CI/CO vs Clean Eating
Replies
-
isulo_kura wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »Oh geez! This subject always elicits a ton of replies. I thought this was the same discussion from a month ago until I saw the date.
The definition of clean eating varies from person to person. If you are progressing the way you want and your health is fine, then that is the plan for you. Don't think you are doing things wrong based on someone else.
I have to mix things up or I will go crazy so I always make room for an indulgence but still stay under my calorie goal. I could eat unhealthy food and stay under my calorie goal but it would hinder my progress. It's all psychological and the more bad foods I eat the more I crave them. Also I tried the method of eating whatever and just working out a lot but it only made me want to eat more and it taught me no discipline. And eating well makes me feel soooo good.
care to define some of these unhealthy foods, and why they are unhealthy?
Any food that makes it difficult for me to meet my macro and calorie goals.
Just because a food wont fit into your personal goals does not make it unhealthy that is probably one of the silliest definitions of an unhealthy food i've ever heard on MFP
If I have specific health and/or fitness goals, and eating something makes it difficult for me to achieve those health health and/or fitness goals, then yes, absolutely, that something is unhealthy for me.
You may have a different context, and it may be perfectly fine for you. You can also have a different definition of "unhealthy", if you like, makes no difference to me.
:drinker:
You guys can't have it both ways - either context matters, or it doesn't. You don't get to pick and choose when, and under what circumstances, it matters.
ummm the context we always discuss is hitting macros/micros/calorie target. So if I hit my micros and calorie targets, but I go over on carbs, that does not make my day unhealthy; consequently, it would not make your day unhealthy, even though you think it does.
so lets not try to change the definition just for your unique circumstance.
0 -
womanofgod4893 wrote: »I prefer to eat "clean" just because I feel better overall. When I eat mcdonalds and all the processed foods, I tend to feel rundown. But, its your personal preference. If you're looking to lose weight, calories in/calories out is all that matters.
Were you eating it inside? You have to eat the McDonalds outside to avoid the gazebo effect.0 -
Hope over stressing details isn't a mental health goal, because it sounds like you could get stuck in a contradiction there.isulo_kura wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »Oh geez! This subject always elicits a ton of replies. I thought this was the same discussion from a month ago until I saw the date.
The definition of clean eating varies from person to person. If you are progressing the way you want and your health is fine, then that is the plan for you. Don't think you are doing things wrong based on someone else.
I have to mix things up or I will go crazy so I always make room for an indulgence but still stay under my calorie goal. I could eat unhealthy food and stay under my calorie goal but it would hinder my progress. It's all psychological and the more bad foods I eat the more I crave them. Also I tried the method of eating whatever and just working out a lot but it only made me want to eat more and it taught me no discipline. And eating well makes me feel soooo good.
care to define some of these unhealthy foods, and why they are unhealthy?
Any food that makes it difficult for me to meet my macro and calorie goals.
Just because a food wont fit into your personal goals does not make it unhealthy that is probably one of the silliest definitions of an unhealthy food i've ever heard on MFP
If I have specific health and/or fitness goals, and eating something makes it difficult for me to achieve those health health and/or fitness goals, then yes, absolutely, that something is unhealthy for me.
You may have a different context, and it may be perfectly fine for you. You can also have a different definition of "unhealthy", if you like, makes no difference to me.
:drinker:
You guys can't have it both ways - either context matters, or it doesn't. You don't get to pick and choose when, and under what circumstances, it matters.
0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »Oh geez! This subject always elicits a ton of replies. I thought this was the same discussion from a month ago until I saw the date.
The definition of clean eating varies from person to person. If you are progressing the way you want and your health is fine, then that is the plan for you. Don't think you are doing things wrong based on someone else.
I have to mix things up or I will go crazy so I always make room for an indulgence but still stay under my calorie goal. I could eat unhealthy food and stay under my calorie goal but it would hinder my progress. It's all psychological and the more bad foods I eat the more I crave them. Also I tried the method of eating whatever and just working out a lot but it only made me want to eat more and it taught me no discipline. And eating well makes me feel soooo good.
care to define some of these unhealthy foods, and why they are unhealthy?
Any food that makes it difficult for me to meet my macro and calorie goals.
Just because a food wont fit into your personal goals does not make it unhealthy that is probably one of the silliest definitions of an unhealthy food i've ever heard on MFP
If I have specific health and/or fitness goals, and eating something makes it difficult for me to achieve those health health and/or fitness goals, then yes, absolutely, that something is unhealthy for me.
You may have a different context, and it may be perfectly fine for you. You can also have a different definition of "unhealthy", if you like, makes no difference to me.
:drinker:
You guys can't have it both ways - either context matters, or it doesn't. You don't get to pick and choose when, and under what circumstances, it matters.
ummm the context we always discuss is hitting macros/micros/calorie target. So if I hit my micros and calorie targets, but I go over on carbs, that does not make my day unhealthy;
That's (a) a different statement, you've moved the goalposts again, and (b) not for me to decide for you...consequently, it would not make your day unhealthy, even though you think it does.
And now you're doing the exactt thing you complain that other people do.
so lets not try to change the definition just for your unique circumstance.
Oh, the irony.
:drinker:
0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »Oh geez! This subject always elicits a ton of replies. I thought this was the same discussion from a month ago until I saw the date.
The definition of clean eating varies from person to person. If you are progressing the way you want and your health is fine, then that is the plan for you. Don't think you are doing things wrong based on someone else.
I have to mix things up or I will go crazy so I always make room for an indulgence but still stay under my calorie goal. I could eat unhealthy food and stay under my calorie goal but it would hinder my progress. It's all psychological and the more bad foods I eat the more I crave them. Also I tried the method of eating whatever and just working out a lot but it only made me want to eat more and it taught me no discipline. And eating well makes me feel soooo good.
care to define some of these unhealthy foods, and why they are unhealthy?
Any food that makes it difficult for me to meet my macro and calorie goals.
Just because a food wont fit into your personal goals does not make it unhealthy that is probably one of the silliest definitions of an unhealthy food i've ever heard on MFP
If I have specific health and/or fitness goals, and eating something makes it difficult for me to achieve those health health and/or fitness goals, then yes, absolutely, that something is unhealthy for me.
You may have a different context, and it may be perfectly fine for you. You can also have a different definition of "unhealthy", if you like, makes no difference to me.
:drinker:
You guys can't have it both ways - either context matters, or it doesn't. You don't get to pick and choose when, and under what circumstances, it matters.
ummm the context we always discuss is hitting macros/micros/calorie target. So if I hit my micros and calorie targets, but I go over on carbs, that does not make my day unhealthy;
That's (a) a different statement, you've moved the goalposts again, and (b) not for me to decide for you...consequently, it would not make your day unhealthy, even though you think it does.
And now you're doing the exactt thing you complain that other people do.so lets not try to change the definition just for your unique circumstance.
Oh, the irony.
:drinker:
nope, I have always said that you have to hit macros/micros/calorie targets. So I am not moving anything.
0 -
A single day isn't going to affect your health.stevencloser wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »Terpnista84 wrote: »Oh geez! This subject always elicits a ton of replies. I thought this was the same discussion from a month ago until I saw the date.
The definition of clean eating varies from person to person. If you are progressing the way you want and your health is fine, then that is the plan for you. Don't think you are doing things wrong based on someone else.
I have to mix things up or I will go crazy so I always make room for an indulgence but still stay under my calorie goal. I could eat unhealthy food and stay under my calorie goal but it would hinder my progress. It's all psychological and the more bad foods I eat the more I crave them. Also I tried the method of eating whatever and just working out a lot but it only made me want to eat more and it taught me no discipline. And eating well makes me feel soooo good.
care to define some of these unhealthy foods, and why they are unhealthy?
Any food that makes it difficult for me to meet my macro and calorie goals.
Just because a food wont fit into your personal goals does not make it unhealthy that is probably one of the silliest definitions of an unhealthy food i've ever heard on MFP
If I have specific health goals, and eating something makes it difficult for me to achieve those health goals, then yes, absolutely, that something is unhealthy for me.
You may have a different context, and it may be perfectly fine for you.
You can also have a different definition of "unhealthy", if you like, makes no difference to me. :drinker:
You have health goals that depend on a single food choice made on a single day?
I have daily goals that are dependent on my daily choices, yes.
I also have weekly goals that depend on weekly choices.
And monthly....and etc.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think what we are really talking about is some people eat absurd diets (and assume everyone else does) and rather than merely cutting down on sugar or fast food or the like cut it out and of course feel better. And they assume that most people ate like they used to when of course most people do not and most people know what a healthy diet is. There's no real need to go from 100% fast food (or sugar) to none, and if you do chances are you will miss it. I don't eat fast food and don't miss it because I never really ate much and don't like it, but that's why making some big point about cutting it out is not interesting to me. My guess is for those whom that's a big thing it's not a good approach. Similarly, I didn't find cutting out added sugar a big thing, so added it back in. If someone really eats so much that's a big deal, they are going to want it again. (And personally I did, and see no reason not to have it.)
I think the diet you call absurd is more common than you think. A lot of people eat too much food that is low-value/low-satiety/low-nutrient. I think that is why there is an obesity epidemic. It's true that some might gain on what people call "clean" foods, but it's way harder to do that. Check out forums here and elsewhere, where bodybuilders strive to consume as much as possible on a "clean" diet for their gainz. It's simply not as easy to pound down 3000 calories of chicken and broccoli as it is to overindulge on chicken wings and fries, or pasta carbonara (with garlic bread, and a dessert...). Satiety tends to level off when people eat a certain way. I don't even want to give it a name at this point
(Also - I am not saying everyone should eat chicken and broccoli.)
I think we actually agreed that the holy rollers who eat 0% treats are probably few, and that most people wind up doing 80/20, and use these different heuristics to think through their meals and days. I'm not bothered if they're not entirely self-consistent, as long as they're seeing results that promote normal weight (and health). I really haven't noticed rudeness, so I can't speak to that.
Curious: what offends you about people looking for recipes? Or about the idea that some people don't know how to cook? It's a fact, there are people who don't know how to cook. Or people who cooked in ways that didn't serve their goals and now want to learn something else.
[Deleted a bunch of comments because the nested quotes weren't quoting well.]
I agree that bad diets are common, after all, that's why we have the term Standard American Diet.
The Standard American Diet in 3 Simple Charts
US obesity and diabetes rates are among the globe's very highest. Why? On her blog, the NYU nutritionist and food-politics expert Marion Nestle recently pointed (hat-tip, RealFood.org) to this telling chart on how we spend our grocery money, from the USDA's Amber Waves publication:
So, we do a pretty good job eating enough potatoes. But the healthier, more brightly colored vegetables like kale and carrots, no so much. We spend four times the amount on refined grains the USDA thinks is proper, and about a fifth of the target expenditure in whole grains. We spend nearly 14 percent of our at-home food budgets on sugar and candies, and another 8 percent on premade frozen and fridge entrees. Whole fruit barley accounts for less than 5 percent of our grocery bill. And so on—a pretty dismal picture.
That chart deals with at-home expenditures. What about our food choices out in the world? The USDA article has more. This chart shows that we're getting more and more of our sustenance outside of our own kitchens:
And while the article doesn't offer comparable data to the above at-home chart about expenditures outside the home, it does deliver evidence that our eating out habits are pretty dire as well:
Pointless in context of the boards. As is the issue, really, of the general obesity epidemic in this discussion.
Waving SAD around is a strawman in a lot of discussions around here.
If you compare how you eat vs. SAD while you're discussing things with a bunch of other conscientiously dieting people, how exactly are they supposed to interpret your comments?
What does SAD have to do with this whole discussion? What does what the general public eats have to do when it comes down to what to do when it comes to losing fat (which is, after all, the topic of the thread)?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.
Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.
P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »To be fair to kshama, the canned soup in recipes thing was a challenge to my point about how it's silly to ask for "clean eating" recipes, just use a cookbook.
I don't think the fact that you can find cookbooks that incorporate canned foods (or pre-made crackers or the like), which of course you can, really counters my point that most regular cookbooks generally have recipes that are based on whole foods. The ones that don't tend to be themed (like the crock pot one or the I Hate to Cook one or Semi-Homemade, of course).
But I'm not sure if her point was supposed to be that canned foods are scary (although perhaps it was) vs. just that some recipes use such ingredients.
I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes. (Which, happily, are easily available all over the internet, as well as in bookstores, which I understand still exist.)
Fair enough; however, I'm not sure why I understand why she chose photos of the ingredients of the convenience foods themselves. Why wouldn't she show pictures of the recipes calling for those convenience foods? I'd be willing to bet that the source of the photo of the soup with the circles around certain "scary" ingredients came from a biased source, at least, whose intention was to steer people away from that food due to the ingredients.
Not arguing with you, I just think that if that were the point that kshama was trying to argue, she could've gone about it in a better way.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »To be fair to kshama, the canned soup in recipes thing was a challenge to my point about how it's silly to ask for "clean eating" recipes, just use a cookbook.
I don't think the fact that you can find cookbooks that incorporate canned foods (or pre-made crackers or the like), which of course you can, really counters my point that most regular cookbooks generally have recipes that are based on whole foods. The ones that don't tend to be themed (like the crock pot one or the I Hate to Cook one or Semi-Homemade, of course).
But I'm not sure if her point was supposed to be that canned foods are scary (although perhaps it was) vs. just that some recipes use such ingredients.
I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes. (Which, happily, are easily available all over the internet, as well as in bookstores, which I understand still exist.)
Yes, thanks for clearing that up. My point was indeed that there are cookbooks that use convenience foods, although I myself have only owned two of them - the other one is the Better Homes book, a gift from a friend for whom it was a family favorite.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.
Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.
P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.
You wouldn't call this (THE cookbook, in my opinion) a clean cookbook?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
The fact that CI/CO ultimately affects weight is kind of irrelevant to overall health, until you're dealing in being overweight or underweight in a way that negatively affects your well-being.
Disclaimer: Well-read on the topic but no background nutrition or science. Grain of salt with things I say (or a lot of salt).0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.
Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.
P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.
You wouldn't call this (THE cookbook, in my opinion) a clean cookbook?
(removed image)
Of course, that's a great suggestion. The next time someone is looking for clean recipes you should mention it.
0 -
I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...0 -
BILLBRYTAN wrote: »The Center for Disease Control states that two out of every three Americans are overweight today, and 35% of those individuals fall into the category of obese. While many place the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the individuals, there are many factors other than personal choice and will power that influence what we eat. One of them is malnutrition.
We don’t usually think of a person who is overweight as someone who is malnourished. Historically malnourishment was associated with underweight and starvation. The National Institutes of Health define malnutrition as the condition that occurs when your body does not get enough nutrients. That can occur even when one is eating enormous amounts of foods ,when the foods have little or no nutritional value.
The human brain is incredibly intelligent and sensitive to what goes on in the body. It will signal the lungs to breathe, the kidneys to flush, the liver to detox. It also monitors the nutrients that may or may not be present in the bloodstream. When your diet primarily consists of low-nutrient foods, your brain will not be happy with what your body has to work with and It will make you hungry.
Here are a few examples of what happens to you when you eat foods with few nutrients:
you will initially feel energized, but within an hour or so you will begin to feel hungary and/or tired
you will be distracted by your hunger, unable to focus and concentrate
if you eat more low nutrient foods, you will repeat the cycle of energy and fatigue
over the course of the day, you will consume many calories but few nutrients
you will become overweight, tired and hungry
Low nutrient foods are highly processed foods. They usually come in a box. High nutrient foods are fresh foods like fruits, vegetables and whole grains. You might also add beans, quality meat, fish, poultry, eggs and nuts to a list of high nutrient foods.
Here is what happens when you eat high nutrient foods:
You will be consuming multiple nutrients and fiber that work together to provide satiety and energy
you will feel energized and focused between meals
you will not feel hungry or tired between meals
You will find that because quality foods have a better ratio of nutrients to calories, you won’t overeat. (It’s easy to eat a big bag of low nutrient chips but highly unlikely you will eat a bag of apples in one sitting)
There is often a sense of shame or embarrassment associated with obesity. When you come to the understanding that the underlying cause may be malnourishment, then you can make changes in your food that will eliminate hunger and low energy and begin to shed unwanted pounds. .
This all resonates with me; good points and very empowering too! Knowledge of nutrition can empower and motivate people to lose weight so much better than shaming them can.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.
Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.
P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.
You wouldn't call this (THE cookbook, in my opinion) a clean cookbook?
(removed image)
Of course, that's a great suggestion. The next time someone is looking for clean recipes you should mention it.
Just saying - this should be just as readily available to anyone as a cookbook that calls for convenience foods. It just depends on one's cooking style and preferences.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think what we are really talking about is some people eat absurd diets (and assume everyone else does) and rather than merely cutting down on sugar or fast food or the like cut it out and of course feel better. And they assume that most people ate like they used to when of course most people do not and most people know what a healthy diet is. There's no real need to go from 100% fast food (or sugar) to none, and if you do chances are you will miss it. I don't eat fast food and don't miss it because I never really ate much and don't like it, but that's why making some big point about cutting it out is not interesting to me. My guess is for those whom that's a big thing it's not a good approach. Similarly, I didn't find cutting out added sugar a big thing, so added it back in. If someone really eats so much that's a big deal, they are going to want it again. (And personally I did, and see no reason not to have it.)
I think the diet you call absurd is more common than you think. A lot of people eat too much food that is low-value/low-satiety/low-nutrient. I think that is why there is an obesity epidemic. It's true that some might gain on what people call "clean" foods, but it's way harder to do that. Check out forums here and elsewhere, where bodybuilders strive to consume as much as possible on a "clean" diet for their gainz. It's simply not as easy to pound down 3000 calories of chicken and broccoli as it is to overindulge on chicken wings and fries, or pasta carbonara (with garlic bread, and a dessert...). Satiety tends to level off when people eat a certain way. I don't even want to give it a name at this point (Also - I am not saying everyone should eat chicken and broccoli.)
I think we actually agreed that the holy rollers who eat 0% treats are probably few, and that most people wind up doing 80/20, and use these different heuristics to think through their meals and days. I'm not bothered if they're not entirely self-consistent, as long as they're seeing results that promote normal weight (and health). I really haven't noticed rudeness, so I can't speak to that.
Curious: what offends you about people looking for recipes? Or about the idea that some people don't know how to cook? It's a fact, there are people who don't know how to cook. Or people who cooked in ways that didn't serve their goals and now want to learn something else.
[Deleted a bunch of comments because the nested quotes weren't quoting well.]
I agree that bad diets are common, after all, that's why we have the term Standard American Diet.
The Standard American Diet in 3 Simple Charts
US obesity and diabetes rates are among the globe's very highest. Why? On her blog, the NYU nutritionist and food-politics expert Marion Nestle recently pointed (hat-tip, RealFood.org) to this telling chart on how we spend our grocery money, from the USDA's Amber Waves publication:
So, we do a pretty good job eating enough potatoes. But the healthier, more brightly colored vegetables like kale and carrots, no so much. We spend four times the amount on refined grains the USDA thinks is proper, and about a fifth of the target expenditure in whole grains. We spend nearly 14 percent of our at-home food budgets on sugar and candies, and another 8 percent on premade frozen and fridge entrees. Whole fruit barley accounts for less than 5 percent of our grocery bill. And so on—a pretty dismal picture.
That chart deals with at-home expenditures. What about our food choices out in the world? The USDA article has more. This chart shows that we're getting more and more of our sustenance outside of our own kitchens:
And while the article doesn't offer comparable data to the above at-home chart about expenditures outside the home, it does deliver evidence that our eating out habits are pretty dire as well:
Pointless in context of the boards. As is the issue, really, of the general obesity epidemic in this discussion.
Waving SAD around is a strawman in a lot of discussions around here.
If you compare how you eat vs. SAD while you're discussing things with a bunch of other conscientiously dieting people, how exactly are they supposed to interpret your comments?
What does SAD have to do with this whole discussion? What does what the general public eats have to do when it comes down to what to do when it comes to losing fat (which is, after all, the topic of the thread)?
While the regulars may be "conscientiously dieting people," it's a stretch to apply this to all new posters as well, judging from what I see in their diaries and questions.
0 -
I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
The fact that CI/CO ultimately affects weight is kind of irrelevant to overall health, until you're dealing in being overweight or underweight in a way that negatively affects your well-being.
how do you know the overweight person is happier than the skinny person? How do you know he is healthier? What if the slightly overweight guy has clogged arteries, and the skinny guy does not?
that is a pretty broad statement to make.0 -
If you blow a day, it's gone, you can never get it back, and you can't ever make it up, because time is a one way arrow. You can (probably) recover, but once you've blown your goals for a day, that day's gone.
If you don't work at the timescale of days, that's fine - same applies to weeks. Or months. Or years.
Work at the timescale you're comfortable with. Make your goals compatible with your timescale. Choose foods that are "healthy" for those goals, avoid foods that aren't.
The rest is just semantics.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
I... I.... used to eat a primarily hot pocket-based diet and I'm not terribly proud of it. Needless to say radical change was needed.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
well personally I'm here for the hot pockets
but my main objective is Benzes, Lexuses
coppin Rolexuses
gettin bigga than Texases0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
I... I.... used to eat a primarily hot pocket-based diet and I'm not terribly proud of it. Needless to say radical change was needed.
But would you say that someone who eats a varied and balanced diet which meets nutritional needs, leads an active lifestyle, and occasionally a Hot Pocket, would be less healthy or feel worse than you, who never eats Hot Pockets?0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
I... I.... used to eat a primarily hot pocket-based diet and I'm not terribly proud of it. Needless to say radical change was needed.
But would you say that someone who eats a varied and balanced diet which meets nutritional needs, leads an active lifestyle, and occasionally a Hot Pocket, would be less healthy or feel worse than you, who never eats Hot Pockets?
Oh no, of course not. I'm not crazy.
I had one of these a month ago and I'm still happy and healthy:
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.
Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.
P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.
You wouldn't call this (THE cookbook, in my opinion) a clean cookbook?
(removed image)
Of course, that's a great suggestion. The next time someone is looking for clean recipes you should mention it.
Just saying - this should be just as readily available to anyone as a cookbook that calls for convenience foods. It just depends on one's cooking style and preferences.
Except it's not and hasn't been for years -- especially not in the era of boneless, skinless chicken breasts and ground turkey. People can't find what they don't know to look for which is why they post and ask for recommendations in the first place.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
I... I.... used to eat a primarily hot pocket-based diet and I'm not terribly proud of it. Needless to say radical change was needed.
But would you say that someone who eats a varied and balanced diet which meets nutritional needs, leads an active lifestyle, and occasionally a Hot Pocket, would be less healthy or feel worse than you, who never eats Hot Pockets?
Oh no, of course not. I'm not crazy.
I had one of these a month ago and I'm still happy and healthy:
[yummy doughnut chicken sandwich]
Okay, that is all anyone here on these boards is arguing when we argue moderation. We are saying that you can have a diet that consists mainly of nutrient-dense foods (hate the word clean) and have some "junk" food in moderation and still be perfectly healthy.
That looks delicious, btw.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.
Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.
P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.
You wouldn't call this (THE cookbook, in my opinion) a clean cookbook?
(removed image)
Of course, that's a great suggestion. The next time someone is looking for clean recipes you should mention it.
Just saying - this should be just as readily available to anyone as a cookbook that calls for convenience foods. It just depends on one's cooking style and preferences.
Except it's not and hasn't been for years -- especially not in the era of boneless, skinless chicken breasts and ground turkey. People can't find what they don't know to look for which is why they post and ask for recommendations in the first place.
Sorry, you lost me. Are you saying that recipes that call for boneless, skinless chicken breasts or ground turkey are not clean? Or are you just saying that those ingredients were not prevalent in the Julia Child era of teaching home cooks?
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think what we are really talking about is some people eat absurd diets (and assume everyone else does) and rather than merely cutting down on sugar or fast food or the like cut it out and of course feel better. And they assume that most people ate like they used to when of course most people do not and most people know what a healthy diet is. There's no real need to go from 100% fast food (or sugar) to none, and if you do chances are you will miss it. I don't eat fast food and don't miss it because I never really ate much and don't like it, but that's why making some big point about cutting it out is not interesting to me. My guess is for those whom that's a big thing it's not a good approach. Similarly, I didn't find cutting out added sugar a big thing, so added it back in. If someone really eats so much that's a big deal, they are going to want it again. (And personally I did, and see no reason not to have it.)
I think the diet you call absurd is more common than you think. A lot of people eat too much food that is low-value/low-satiety/low-nutrient. I think that is why there is an obesity epidemic. It's true that some might gain on what people call "clean" foods, but it's way harder to do that. Check out forums here and elsewhere, where bodybuilders strive to consume as much as possible on a "clean" diet for their gainz. It's simply not as easy to pound down 3000 calories of chicken and broccoli as it is to overindulge on chicken wings and fries, or pasta carbonara (with garlic bread, and a dessert...). Satiety tends to level off when people eat a certain way. I don't even want to give it a name at this point (Also - I am not saying everyone should eat chicken and broccoli.)
I think we actually agreed that the holy rollers who eat 0% treats are probably few, and that most people wind up doing 80/20, and use these different heuristics to think through their meals and days. I'm not bothered if they're not entirely self-consistent, as long as they're seeing results that promote normal weight (and health). I really haven't noticed rudeness, so I can't speak to that.
Curious: what offends you about people looking for recipes? Or about the idea that some people don't know how to cook? It's a fact, there are people who don't know how to cook. Or people who cooked in ways that didn't serve their goals and now want to learn something else.
[Deleted a bunch of comments because the nested quotes weren't quoting well.]
I agree that bad diets are common, after all, that's why we have the term Standard American Diet.
The Standard American Diet in 3 Simple Charts
US obesity and diabetes rates are among the globe's very highest. Why? On her blog, the NYU nutritionist and food-politics expert Marion Nestle recently pointed (hat-tip, RealFood.org) to this telling chart on how we spend our grocery money, from the USDA's Amber Waves publication:
So, we do a pretty good job eating enough potatoes. But the healthier, more brightly colored vegetables like kale and carrots, no so much. We spend four times the amount on refined grains the USDA thinks is proper, and about a fifth of the target expenditure in whole grains. We spend nearly 14 percent of our at-home food budgets on sugar and candies, and another 8 percent on premade frozen and fridge entrees. Whole fruit barley accounts for less than 5 percent of our grocery bill. And so on—a pretty dismal picture.
That chart deals with at-home expenditures. What about our food choices out in the world? The USDA article has more. This chart shows that we're getting more and more of our sustenance outside of our own kitchens:
And while the article doesn't offer comparable data to the above at-home chart about expenditures outside the home, it does deliver evidence that our eating out habits are pretty dire as well:
Pointless in context of the boards. As is the issue, really, of the general obesity epidemic in this discussion.
Waving SAD around is a strawman in a lot of discussions around here.
If you compare how you eat vs. SAD while you're discussing things with a bunch of other conscientiously dieting people, how exactly are they supposed to interpret your comments?
What does SAD have to do with this whole discussion? What does what the general public eats have to do when it comes down to what to do when it comes to losing fat (which is, after all, the topic of the thread)?
While the regulars may be "conscientiously dieting people," it's a stretch to apply this to all new posters as well, judging from what I see in their diaries and questions.
Agreed. There are lots of people here essentially SADing, or struggling to escape SAD.
And the problem is you can't just scale down SAD, because you'll end up with poor macros.0 -
I don't think anyone is suggesting eating nothing but hot pockets. That said, if you have hit your macros/micros and feel like a hot pocket, there is nothing inherently unhealthy about that...Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.0 -
I don't think anyone is suggesting eating nothing but hot pockets. That said, if you have hit your macros/micros and feel like a hot pocket, there is nothing inherently unhealthy about that...Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Yes.
IF.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions