Do you lose more when you eat less processed food?
Replies
-
From a strictly losing weight standpoint, do you find that you lose more with cleaner foods? I agree with calories in vs calories out for the most point, but I seem to lose a bit more when my calories are made up of lean proteins, fruits, veggies, etc., then when I allow myself to have some processed treats, like fiber one bars. I'm still losing either way, just not as quickly with more processed foods. I wonder if it is my body hanging onto something longer? Anyone had a similar experience?
I always get flamed for this by IIFYM/CICO junkies but here you go.
the reason you feel better or lose more on cleaner foods is because your body has a hormonal response to what you eat. IE your body doesn't deal with MCT oil the same way it does with a transfat, although they both equal 9 calories per gram and you can consume 1 gram and = the same amount of calorie intake, your body is better off with the MCT oils versus transfats.
0 -
The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
i completely agree with this post on @Monklady123 's previous postMonklady123 wrote: »
Not trying to derail the thread at all (to reply to whoever said that above). But if I eat certain types of things I cannot stay within my calories because it makes me too hungry. So from a purely calorie point of view I couldn't do it.Monklady123 wrote: »Yes.
Eating potato chips, or chocolate chip cookies (my two main downfalls) adds a LOT of calories to my diet but neither one keeps me full for very long. So therefore not only am I eating the chip/cookie calories but then I'm starving and eating a bunch of other stuff. By simply eliminating those things -- and white bread, certain cold cereals (especially for breakfast), etc. -- I'm replacing them with foods that have protein and that keep me full till the next meal time. So I don't have any binges or that shaky type of hunger.
while a calorie is just a calorie, the nutrition content made a huge difference.
To how much you lose, all calories kept equal? I'm not sure what the scientific explanation would be for that.
The main reason I'm responding, though, is that processed doesn't mean "low nutrient" or not satiating, and that's where I disagree with Monklady. My smoked salmon example is a good one, or greek yogurt or cottage cheese are other examples of processed foods that I think have a good nutrition to calorie ratio and tend to make me less hungry. Some people even find Quest bars quite filling.
i don't consider those processed. well, the quest bar. but by processed i would mean hot dogs, some brands of mac and cheese, nacho cheese, snickers, etc
i tried a quest bar and i was full 10 min later. but i also don't find oatmeal filling. personal preferences i suppose 0 -
I have seen no difference with weight loss either unless the processed food is very high in sodium. Then I just retain water and feel all bloated.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
0 -
no one is arguing calories in and calories out
i completely agree with this post on @Monklady123 's previous postMonklady123 wrote: »
Not trying to derail the thread at all (to reply to whoever said that above). But if I eat certain types of things I cannot stay within my calories because it makes me too hungry. So from a purely calorie point of view I couldn't do it.Monklady123 wrote: »Yes.
Eating potato chips, or chocolate chip cookies (my two main downfalls) adds a LOT of calories to my diet but neither one keeps me full for very long. So therefore not only am I eating the chip/cookie calories but then I'm starving and eating a bunch of other stuff. By simply eliminating those things -- and white bread, certain cold cereals (especially for breakfast), etc. -- I'm replacing them with foods that have protein and that keep me full till the next meal time. So I don't have any binges or that shaky type of hunger.
while a calorie is just a calorie, the nutrition content made a huge difference.
I wonder how I lost 121 pounds, lol!!
Calories in Calories out, science, read up on it!!
we only said less process food kept us full longer and therefore less likely to go over our calorie allotment
i might suggest reading up on reading comprehension
You may want to as well, as satiety has nothing to do with the OP.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
i completely agree with this post on @Monklady123 's previous postMonklady123 wrote: »
Not trying to derail the thread at all (to reply to whoever said that above). But if I eat certain types of things I cannot stay within my calories because it makes me too hungry. So from a purely calorie point of view I couldn't do it.Monklady123 wrote: »Yes.
Eating potato chips, or chocolate chip cookies (my two main downfalls) adds a LOT of calories to my diet but neither one keeps me full for very long. So therefore not only am I eating the chip/cookie calories but then I'm starving and eating a bunch of other stuff. By simply eliminating those things -- and white bread, certain cold cereals (especially for breakfast), etc. -- I'm replacing them with foods that have protein and that keep me full till the next meal time. So I don't have any binges or that shaky type of hunger.
while a calorie is just a calorie, the nutrition content made a huge difference.
To how much you lose, all calories kept equal? I'm not sure what the scientific explanation would be for that.
The main reason I'm responding, though, is that processed doesn't mean "low nutrient" or not satiating, and that's where I disagree with Monklady. My smoked salmon example is a good one, or greek yogurt or cottage cheese are other examples of processed foods that I think have a good nutrition to calorie ratio and tend to make me less hungry. Some people even find Quest bars quite filling.
i don't consider those processed. well, the quest bar. but by processed i would mean hot dogs, some brands of mac and cheese, nacho cheese, snickers, etc
i tried a quest bar and i was full 10 min later. but i also don't find oatmeal filling. personal preferences i suppose
I guess that's the issue with this conversation. Some people seem to have quite different definitions of "processed foods" than what I think is the correct one. IMO, some processed foods are filling, some are not.
(For what it's worth, I don't find oatmeal especially filling UNLESS I add processed protein powder, and then it is.)
Bigger point, of course, is that OP wasn't asking about what's satiating, but if foods have a different effect on fat gain, even holding calories equal.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
Not only that, but sometimes 3+1 = 4 too!!! And God help us if we have to introduce multiplication, division, or algebra.
0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »From a strictly losing weight standpoint, do you find that you lose more with cleaner foods? I agree with calories in vs calories out for the most point, but I seem to lose a bit more when my calories are made up of lean proteins, fruits, veggies, etc., then when I allow myself to have some processed treats, like fiber one bars. I'm still losing either way, just not as quickly with more processed foods. I wonder if it is my body hanging onto something longer? Anyone had a similar experience?
I always get flamed for this by IIFYM/CICO junkies but here you go.
the reason you feel better or lose more on cleaner foods is because your body has a hormonal response to what you eat. IE your body doesn't deal with MCT oil the same way it does with a transfat, although they both equal 9 calories per gram and you can consume 1 gram and = the same amount of calorie intake, your body is better off with the MCT oils versus transfats.
Aren't you "flaming" said individuals by calling them "junkies"?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
Heh, perfect.0 -
Self fulfilling prophecy and incendiary language is self fulfilling and gets flamed.Tedebearduff wrote: »From a strictly losing weight standpoint, do you find that you lose more with cleaner foods? I agree with calories in vs calories out for the most point, but I seem to lose a bit more when my calories are made up of lean proteins, fruits, veggies, etc., then when I allow myself to have some processed treats, like fiber one bars. I'm still losing either way, just not as quickly with more processed foods. I wonder if it is my body hanging onto something longer? Anyone had a similar experience?
I always get flamed for this by IIFYM/CICO junkies but here you go.
the reason you feel better or lose more on cleaner foods is because your body has a hormonal response to what you eat. IE your body doesn't deal with MCT oil the same way it does with a transfat, although they both equal 9 calories per gram and you can consume 1 gram and = the same amount of calorie intake, your body is better off with the MCT oils versus transfats.
Hormone responses won't alter how much you lose. Getting proper nutrition will definitely alter how you feel.
Let's just even look at this in an evolutionary standpoint and why it is a naturalistic fallacy. Let's just assume there is some magical "natural" property in unprocessed foods, and some magical "unnatural" property in processed foods. If your body actually did have different reactions to them, why, why, why would your body derive less nutrition (that's what losing weight is, less nutrition, less calories) from something it has evolved eating? The general goal of life is to maximize reproduction which generally involves deriving the most energy using the least resources. If there was any reasonable expectation to hypothesize, it would be that processed foods would contain parts that can't be digested because we hadn't evolved the type or level of enzymes to digest them.
Instead, you're probably operating under a naturalistic fallacy that is also incorrect in assuming the human body has a desire or drive not to get fat.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
Not only that, but sometimes 3+1 = 4 too!!! And God help us if we have to introduce multiplication, division, or algebra.
I was told there would be no math...
0 -
No.. you can eat anything and lose weight it only takes a caloric deficit to lose. You will feel better and be healthier if you use less processed foods.0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
Not only that, but sometimes 3+1 = 4 too!!! And God help us if we have to introduce multiplication, division, or algebra.
I was told there would be no math...
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
I've heard 2+2=5, also, but close right.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
I've heard 2+2=5, also, but close right.
Pretty sure some people who believe their particular way of eating invalidates the principles of CICO think that:
3+3 = 4
0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
Not only that, but sometimes 3+1 = 4 too!!! And God help us if we have to introduce multiplication, division, or algebra.
Now look here, don't you start bringing algebra into the mix! I've had enough dealings with that recently! :laugh:0 -
Remember back when the derailing post claimed not be to derailing? Behold. So sadly predictable predicted.0
-
Tedebearduff wrote: »From a strictly losing weight standpoint, do you find that you lose more with cleaner foods? I agree with calories in vs calories out for the most point, but I seem to lose a bit more when my calories are made up of lean proteins, fruits, veggies, etc., then when I allow myself to have some processed treats, like fiber one bars. I'm still losing either way, just not as quickly with more processed foods. I wonder if it is my body hanging onto something longer? Anyone had a similar experience?
I always get flamed for this by IIFYM/CICO junkies but here you go.
the reason you feel better or lose more on cleaner foods is because your body has a hormonal response to what you eat. IE your body doesn't deal with MCT oil the same way it does with a transfat, although they both equal 9 calories per gram and you can consume 1 gram and = the same amount of calorie intake, your body is better off with the MCT oils versus transfats.
Excuse you, and wtf?
0 -
I've always assumed we're dealing with math every time people mention complex carbs, as they must be composed of real and imaginary numbers.WinoGelato wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
Not only that, but sometimes 3+1 = 4 too!!! And God help us if we have to introduce multiplication, division, or algebra.
I was told there would be no math...
0 -
*whips out my protractor*
Imma go over there to the geometry corner, because geometry is cool.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Remember back when the derailing post claimed not be to derailing? Behold. So sadly predictable predicted.
You are correct. My apologies to the OP for my part in doing so.0 -
The only difference I notice is when I eat processed stuff I feel like *kitten* and it takes me a day or two to get rid of the processed food hangover. When my nutrition is squeaky clean I feel awesome.0
-
What? All processed food has some universal thing in it that causes you issues?cushman5279 wrote: »The only difference I notice is when I eat processed stuff I feel like ***** and it takes me a day or two to get rid of the processed food hangover. When my nutrition is squeaky clean I feel awesome.0 -
Again, "processed" does not mean "not nutritious."0
-
cushman5279 wrote: »The only difference I notice is when I eat processed stuff I feel like *kitten* and it takes me a day or two to get rid of the processed food hangover. When my nutrition is squeaky clean I feel awesome.
0 -
LOL, wow, I didn't expect such varied responses.
Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same? As I have noticed I seem to lose continuously when I eat less processed and it slows down when I add in the processed treats. The sodium concept seems valid, particularly since I weight myself daily. I know you are going to have ups and downs and it's best not to weigh yourself daily, but I find it keeps me on track better.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »The only difference I notice is when I eat processed stuff I feel like *kitten* and it takes me a day or two to get rid of the processed food hangover. When my nutrition is squeaky clean I feel awesome.
Oh holy f#*%. You can't just go posting that kinda stuff @queenliz99 without some kind of warning. Damn near swallowed my tongue.0 -
@2Poufs I'm sorry I wasn't thinking clearly. I had a hangover 0
-
I gained weight doing the whole 30 where I ate no processed foods for 30 days... And I've lost weight eating pizza, french fries and butter. It doesn't matter0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions