with this. I believe that I could eat Mcds for a year, and not only stay within my current maintenance range, but also continue to be in good health. When I mentioned the challenge to my husband he was supportive of it. He's also lost weight and improved his health (including getting his blood pressure out of the pre-hypertension range), while eating out quite a bit like I do. The only thing preventing me from doing this is the cost. So I emailed Mcds corporate marketing department, gave them a simple pitch, and we'll see if anything comes from it. I doubt they'll take me up on their offer but if they do I think it would be a very interesting experiment
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »One of the 'clean' eaters posted a challenge yesterday (Pu?), challenging someone to eat only Mcds for one year. I'd do it in a heartbeat, and my husband is on board with the idea. I actually sent McDs corporate an email yesterday pitching the challenge-I'd blog about eating only Mcds for 365 days, they'd get some publicity and in return-they pay for all the food. It it goes further, MFP will be the first to know
What, are you thinking this is going to be the rebuttal to Super Size Me? I confidently predict that McD's won't touch your proposal with a stick.
And why would you even put yourself through it? If you adhere to the 'rules' of the challenge (I believe it was specifically stated that you would be ordering typical McD meals not the salads) then you will become very unhealthy very quickly. The SSM guy gained 24lbs in 30 days as well as myriad other health problems and it took him over a year to recover.
The rules of the challenge weren't really flushed out but if I actually did it, I would make a point to order every single thing off of the menu. That includes everything from super sized fries and Big Macs, to their salads with regular dressing, to their desserts and fancy coffees (that would probably be the hardest part of the challenge for me because I hate coffee blech).
And no, not really a rebuttal to Super Size Me-that's already been done with the documentary Fat Head, where surprises surprise that guy lost weight and improved his blood panels on his all McDonalds diet. Because he was staying within calorie and macros parameters, which is what I'd do. Also, Spurlock and Naughtton only did it for a few weeks. To my knowledge no one's done it for a full year and documented it.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »One of the 'clean' eaters posted a challenge yesterday (Pu?), challenging someone to eat only Mcds for one year. I'd do it in a heartbeat, and my husband is on board with the idea. I actually sent McDs corporate an email yesterday pitching the challenge-I'd blog about eating only Mcds for 365 days, they'd get some publicity and in return-they pay for all the food. It it goes further, MFP will be the first to know
What, are you thinking this is going to be the rebuttal to Super Size Me? I confidently predict that McD's won't touch your proposal with a stick.
And why would you even put yourself through it? If you adhere to the 'rules' of the challenge (I believe it was specifically stated that you would be ordering typical McD meals not the salads) then you will become very unhealthy very quickly. The SSM guy gained 24lbs in 30 days as well as myriad other health problems and it took him over a year to recover.
The rules of the challenge weren't really flushed out but if I actually did it, I would make a point to order every single thing off of the menu. That includes everything from super sized fries and Big Macs, to their salads with regular dressing, to their desserts and fancy coffees (that would probably be the hardest part of the challenge for me because I hate coffee blech).
And no, not really a rebuttal to Super Size Me-that's already been done with the documentary Fat Head, where surprises surprise that guy lost weight and improved his blood panels on his all McDonalds diet. Because he was staying within calorie and macros parameters, which is what I'd do. Also, Spurlock and Naughtton only did it for a few weeks. To my knowledge no one's done it for a full year and documented it.
As I remember the blood panels of the author of Fat Head weren't stellar at the end of his McDonalds experiment (he improved afterwards, adopting a HFLC diet).
This other fellow ate at McDonalds for 6 months, and yes he lost weight and improved his health:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-eats-mcdonalds-every-meal-5684791
but he was eating a "healthy" menu.
To be fair, your experiment should be as dirty as possible
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that there are actually more people who eat a primarily fast food diet in the US than there are people who eat a primarily clean diet.
Sure, and as I said I think those people are probably overrepresented in the camp of those on MFP who blather on about eating clean.
But for the most part people in the US who eat 90% fast food don't think that's a great thing to do, they just like it and don't care. It's like how I used to eat more calories than I needed (reasonably "clean" under some definitions, though) and not think that was great or healthy or to be recommended, I just didn't care.
Among people who discuss nutrition on MFP, there are those who say it's good to eat mostly nutrient dense foods and get your macros and micros covered, but it's fine to have some treats and processed foods (and even highly processed foods) are fine if they help you meet your goals. In other words, person B.
And there are people who claim that's NOT Healthy (we see them in this thread) and the only way to be healthy is to "eat clean." Of course, they don't agree on what they mean and I also suspect they don't eat that way any more than I do (even though I'm not trying to) or have coherent standards (see, e.g., Ted and his claim to avoid processed foods while eating boxed almond milk and protein powder and Chipotle, as well as who knows what else).
So long as there are claims that Person B is at a nutritional and weight loss disadvantage and the better thing to do is to aspire to be Person A, it's worth discussing.
For the record, I personally do believe that it can be harmful to aspire to be Person A and think of yourself as "not being good" or the like when failing, even though I don't think many actually are Person A. And I think the talk about nutrition that surrounds us due to the elevation of being Person A actually probably discourages many who are more like your 90% fast food person (although to be honest such people are rarer in my experience than people on weird diets, which I'm sure is a social circle thing) from making a serious effort to lose weight. The number of people who show up on MFP and think extreme measures or giving up all treats is necessary are legion, and I suspect that's discouraging--they think they have to learn complicated rules and ways of eating and not just eat a normal healthy diet with some extras.
Funny stuff. Chipotle is whole foods - what processing do you speak of? The menu is limited.
I log everything. You don't want to believe it, that's not my problem. That's yours.
Almond milk - I can make that at home - it would be the same thing - I don't want to, therefore, I outsource that to someone else.
Protein powder - Natural Force or Legion or AllMax - if you read the ingredients, it's pure stuff. Yeah is there a "process" absolutely. Natural Force is endorsed by the Paleo Foundation - the only endorsed supplement product on the market by that very foundation. They don't throw their name around.
Done with thread. Have fun. Hope you didn't stay up all night and lose sleep over this.
chiplote is not processed, really???????
the new grilled chicken at mcdonalds is "real white meat chicken" so that is not processed too, right?0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So long as there are claims that Person B is at a nutritional and weight loss disadvantage and the better thing to do is to aspire to be Person A, it's worth discussing.
Person B is either at a nutritional disadvantage or a weight loss disadvantage, not necessarily both.
If he chooses to match Person A's nutrition, he will have to consume more calories than Person A because he's including foods that are less nutrient dense. So he will be at a weight loss disadvantage.
If he chooses to match Person A's weight loss, he will not be getting the same amount of nutrition as Person A, for the same reason as above. So in that case he will be at a nutritional disadvantage.
Ted also raised the point about the amount of fibre in the foods, and how the same number of calories in does not necessarily equate to the same amount of calories being available to utilize as energy, so that also has to be factored into the weight loss equation.
The better thing to do depends on (a) how quickly you want to lose the excess weight and (b) whether you feel your life won't be worth living if you can't have your nightly Twinkie for a certain period of time. Now, I've been accused of disordered thinking in relation to food but to me statement (b) surely qualifies as the same thing.
Ever heard of a mulit vitamin? It is entirely possible that Person B would be taking one and then also eat nutrient dense foods during the day to hit their micros.
For the purpose of my example, I said that Person A and B both hit micros so their nutrition is the same.
So now you are equating a nightly twinkle with an early death, are you freaking serious?
Why don't you open your diary so we can assess how nutritious your diet is? For someone who claims to have such mightier eating habits than everyone else, I find it amusing that you have a closed food diary.
Oh, do you still get the shakes when you look at a donut?0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »I thought about this late yesterday - Person A Clean, Person B Not Clean (meaning some level of junk food not all) - Person A eats more fiber technically - so for 1500 calories per person, Person A loses the most weight. Why? Insoluble fiber is not digestible - and it's proven metabolically that not all of a whole foods calories are digestible - but certainly the processed foods eaten by Person B would be digestible - that difference right there means Person A will always lose the most weight.
That is an assumption about B. I am not a clean eater and frequently have 30g of fiber a day.
Person A will always eat more fiber - because there won't be anything processed to eat - just whole foods. Person B will always be replacing something in their 1500 calories with processed food and we all know that most processed food will not contain the fiber equivalent to Person A.
Again - we have to know what Person A and Person B are eating and have to define what a typical day would be for each. Otherwise, this conversation is pointless.
Meat has fiber? Eggs have fiber? Milk has fiber?
There are plenty of whole foods which have no fiber (or trivial amounts), so once again you're pulling stuff out of your *kitten*.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions