CI/CO vs Clean Eating
Options
Replies
-
auntstephie321 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »TrailBlazinMN wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The answer is no, no they will not.
If someone eats healthily all day long, meets their macro- and micro-nutrient goals for the day, and lives an active and healthy lifestyle, a bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies at the end of the day is going to have zero effect on health or performance.
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt -I think it's pretty awesome you know how food affects every single person in this world. By the way, not everyone can just have one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies. There is reason why some people need to eat "super clean", just like alcoholics can't have a sip and drug users can't just have one hit/line/etc.slideaway1 wrote: »On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.
This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.
That's not what I said.
Also, if someone can't have just one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies, then their problem is with the ability to moderate their intake. That is something that they need to learn to do, and cutting those foods out completely forever is likely not going to teach them anything. Are we really expected to go the rest of our lives without eating another piece of birthday cake? Without eating out at a restaurant with friends or on a date? That's just not realistic.
I guarantee you that anyone (barring a medical reason that requires them to avoid any particular food/ingredient) who is healthy, active, and who eats mostly nutrient-dense foods is not going to have any negative effects from having something sweet or some "junk" food evrery now and then. You don't get extra credit for eating nothing but "clean" foods 100% of the time.
Why to the above bolded...
Why do you think that everyone has to learn to moderate a certain food if they are willing to give it up.
I have never and probably never will be able to moderate peanut butter M&Ms...I have given the up. I am okay with that. I still think about them sometimes but it has been over two years since I have eaten them.
I can live without them...I can not however learn to just eat 1 of those little guys.
Just my opinion. If I enjoy something that much, I'd like to be able to fit them in from time to time for my own mental health rather than give them up completely. I think it's a healthy approach, and it proves that a specific food does not control you. You have the power to eat the food, and you alone have the power to stop eating the food. I don't want to give that food the power.
Plus, moderation is a handy skill to have for every aspect in life. I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
The M&M didn't control me...I walked away from it.
Simply because someone chooses to give up a certain food doesn't mean that they don't have control of other aspects of their life. I control my spending...I can walk away from a sale rack. There are more than enough things in life to moderate besides one food.
Simply because you choose to moderate a food doesn't make you somehow better than someone who doesn't. It takes will power in either case. Besides...most of us on this site aren't experts at moderating...or we probably wouldn't be on this site counting every little morsel of food that enters our mouth.
I'm glad that you've found something that works for you, truly. I have already established in this thread that I have nothing against people who choose to cut out certain foods. My issue comes when people preach that everyone should give up certain foods to be somehow healthier, which you have not done.
Perhaps my wording was not the best choice (I'm half asleep today with a wine hangover), but I stand by the point that I was trying to make: the person in @TrailBlazinMN 's argument had an issue with moderation, and in that case, eating "clean" isn't necessarily going to be the answer. People can still enjoy the foods that they love within reason and still be healthy and lose weight. There are exceptions to this rule, such as people with BED, diabetes, insulin resistance, food allergies, etc. I am not referring to the exceptions to the rule - I am talking in very general terms.
And you're right, I had trouble moderating ALL foods before I found MFP. I was ecstatic when I learned that I don't have to give up foods like ice cream, or cookies, or Lucky Charms in order to lose weight. I've learned to moderate my intake and developed a healthier attitude towards food.
I've been trying to find where @trailblazinmn was preaching that clean eating was the only way or that he was better than anyone else eating a different way, was it deleted?
I did see where he commented what his methods were and suggested a personal experiment to see if it helped op feel any different, and then your subsequent defensive reaction assuming that he meant everyone had to eat "clean" to feel their best.
It amazes me how fast these threads that initially have great information or suggestions from all angles turn into a battle of which method is better. Then both views have to twist the other to extremes to fit their argument, when in fact they are basically saying the same thing.
Eat what you like to meet your goals. What you eat doesn't affect me and what I eat doesn't affect you. I'm not better than you for eating the way I do and you're not better than me for eating the way you do.
How about this:
slideaway1 wrote:On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.
TrailblazinMN responded:This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.
Implicit in this is a claim that pizza (apparently all pizza everywhere, no matter how it's made) is "low quality" and people used to eating "high quality" foods become too refined to tolerate it (I guess being "refined" is good for people, even if not sugar and grains). It's also an assertion that most people (the exceptions are few and far between) will feel bad if they eat lower nutrient foods (again, supposedly like pizza) or apparently some ice cream for dessert.
I'm not really sure why steak and sweet potatoes and some asparagus (a lovely dinner) would be so dramatically different in its effect on me (or at least those more sensitive to "low quality food" than me than the thin crust stagoni pizza with artichokes, ham, mushroom, and an egg, plus cheese and tomato sauce, that I had last weekend). I mean, the steak dinner probably has more protein, but when I have pizza I usually eat more protein earlier in the day for that reason. The framing of the attack seems to say the problem with the pizza is the refined carbs, but that would mean that eating any white bread or pasta or, I guess, white rice would make us feel bad and athletic performance suffer, and that certainly doesn't seem to be the case for many or most (including major countries where such foods are quite common).
So I do think this is an assertion that is worth challenging.
If you want to say that you personally find it easier to eat in a particular way, that's great and I won't challenge that so long as you don't claim that it is healthier than how the rest of us eat.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Dieting thoughts seem to be more like religion than science...
No they aren't. I've never seen god, but I have seen the science behind CICO.
You've never seen god because you can't get Talenti Sea Salt Caramel where you are. Sorry, love.
0 -
Usain Bolt won a gold medal scarfing down chicken mcnuggets (about 1000(!) of them) in the two weeks leading up to the Beijing Olympics, where he set the world record in the 100m.“At first I ate a box of 20 for lunch, then another for dinner. The next day I had two boxes for breakfast, one for lunch and then another couple in the evening. I even grabbed some fries and an apple pie to go with it,” he writes.
He estimates that during the 10 days he spent in Beijing, he downed 100 nuggets every 24 hours. That equals 1,000 chunks of chicken. “Man, I should have gotten a gold medal for all that chowing down,” he writes.
0 -
I have no idea why people feel the need to be "versus" all the time. Isn't MFP about Fitness and Health? A lot on here are calorie counting and can still eat whole foods. Health isn't just about how we look - it's our organs, heart, brain etc...So...
Everyone knows that 1200 calories of fudge is not better for you than 1200 calories of fruit and veg. There is no need to be pedantic and pick holes in every post. But you will still lose weight on that fudge.
Btw ice cream etc isn't an non-clean eating food for a lot of people (like myself) - but ice cream containing a lot of preservatives and additives is. It depends on your mindset and how you see it as far as I am aware.
Be kind and be helpful.
FB0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »auntstephie321 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »TrailBlazinMN wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The answer is no, no they will not.
If someone eats healthily all day long, meets their macro- and micro-nutrient goals for the day, and lives an active and healthy lifestyle, a bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies at the end of the day is going to have zero effect on health or performance.
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt -I think it's pretty awesome you know how food affects every single person in this world. By the way, not everyone can just have one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies. There is reason why some people need to eat "super clean", just like alcoholics can't have a sip and drug users can't just have one hit/line/etc.slideaway1 wrote: »On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.
This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.
That's not what I said.
Also, if someone can't have just one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies, then their problem is with the ability to moderate their intake. That is something that they need to learn to do, and cutting those foods out completely forever is likely not going to teach them anything. Are we really expected to go the rest of our lives without eating another piece of birthday cake? Without eating out at a restaurant with friends or on a date? That's just not realistic.
I guarantee you that anyone (barring a medical reason that requires them to avoid any particular food/ingredient) who is healthy, active, and who eats mostly nutrient-dense foods is not going to have any negative effects from having something sweet or some "junk" food evrery now and then. You don't get extra credit for eating nothing but "clean" foods 100% of the time.
Why to the above bolded...
Why do you think that everyone has to learn to moderate a certain food if they are willing to give it up.
I have never and probably never will be able to moderate peanut butter M&Ms...I have given the up. I am okay with that. I still think about them sometimes but it has been over two years since I have eaten them.
I can live without them...I can not however learn to just eat 1 of those little guys.
Just my opinion. If I enjoy something that much, I'd like to be able to fit them in from time to time for my own mental health rather than give them up completely. I think it's a healthy approach, and it proves that a specific food does not control you. You have the power to eat the food, and you alone have the power to stop eating the food. I don't want to give that food the power.
Plus, moderation is a handy skill to have for every aspect in life. I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
The M&M didn't control me...I walked away from it.
Simply because someone chooses to give up a certain food doesn't mean that they don't have control of other aspects of their life. I control my spending...I can walk away from a sale rack. There are more than enough things in life to moderate besides one food.
Simply because you choose to moderate a food doesn't make you somehow better than someone who doesn't. It takes will power in either case. Besides...most of us on this site aren't experts at moderating...or we probably wouldn't be on this site counting every little morsel of food that enters our mouth.
I'm glad that you've found something that works for you, truly. I have already established in this thread that I have nothing against people who choose to cut out certain foods. My issue comes when people preach that everyone should give up certain foods to be somehow healthier, which you have not done.
Perhaps my wording was not the best choice (I'm half asleep today with a wine hangover), but I stand by the point that I was trying to make: the person in @TrailBlazinMN 's argument had an issue with moderation, and in that case, eating "clean" isn't necessarily going to be the answer. People can still enjoy the foods that they love within reason and still be healthy and lose weight. There are exceptions to this rule, such as people with BED, diabetes, insulin resistance, food allergies, etc. I am not referring to the exceptions to the rule - I am talking in very general terms.
And you're right, I had trouble moderating ALL foods before I found MFP. I was ecstatic when I learned that I don't have to give up foods like ice cream, or cookies, or Lucky Charms in order to lose weight. I've learned to moderate my intake and developed a healthier attitude towards food.
I've been trying to find where @trailblazinmn was preaching that clean eating was the only way or that he was better than anyone else eating a different way, was it deleted?
I did see where he commented what his methods were and suggested a personal experiment to see if it helped op feel any different, and then your subsequent defensive reaction assuming that he meant everyone had to eat "clean" to feel their best.
It amazes me how fast these threads that initially have great information or suggestions from all angles turn into a battle of which method is better. Then both views have to twist the other to extremes to fit their argument, when in fact they are basically saying the same thing.
Eat what you like to meet your goals. What you eat doesn't affect me and what I eat doesn't affect you. I'm not better than you for eating the way I do and you're not better than me for eating the way you do.
How about this:
slideaway1 wrote:On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.
TrailblazinMN responded:This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.
Implicit in this is a claim that pizza (apparently all pizza everywhere, no matter how it's made) is "low quality" and people used to eating "high quality" foods become too refined to tolerate it (I guess being "refined" is good for people, even if not sugar and grains). It's also an assertion that most people (the exceptions are few and far between) will feel bad if they eat lower nutrient foods (again, supposedly like pizza) or apparently some ice cream for dessert.
I'm not really sure why steak and sweet potatoes and some asparagus (a lovely dinner) would be so dramatically different in its effect on me (or at least those more sensitive to "low quality food" than me than the thin crust stagoni pizza with artichokes, ham, mushroom, and an egg, plus cheese and tomato sauce). I mean, the steak dinner probably has more protein, but when I have pizza I usually eat more protein earlier in the day for that reason. The framing of the attack seems to say the problem with the pizza is the refined carbs, but that would mean that eating any white bread or pasta or, I guess, white rice would make us feel bad and athletic performance suffer, and that certainly doesn't seem to be the case for many or most (including major countries where such foods are quite common).
So I do think this is an assertion that is worth challenging.
If you want to say that you personally find it easier to eat in a particular way, that's great and I won't challenge that so long as you don't claim that it is healthier than how the rest of us eat.
See I didn't read so much into that, my assumption was that they are both speaking from personal experience and their statements are in regard to 'people' that they have relationships with, not all people in the world.
I don't see it as an attack, even after reading it several times. I have seen on the forums the types of 'attacks' you are referring too but those were quite blatant. I try not to determine what was implied by someone if they didn't specifically say it.0 -
Everyone knows that 1200 calories of fudge is not better for you than 1200 calories of fruit and veg.
Who proposed eating 1200 calories of fudge? (Also, if ice cream can be "clean," why not fudge? I'll point you to a place on Mackinac Island that boasts about their all-local fudge, with even the sugar from local sugarbeets.)
My problem with the term "clean eating" is that it has no consistent meaning. I don't self-identify as a clean eater (since I thought it was supposed to mean NO processed foods and I think lots of processed foods--like greek yogurt and smoked salmon--are good for me and others are harmless and enjoyable in moderate quantities (like cheese and ice cream and bacon), but I care plenty about eating a nutritious diet and don't at all concede that someone who self-identifies as a "clean eater" cares more about health or nutrition than I do, even though they seem to like to claim they do.
I certainly agree with you that there's no conflict between "clean eating" (whatever that means) and counting or otherwise controlling calories, however. If you read OP's post and then her follow-up one I think you will see what she was asking.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Everyone knows that 1200 calories of fudge is not better for you than 1200 calories of fruit and veg.
Who proposed eating 1200 calories of fudge? (Also, if ice cream can be "clean," why not fudge? I'll point you to a place on Mackinac Island that boasts about their all-local fudge, with even the sugar from local sugarbeets.)
My problem with the term "clean eating" is that it has no consistent meaning. I don't self-identify as a clean eater (since I thought it was supposed to mean NO processed foods and I think lots of processed foods--like greek yogurt and smoked salmon--are good for me and others are harmless and enjoyable in moderate quantities (like cheese and ice cream and bacon), but I care plenty about eating a nutritious diet and don't at all concede that someone who self-identifies as a "clean eater" cares more about health or nutrition than I do, even though they seem to like to claim they do.
I certainly agree with you that there's no conflict between "clean eating" (whatever that means) and counting or otherwise controlling calories, however. If you read OP's post and then her follow-up one I think you will see what she was asking.
hey who are you to argue
EVERYONE KNOWS
0 -
I have no idea why people feel the need to be "versus" all the time. Isn't MFP about Fitness and Health? A lot on here are calorie counting and can still eat whole foods. Health isn't just about how we look - it's our organs, heart, brain etc...So...
Everyone knows that 1200 calories of fudge is not better for you than 1200 calories of fruit and veg. There is no need to be pedantic and pick holes in every post. But you will still lose weight on that fudge.
Btw ice cream etc isn't an non-clean eating food for a lot of people (like myself) - but ice cream containing a lot of preservatives and additives is. It depends on your mindset and how you see it as far as I am aware.
Be kind and be helpful.
FB
You... just set up a vs. in your post, and therein lies the problem. I'm going to address it and some other issues raised in other posts in this thread.
You can have the veggies and a piece of fudge... all in the same day. There's no need for a dichotomy between the two (except for medical conditions necessitating such things). That's the whole thing this all comes down to.
I've dieted off and on for years and I always had rules in my head about foods and the like and they never got me anywhere.
The reason they never got me anywhere was because that thinking is wrong-headed. It's not healthy to have "rules" about food and make judgments based on the idea of a food being inherently "right" or "wrong", everything needs to be considered within the framework of a bigger overall picture.
Certainly, absolutely, one's focus should be on nutrition and health. There are many paths to travel to eat a "healthy" diet, though. Throughout the world, various cultures thrive on different macronutrient balances, for example. There's no one right balance when it comes to carbs, fats, and proteins. And there's nothing wrong if, on occasion, those carbs are pre-packaged bread, frozen veggies, or that protein happens to be... gasp! a hot dog. Or if you have a couple of cookies at the end of the day. Context and dosage matter. Think balance and proportion.
You could look at my diary since I've been here. Overall, I eat fairly well. Yet last week, we went on vacation. I splurged twice and had cheese fries. I regret nothing... two indulgent meals in the context of my year? Drop in the bucket. I eat small servings of ice cream or a cookie or two fairly regularly... but the bulk of my diet? Dairy protein, beans, veggies, fruit.
What's wrong with balance? I feel better now that I don't overeat anything than I ever did restricting myself to certain food groups only... because I was still eating too much food then. I'm more active than I've ever been.
People, by and large, tend to "feel" how they expect they're going to feel when it comes to food. Feels aren't really an accurate metric for an eating plan's efficacy.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »auntstephie321 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »TrailBlazinMN wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The answer is no, no they will not.
If someone eats healthily all day long, meets their macro- and micro-nutrient goals for the day, and lives an active and healthy lifestyle, a bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies at the end of the day is going to have zero effect on health or performance.
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt -I think it's pretty awesome you know how food affects every single person in this world. By the way, not everyone can just have one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies. There is reason why some people need to eat "super clean", just like alcoholics can't have a sip and drug users can't just have one hit/line/etc.slideaway1 wrote: »On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.
This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.
That's not what I said.
Also, if someone can't have just one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies, then their problem is with the ability to moderate their intake. That is something that they need to learn to do, and cutting those foods out completely forever is likely not going to teach them anything. Are we really expected to go the rest of our lives without eating another piece of birthday cake? Without eating out at a restaurant with friends or on a date? That's just not realistic.
I guarantee you that anyone (barring a medical reason that requires them to avoid any particular food/ingredient) who is healthy, active, and who eats mostly nutrient-dense foods is not going to have any negative effects from having something sweet or some "junk" food evrery now and then. You don't get extra credit for eating nothing but "clean" foods 100% of the time.
Why to the above bolded...
Why do you think that everyone has to learn to moderate a certain food if they are willing to give it up.
I have never and probably never will be able to moderate peanut butter M&Ms...I have given the up. I am okay with that. I still think about them sometimes but it has been over two years since I have eaten them.
I can live without them...I can not however learn to just eat 1 of those little guys.
Just my opinion. If I enjoy something that much, I'd like to be able to fit them in from time to time for my own mental health rather than give them up completely. I think it's a healthy approach, and it proves that a specific food does not control you. You have the power to eat the food, and you alone have the power to stop eating the food. I don't want to give that food the power.
Plus, moderation is a handy skill to have for every aspect in life. I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
The M&M didn't control me...I walked away from it.
Simply because someone chooses to give up a certain food doesn't mean that they don't have control of other aspects of their life. I control my spending...I can walk away from a sale rack. There are more than enough things in life to moderate besides one food.
Simply because you choose to moderate a food doesn't make you somehow better than someone who doesn't. It takes will power in either case. Besides...most of us on this site aren't experts at moderating...or we probably wouldn't be on this site counting every little morsel of food that enters our mouth.
I'm glad that you've found something that works for you, truly. I have already established in this thread that I have nothing against people who choose to cut out certain foods. My issue comes when people preach that everyone should give up certain foods to be somehow healthier, which you have not done.
Perhaps my wording was not the best choice (I'm half asleep today with a wine hangover), but I stand by the point that I was trying to make: the person in @TrailBlazinMN 's argument had an issue with moderation, and in that case, eating "clean" isn't necessarily going to be the answer. People can still enjoy the foods that they love within reason and still be healthy and lose weight. There are exceptions to this rule, such as people with BED, diabetes, insulin resistance, food allergies, etc. I am not referring to the exceptions to the rule - I am talking in very general terms.
And you're right, I had trouble moderating ALL foods before I found MFP. I was ecstatic when I learned that I don't have to give up foods like ice cream, or cookies, or Lucky Charms in order to lose weight. I've learned to moderate my intake and developed a healthier attitude towards food.
I've been trying to find where @trailblazinmn was preaching that clean eating was the only way or that he was better than anyone else eating a different way, was it deleted?
I did see where he commented what his methods were and suggested a personal experiment to see if it helped op feel any different, and then your subsequent defensive reaction assuming that he meant everyone had to eat "clean" to feel their best.
It amazes me how fast these threads that initially have great information or suggestions from all angles turn into a battle of which method is better. Then both views have to twist the other to extremes to fit their argument, when in fact they are basically saying the same thing.
Eat what you like to meet your goals. What you eat doesn't affect me and what I eat doesn't affect you. I'm not better than you for eating the way I do and you're not better than me for eating the way you do.
How about this:
slideaway1 wrote:On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.
TrailblazinMN responded:This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.
Implicit in this is a claim that pizza (apparently all pizza everywhere, no matter how it's made) is "low quality" and people used to eating "high quality" foods become too refined to tolerate it (I guess being "refined" is good for people, even if not sugar and grains). It's also an assertion that most people (the exceptions are few and far between) will feel bad if they eat lower nutrient foods (again, supposedly like pizza) or apparently some ice cream for dessert.
I'm not really sure why steak and sweet potatoes and some asparagus (a lovely dinner) would be so dramatically different in its effect on me (or at least those more sensitive to "low quality food" than me than the thin crust stagoni pizza with artichokes, ham, mushroom, and an egg, plus cheese and tomato sauce, that I had last weekend). I mean, the steak dinner probably has more protein, but when I have pizza I usually eat more protein earlier in the day for that reason. The framing of the attack seems to say the problem with the pizza is the refined carbs, but that would mean that eating any white bread or pasta or, I guess, white rice would make us feel bad and athletic performance suffer, and that certainly doesn't seem to be the case for many or most (including major countries where such foods are quite common).
So I do think this is an assertion that is worth challenging.
If you want to say that you personally find it easier to eat in a particular way, that's great and I won't challenge that so long as you don't claim that it is healthier than how the rest of us eat.
I know I went into a flare last week (likely from sun exposure and overactivity), but after my first dose of cheese fries? My energy the next day was off. the. charts. Epic walking, swimming, beachcombing, the works.
Then again, they were high quality cheese fries from a really good restaurant with a dedicated fryer and they know how to deal with people with celiac disease, so I think those quality issues made all the difference.
0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »auntstephie321 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »TrailBlazinMN wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The answer is no, no they will not.
If someone eats healthily all day long, meets their macro- and micro-nutrient goals for the day, and lives an active and healthy lifestyle, a bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies at the end of the day is going to have zero effect on health or performance.
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt -I think it's pretty awesome you know how food affects every single person in this world. By the way, not everyone can just have one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies. There is reason why some people need to eat "super clean", just like alcoholics can't have a sip and drug users can't just have one hit/line/etc.slideaway1 wrote: »On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.
This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.
That's not what I said.
Also, if someone can't have just one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies, then their problem is with the ability to moderate their intake. That is something that they need to learn to do, and cutting those foods out completely forever is likely not going to teach them anything. Are we really expected to go the rest of our lives without eating another piece of birthday cake? Without eating out at a restaurant with friends or on a date? That's just not realistic.
I guarantee you that anyone (barring a medical reason that requires them to avoid any particular food/ingredient) who is healthy, active, and who eats mostly nutrient-dense foods is not going to have any negative effects from having something sweet or some "junk" food evrery now and then. You don't get extra credit for eating nothing but "clean" foods 100% of the time.
Why to the above bolded...
Why do you think that everyone has to learn to moderate a certain food if they are willing to give it up.
I have never and probably never will be able to moderate peanut butter M&Ms...I have given the up. I am okay with that. I still think about them sometimes but it has been over two years since I have eaten them.
I can live without them...I can not however learn to just eat 1 of those little guys.
Just my opinion. If I enjoy something that much, I'd like to be able to fit them in from time to time for my own mental health rather than give them up completely. I think it's a healthy approach, and it proves that a specific food does not control you. You have the power to eat the food, and you alone have the power to stop eating the food. I don't want to give that food the power.
Plus, moderation is a handy skill to have for every aspect in life. I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
The M&M didn't control me...I walked away from it.
Simply because someone chooses to give up a certain food doesn't mean that they don't have control of other aspects of their life. I control my spending...I can walk away from a sale rack. There are more than enough things in life to moderate besides one food.
Simply because you choose to moderate a food doesn't make you somehow better than someone who doesn't. It takes will power in either case. Besides...most of us on this site aren't experts at moderating...or we probably wouldn't be on this site counting every little morsel of food that enters our mouth.
I'm glad that you've found something that works for you, truly. I have already established in this thread that I have nothing against people who choose to cut out certain foods. My issue comes when people preach that everyone should give up certain foods to be somehow healthier, which you have not done.
Perhaps my wording was not the best choice (I'm half asleep today with a wine hangover), but I stand by the point that I was trying to make: the person in @TrailBlazinMN 's argument had an issue with moderation, and in that case, eating "clean" isn't necessarily going to be the answer. People can still enjoy the foods that they love within reason and still be healthy and lose weight. There are exceptions to this rule, such as people with BED, diabetes, insulin resistance, food allergies, etc. I am not referring to the exceptions to the rule - I am talking in very general terms.
And you're right, I had trouble moderating ALL foods before I found MFP. I was ecstatic when I learned that I don't have to give up foods like ice cream, or cookies, or Lucky Charms in order to lose weight. I've learned to moderate my intake and developed a healthier attitude towards food.
I've been trying to find where @trailblazinmn was preaching that clean eating was the only way or that he was better than anyone else eating a different way, was it deleted?
I did see where he commented what his methods were and suggested a personal experiment to see if it helped op feel any different, and then your subsequent defensive reaction assuming that he meant everyone had to eat "clean" to feel their best.
It amazes me how fast these threads that initially have great information or suggestions from all angles turn into a battle of which method is better. Then both views have to twist the other to extremes to fit their argument, when in fact they are basically saying the same thing.
Eat what you like to meet your goals. What you eat doesn't affect me and what I eat doesn't affect you. I'm not better than you for eating the way I do and you're not better than me for eating the way you do.
How about this:
slideaway1 wrote:On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.
TrailblazinMN responded:This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.
Implicit in this is a claim that pizza (apparently all pizza everywhere, no matter how it's made) is "low quality" and people used to eating "high quality" foods become too refined to tolerate it (I guess being "refined" is good for people, even if not sugar and grains). It's also an assertion that most people (the exceptions are few and far between) will feel bad if they eat lower nutrient foods (again, supposedly like pizza) or apparently some ice cream for dessert.
I'm not really sure why steak and sweet potatoes and some asparagus (a lovely dinner) would be so dramatically different in its effect on me (or at least those more sensitive to "low quality food" than me than the thin crust stagoni pizza with artichokes, ham, mushroom, and an egg, plus cheese and tomato sauce). I mean, the steak dinner probably has more protein, but when I have pizza I usually eat more protein earlier in the day for that reason. The framing of the attack seems to say the problem with the pizza is the refined carbs, but that would mean that eating any white bread or pasta or, I guess, white rice would make us feel bad and athletic performance suffer, and that certainly doesn't seem to be the case for many or most (including major countries where such foods are quite common).
So I do think this is an assertion that is worth challenging.
If you want to say that you personally find it easier to eat in a particular way, that's great and I won't challenge that so long as you don't claim that it is healthier than how the rest of us eat.
See I didn't read so much into that, my assumption was that they are both speaking from personal experience and their statements are in regard to 'people' that they have relationships with, not all people in the world.
I don't see it as an attack, even after reading it several times. I have seen on the forums the types of 'attacks' you are referring too but those were quite blatant. I try not to determine what was implied by someone if they didn't specifically say it.
Again:
"I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few." This isn't a claim about everyone one the world, but about most people (the exceptions are few and far between).
It's also a claim that pizza must be "lower quality food" and having had some awfully high quality pizza I simply don't agree with that.
More significantly, though, the nature of the discussion is that if TrailblazinMN thinks he is being misunderstood he can post to clarify. If AlyssaIsLosing didn't respond or I didn't make the point I did above, he wouldn't be able to see how the posts are being understood or respond to clarify (if we are misunderstanding).
Also, I am sure that the prior posts from prior versions of this discussion are coloring my own interpretation of various posts.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Dieting thoughts seem to be more like religion than science...
No they aren't. I've never seen god, but I have seen the science behind CICO.
You've never seen god because you can't get Talenti Sea Salt Caramel where you are. Sorry, love.
<sobs>
0 -
There is nothing wrong with balance at all and if you talk to a lot people who eat wholefoods yep hotdogs (I don't eat meat but I eat the veggie equivalent which are pre packaged ) are still in the diet.
The thing that gripes me is that people is that I often get the impression that people assume there is a self righteousness about not wanting to eat convenience foods and doing something about it. This really does come across in some of the posts I have read over the years.
Some people who self identify as trying to eat "clean" - for want of a better word- are pretty relaxed about it and no we don't wear kaftans all the time and waft incense from our seagrass sandals
It's not a rule based thing for me at all PeachyCarol it's a way of living. If that makes sense at all? I don't want to eat things that are made in a factory with chemicals but hey occasionally I do. I would rather eat something that I *think* is better for me.
Of course these are my own views and I maybe off balance with others but I just like a more natural diet. Maybe eating "naturally" is a better term for the way I see it?
That other geezer - I'm not even gonna bother answering...
FB
I0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Dieting thoughts seem to be more like religion than science...
No they aren't. I've never seen god, but I have seen the science behind CICO.
You've never seen god because you can't get Talenti Sea Salt Caramel where you are. Sorry, love.
<sobs>
right in the feels0 -
There is nothing wrong with balance at all and if you talk to a lot people who eat wholefoods yep hotdogs (I don't eat meat but I eat the veggie equivalent which are pre packaged ) are still in the diet.
The thing that gripes me is that people is that I often get the impression that people assume there is a self righteousness about not wanting to eat convenience foods and doing something about it. This really does come across in some of the posts I have read over the years.
Some people who self identify as trying to eat "clean" - for want of a better word- are pretty relaxed about it and no we don't wear kaftans all the time and waft incense from our seagrass sandals
It's not a rule based thing for me at all PeachyCarol it's a way of living. If that makes sense at all? I don't want to eat things that are made in a factory with chemicals but hey occasionally I do. I would rather eat something that I *think* is better for me.
Of course these are my own views and I maybe off balance with others but I just like a more natural diet. Maybe eating "naturally" is a better term for the way I see it?
That other geezer - I'm not even gonna bother answering...
FB
I
I'm a vegetarian too, and I love me some Smart Dogs!
Regarding the impression of self-righteousness, if you hang around here enough, you'll see more than people who don't eat clean assuming that people who eat clean feel that way. You'll see people who eat clean outright accuse people like me who don't eat clean of eating nothing but "crap" and presuming that they will have inferior health and all sorts of things. There's another poster in the thread now doing just this.
You and I probably eat very similarly, going by what you say. I eat higher quality "treats" not "because chemicals", but because I have celiac disease and getting gluten free stuff usually means I seek out the good stuff when I bother to have something like ice cream or cookies. Also, if I'm going to have the calories, they'd better taste really good. I won't label myself as a clean eater, though. I like a fun sized Snickers bar every now and then. I'm not ruling out the idea that one day, I might get the urge to buy a box of gluten free mac and cheese. Trader Joe's has a pretty good boxed cream of tomato soup that I enjoy. That's a convenience food.
For the most part, though? Yeah, I tend to stick with cottage cheese, plain Greek yogurt, and my own home made lentil or bean dishes. I'm not a clean eater or a this eater or a that eater. I'm a ... Peachy... eater. I eat the foods I like the best. I tend to like my own cooking the best. I'm not into the idea of labeling what I do.
0 -
Really, I have the exact opposite impression most of the time. We get a ton of posts all the time telling us about how the things we're eating are "crap" or "toxic", "literal poison" (that's all words that were actually used, and that's just from the last few days I remember), just because of a not well defined concept of it being processed or refined or because that person got a tummy ache from it last time they ate it.There is nothing wrong with balance at all and if you talk to a lot people who eat wholefoods yep hotdogs (I don't eat meat but I eat the veggie equivalent which are pre packaged ) are still in the diet.
The thing that gripes me is that people is that I often get the impression that people assume there is a self righteousness about not wanting to eat convenience foods and doing something about it. This really does come across in some of the posts I have read over the years.
Some people who self identify as trying to eat "clean" - for want of a better word- are pretty relaxed about it and no we don't wear kaftans all the time and waft incense from our seagrass sandals
It's not a rule based thing for me at all PeachyCarol it's a way of living. If that makes sense at all? I don't want to eat things that are made in a factory with chemicals but hey occasionally I do. I would rather eat something that I *think* is better for me.
Of course these are my own views and I maybe off balance with others but I just like a more natural diet. Maybe eating "naturally" is a better term for the way I see it?
That other geezer - I'm not even gonna bother answering...
FB
I0 -
There is nothing wrong with balance at all and if you talk to a lot people who eat wholefoods yep hotdogs (I don't eat meat but I eat the veggie equivalent which are pre packaged ) are still in the diet.
I'm not sure what you are responding to.
Do you think that those of us here who don't self-identify as "eating clean" don't eat whole foods? It sounds to me like you are one of us moderates, really.The thing that gripes me is that people is that I often get the impression that people assume there is a self righteousness about not wanting to eat convenience foods and doing something about it. This really does come across in some of the posts I have read over the years.
I think claiming that convenience foods are inherently bad and that others who eat them are thus eating in an unhealthy fashion is incorrect. (And, sure, sometimes self-righteous.)
The "clean eating" thing isn't focused just on "convenience foods" (however you are defining them) anyway. Like I said before, it's usually claimed that ALL processed foods are bad or all foods that come in a package (like meat does, IME, even when you get it from a farm, like I do, like yogurt does, like oatmeal does, etc.).
As for "convenience foods," I think there's quite a variety. I can go to WF and get some prepackaged stuff made there that day that doesn't seem much different from what I'd cook myself. Similarly, I can go to my favorite sandwich place (Hannah's) and get a sandwich made of great ingredients I'd use myself if I had them on hand and thought of it. What's worse about those options?
On the other hand, even Dr. Ornish recommends finding some frozen meals (he apparently likes the Amy's Light and Lean) that fit your nutrition goals if you are someone who will benefit from a backup if you run out of things and have a shortness of time to cook. I think that sort of thing can be helpful for people too, although I just usually don't care for frozen meals.
Sure, there are packaged foods that I personally would avoid (although I don't preach about it or think others who make different decisions are less healthy), but if you never really ate them you don't really think that not eating them is some huge thing that needs a special name.Some people who self identify as trying to eat "clean" - for want of a better word- are pretty relaxed about it and no we don't wear kaftans all the time and waft incense from our seagrass sandals
Your understanding of "eating clean" is quite different than any I've heard. I don't normally eat hot dogs, for example, dirty eater as I am (the exception is on the 4th--although even then I prefer brats--or at a sporting event), and I would have understood any fake meat products (which are highly processed) as being definitively NOT clean, so I think it's interesting that you self-identify as "eating clean" despite eating those things and again think the term quite simply means nothing except a negative claim about what others are supposedly eating.Maybe eating "naturally" is a better term for the way I see it?
If you mean you prefer, for the most part, to eat home cooked meals from whole foods, so do I. (And that's how I'd describe it, although outside of MFP I never do, as people don't ask for labels about how you eat IME.) Anyway, I don't think it's necessary to do that to eat healthfully, but for me it makes it easier (and cheaper) and is something I enjoy. I also like to eat locally when possible and get my meat and eggs and produce from local farms (ethical reasons since I am not a vegetarian). I would never call myself a "clean" eater, though, since I see nothing wrong in eating various foods that contain refined sugar and grains or other processed foods (again, like greek yogurt and cheese among others). And, of course, I don't think the foods others eat are "unclean," so why would I call those I choose to eat "clean" or claim I feel disgusting if I eat something like pizza when I don't?0 -
The thing i think is ironic is that in 5 pages of posts, unless I missed it, no one pointed out that the OP.shouldn't be asking about CICO vs Clean Eating for weight loss as if those things are mutually exclusive... since CICO is required for weight loss whether you are eating clean or dirty....0
-
I don't know if this has been addressing lately, but I think one caveat of CICO is sodium. If you weigh daily like me, high sodium food can cause one to two pound weight gain that is a real downer. You won't go 10 pounds over weight, but it will add some weight, which counters the CICO thing.
I try to eat clean, but I also don't have any problem going out to eat as long as its within my macros. The worst thing that happens is for some reason when I eat mcdonalds or fries it's super hard to keep from continuing to eat. But I do my best and eat better when I slip.0 -
sativaandspice wrote: »I don't know if this has been addressing lately, but I think one caveat of CICO is sodium. If you weigh daily like me, high sodium food can cause one to two pound weight gain that is a real downer. You won't go 10 pounds over weight, but it will add some weight, which counters the CICO thing.
Weight gain from overdoing salt is merely temporary retained water as opposed to permanent weight gain from overeating. Salt has nothing whatsoever to do with CICO, because salt, in and of itself, is calorie free.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions