The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Today's meal post-lunch
So you fit person B. Various processed foods (almond milk, protein powder) and fast food (Chipotle).
So do I, of course.
I wonder why you are arguing so hard that person A must have an advantage.0 -
I tried really hard, but I can't. I was a clean eater. I am not a special snow flake.
I was 220lbs. I decided to weight train and eat clean, very strictly, no cheats for 6 months.
I hit my goal of being in the 140's 8 months after beginning.
When I had a cheat day I would binge.
I never tracked or weighed food. I didn't know about MFP.
In the end, I was smaller but still mushy.
I may have been under eating gravely when I think about my meals.
I started researching diet discovered IIFYM (which is not just junk food), once I got my deficit and macros dialed it even on a deficit, my body changed, my weight never changed.
It took a year to see the changes.
I have a balanced diet, friend me and check my diary, I love to cook, If I want a brownie I eat it and track it. A calorie is a calorie. No biggie. Fit those calories in, stay within your macros.
Now I don't freak out if I have to dine out. You don't have to wash your Thin Mints before enjoying to make it clean. Fit it into your calories and macros. Tadaa.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not seeing how this relates to the OP's hypothetical or the topic of this thread at all.
First, as others have said, no one disputes that metabolic adaptation happens.
It happens whether you "clean" eat or not, under the right circumstances.
As for:Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs.
Nope, not according to the actual experts: http://www.hormone.org/hormones-and-health/myth-vs-fact/adrenal-fatigueThere's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
Why is that? I'm essentially the same age as you, and I lost weight just fine.
Of course, neither you nor I actually eat clean under many of the relevant definitions (and probably we both do under others, who knows). It's generally meaningless and just something people claim to act superior.
0 -
It's easier to eat 1500 clean than 1500 junk.
Argh. What does this have to do with the hypothetical? Do people really find it impossible to believe that someone not attempting to eat 100% clean is also not eating 100% "junk"? You realize that says more about you than anything else, right?
Edit: realized I left out an oh-so-important not.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Once upon a time I collected a list of definitions of clean eating from these forums. These were all given as off the cuff answers to a question about what clean eating is. I formatted a few of them to match others, but most of them are copy/pasted directly from the posts in which they were posted.
Nothing but minimally processed foods.
Absolutely no processed foods.
Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
Nothing at all with a barcode.
Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
No added preservatives.
No added chemicals.
No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
No added sugar.
No added refined sugar.
Swap white sugar for brown.
No "white" foods.
Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
Only pesticide-free foods.
By some of these definitions, Fritos are a clean food.
I remember that thread.
My favorite response (and one I'd not heard before): "Don't eat products that have a TV commercial"
The poster apparently didn't realize that bananas, beef, corn, potatoes, etc - all had TV commercials. Who could forget Chiquita Banana?
Don't forget the Incredible Edible Egg! It took a tough man to raise tender chickens too. Are they unclean now?
I think all this is proving is that advertising is insidious and that I possibly have seen too much tv in my lifetime.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
was anyone saying that metabolic adaptation is not a thing????
I didn't see anyone suggest it. I am pretty sure the majority of us know about adaptive thermogenesis.
Although, I do believe the assertion of "metabolics" is blown way out of proportion.
The other thing getting lumped in with the argument of "metabolics" is the whole issue of how many calories of the food are utilized by the body issue.
I believe I saw Ted quote the whole 70/30 protein split as if it were fact, and if I'm not mistaken, aren't those findings still preliminary? We don't KNOW anything yet?
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
You can minimize and/or eliminate metabolic adaptation through weight training and higher protein diets. In fact, I will see if I can find the article from the same website that did an experiment with an 800 calorie diet with two groups of people... one with resistance training and one with cardio. The cardio group had a down tick in metabolic rate, while WT group had an up tick.
Edit: here is the NIH study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
Interesting study. WT group also lost no lbm, on 800 cals per day! (Brutal ugg).
here is a similar one about limiting metabolic adaptation through exercise...
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004377#pone-0004377-g0040 -
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).
0 -
"Highly processed foods are made from combinations of unprocessed food, minimally processed
food and processed food ingredients.4 Many are designed with consumer convenience in mind.4
They are often portable, can be eaten anywhere (while driving, working at the office and watching
TV, for example) and require little or no preparation.4,11 Discussions of “processed foods” in the
popular media often refer to products in this category. Highly processed foods include snacks and
desserts, such as cereal bars, biscuits, chips, cakes and pastries, ice cream and soft drinks;4 as well
as breads, pasta, breakfast cereals and infant formula.4,5,11 Highly processed animal products
include smoked, canned, salted and cured meats11 and products made from extruded remnants of
meat, such as nuggets, hot dogs and some sausages and burgers.5 Many vegetarian alternatives to
meat are also highly processed.11 Highly processed foods are made using techniques like mixing,
baking, frying, curing, smoking and the addition of vitamins and minerals.4
Given the wide variety of foods that could qualify as highly processed and the lack of any clear,
widely accepted criteria for defining them as such, it is difficult to make any generalizations about
the nutritional value of highly processed foods. Some health professionals, however, have
expressed concern over the growing popularity of certain highly processed foods in diets."
So baking something makes it highly processed? If I bake chicken does that mean it is highly processed?
If I make a turkey sandwich and can hold it in my hand and eat while watching tv it is then highly processed?
This is why this whole processed = bad argument gets ludicrous.
If you refer to the link I gave you, cooking food at home doesn't change it's category. Obviously the categories aren't perfect, they're just general guidelines. Although baking the chicken would significantly increase the calories one could absorb from it.
You seem pretty determined to simply argue semantics. Since there aren't perfect definitions for most of the terms we've used I guess you could argue semantics all day long.
Oh I get it now, you are supposed to eat the chicken raw, and then you absorb less calories. You know, because you are busy puking your guts up from salmonella... NOW I understand the difference between processed and unprocessed.0 -
Projection. It's got to be projection.
If they had 1500 calories to use freely, that's what they'd eat.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
Um, that was her answer? It's a direct quote? She doesn't know what she's talking about.
It's quite clear.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
Just curious...who ever said 1500 calories was a VLCD? Isn't that usually in the 800-1200 range?
My intake before exercise is set at around 1500 to lose a pound a week, which I feel is quite reasonable, even at 5'9".0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
Just curious...who ever said 1500 calories was a VLCD? Isn't that usually in the 800-1200 range?
My intake before exercise is set at around 1500 to lose a pound a week, which I feel is quite reasonable, even at 5'9".
1500 is typically on the lower end for men. It's similar to 1200 for women.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
Just curious...who ever said 1500 calories was a VLCD? Isn't that usually in the 800-1200 range?
My intake before exercise is set at around 1500 to lose a pound a week, which I feel is quite reasonable, even at 5'9".
1500 is typically on the lower end for men. It's similar to 1200 for women.
But the post I quoted specifically says "women."0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
Just curious...who ever said 1500 calories was a VLCD? Isn't that usually in the 800-1200 range?
My intake before exercise is set at around 1500 to lose a pound a week, which I feel is quite reasonable, even at 5'9".
1500 is typically on the lower end for men. It's similar to 1200 for women.
But the post I quoted specifically says "women."
I was wondering about that too.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
was anyone saying that metabolic adaptation is not a thing????
I didn't see anyone suggest it. I am pretty sure the majority of us know about adaptive thermogenesis.
Although, I do believe the assertion of "metabolics" is blown way out of proportion.
The other thing getting lumped in with the argument of "metabolics" is the whole issue of how many calories of the food are utilized by the body issue.
I believe I saw Ted quote the whole 70/30 protein split as if it were fact, and if I'm not mistaken, aren't those findings still preliminary? We don't KNOW anything yet?
I am way behind on my own thread now ..
but assuming there is an error in how calories are accounted for and we are all using the same system, doesn't that mean that we are all subject to the same errors, so the difference is negligible?0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
You can minimize and/or eliminate metabolic adaptation through weight training and higher protein diets. In fact, I will see if I can find the article from the same website that did an experiment with an 800 calorie diet with two groups of people... one with resistance training and one with cardio. The cardio group had a down tick in metabolic rate, while WT group had an up tick.
Edit: here is the NIH study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
Interesting study. WT group also lost no lbm, on 800 cals per day! (Brutal ugg).
here is a similar one about limiting metabolic adaptation through exercise...
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004377#pone-0004377-g004
That's interesting, too, thanks. It seems like, while we can lose weight without it, exercise is key for sustainability and maintenance (and being able to eat!). Besides regular exercise, I've been trying to fidget more (by "fidget" I mean salsa dance while waiting for the microwave, for ex. ☺️).
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 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.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Today's meal post-lunch
So you fit person B. Various processed foods (almond milk, protein powder) and fast food (Chipotle).
So do I, of course.
I wonder why you are arguing so hard that person A must have an advantage.
This is what I don't understand (and the post yesterday, with the person stating that she ate 'clean' and then gave examples of things like store bought yogurt and coffee creamer). I think most of us are actually eating the same kinds of food, it's just that some people are throwing an arbitrary label on theirs, like that somehow makes their almond milk better than my almond milk. Really, it boggles the mind lol.
eta: actually my milk is far superior, since I have chocolate cashew milk right now. It's the milk of the gods. For real
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions