Natural vs. Low Cal?

bluesky1516

Hey all!

What do you put more emphasis on? Natural and clean food? or Low calorie?

I've read somewhere that your body can process natural food because of things like fiber and therefore you'll usually end up more fit and at a healthier weight if you choose natural options rather than highly processed but low cal options.

For example: Honey vs. Splenda, Butter vs. Margarine etc.

Has anybody tried both? Which gave better results?

janejellyroll

If weight loss is your goal, calories are absolutely important to consider. Having 100 calories of honey is 100 calories. It works if you log it, but it isn't going to make you lose weight any more than 100 calories of anything will.

People can absolutely gain weight on "natural" food -- if they couldn't, the human race would have died out long ago due to an inability to gain weight or store energy.

amusedmonkey

janejellyroll wrote: »

If weight loss is your goal, calories are absolutely important to consider. Having 100 calories of honey is 100 calories. It works if you log it, but it isn't going to make you lose weight any more than 100 calories of anything will.

People can absolutely gain weight on "natural" food -- if they couldn't, the human race would have died out long ago due to an inability to gain weight or store energy.

This is absolutely correct. When I was at my highest weight I ate way more natural than I do now, about 90% of the food I consumed was natural. Making a few "processed" substitutions helps me stay within my calorie goal without feeling like I'm giving up something (of course overall portion reevaluation was necessary too). I drink diet 7UP instead of mango juice, I use PB2 instead of peanut butter, I often utilize instant noodles as a portion controlled snack, I chew sugarless gum, sometimes eat low fat yogurt instead of our own homemade, eat chocolate and the like for snacks instead of large amounts of nuts, sugar free low fat pudding or sugar free jello when I'm low on calories instead of homemade...etc

It's not a "natural vs processed" issue for me, it's what is worth the calories and what isn't. Some natural higher calorie foods are worth it every time, others are not. Sometimes the same food is worth it one day and isn't the next. I love honey with oatmeal, for example, but I can do without it in chai tea. A couple of splendas save me from unnecessarily spending 60 extra calories. You bet I'm going to go for dates every single time and there is no replacing that, but since I found a good low calorie bread I like, that mom and pop's "natural" bakery bread stopped being worth it on a daily basis. There are cases when it does, like a nice crusty bread with soup, but for a casual sandwich it isn't.

What gave me results? Staying within my calories goal. My results on weeks when I ate a lot of processed food and weeks when I didn't were very similar with the same calorie budget.

janejellyroll

amusedmonkey wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

If weight loss is your goal, calories are absolutely important to consider. Having 100 calories of honey is 100 calories. It works if you log it, but it isn't going to make you lose weight any more than 100 calories of anything will.

People can absolutely gain weight on "natural" food -- if they couldn't, the human race would have died out long ago due to an inability to gain weight or store energy.

This is absolutely correct. When I was at my highest weight I ate way more natural than I do now, about 90% of the food I consumed was natural. Making a few "processed" substitutions helps me stay within my calorie goal without feeling like I'm giving up something (of course overall portion reevaluation was necessary too). I drink diet 7UP instead of mango juice, I use PB2 instead of peanut butter, I often utilize instant noodles as a portion controlled snack, I chew sugarless gum, sometimes eat low fat yogurt instead of our own homemade, eat chocolate and the like for snacks instead of large amounts of nuts, sugar free low fat pudding or sugar free jello when I'm low on calories instead of homemade...etc

It's not a "natural vs processed" issue for me, it's what is worth the calories and what isn't. Some natural higher calorie foods are worth it every time, others are not. Sometimes the same food is worth it one day and isn't the next. I love honey with oatmeal, for example, but I can do without it in chai tea. A couple of splendas save me from unnecessarily spending 60 extra calories. You bet I'm going to go for dates every single time and there is no replacing that, but since I found a good low calorie bread I like, that mom and pop's "natural" bakery bread stopped being worth it on a daily basis. There are cases when it does, like a nice crusty bread with soup, but for a casual sandwich it isn't.

What gave me results? Staying within my calories goal. My results on weeks when I ate a lot of processed food and weeks when I didn't were very similar with the same calorie budget.

This is my approach too. I love whole foods (it's how I ate growing up, so many of them are like comfort foods for me), but many of them are very calorie dense. I'm much better now at picking and choosing which ones are worth the calories for me and which ones I don't miss when I make substitutions.

TeaBea

janejellyroll wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

If weight loss is your goal, calories are absolutely important to consider. Having 100 calories of honey is 100 calories. It works if you log it, but it isn't going to make you lose weight any more than 100 calories of anything will.

People can absolutely gain weight on "natural" food -- if they couldn't, the human race would have died out long ago due to an inability to gain weight or store energy.

This is absolutely correct. When I was at my highest weight I ate way more natural than I do now, about 90% of the food I consumed was natural. Making a few "processed" substitutions helps me stay within my calorie goal without feeling like I'm giving up something (of course overall portion reevaluation was necessary too). I drink diet 7UP instead of mango juice, I use PB2 instead of peanut butter, I often utilize instant noodles as a portion controlled snack, I chew sugarless gum, sometimes eat low fat yogurt instead of our own homemade, eat chocolate and the like for snacks instead of large amounts of nuts, sugar free low fat pudding or sugar free jello when I'm low on calories instead of homemade...etc

It's not a "natural vs processed" issue for me, it's what is worth the calories and what isn't. Some natural higher calorie foods are worth it every time, others are not. Sometimes the same food is worth it one day and isn't the next. I love honey with oatmeal, for example, but I can do without it in chai tea. A couple of splendas save me from unnecessarily spending 60 extra calories. You bet I'm going to go for dates every single time and there is no replacing that, but since I found a good low calorie bread I like, that mom and pop's "natural" bakery bread stopped being worth it on a daily basis. There are cases when it does, like a nice crusty bread with soup, but for a casual sandwich it isn't.

What gave me results? Staying within my calories goal. My results on weeks when I ate a lot of processed food and weeks when I didn't were very similar with the same calorie budget.

This is my approach too. I love whole foods (it's how I ate growing up, so many of them are like comfort foods for me), but many of them are very calorie dense. I'm much better now at picking and choosing which ones are worth the calories for me and which ones I don't miss when I make substitutions.

This!^

OP - whatever changes you make to lose weight, you will want to incorporate many of those changes into MAINTAINING the weight you lost also.

Losing weight is just the first step..............

lemurcat12

I started gaining weight (and gained most of the weight I lost) when I was on a "natural" kick and tried not to eat anything else (I now think that's a silly way to approach food, although I tend to prefer cooking from whole foods when possible).

For weight loss calories absolutely are what matter, as others said, but if you find a particular food (like butter) more satisfying than another you may be able to eat less of it or feel more satisfied overall. And people vary on this. Some find full fat dairy much more satisfying. I grew up on skim and 1% and don't find fat all that satiating, so I prefer (and am just as satisfied by) low fat and 0% greek yogurt and cottage cheese. I'd rather use the excess calories for cheese. One reason focusing on whole foods can work for some (not me, sigh) is that there's simply a higher barrier to eating when you have to cook something if you need to eat vs. buying something in a package or eating whatever appears in front of you.

So anyway, I focus on both overall calories and eating an overall healthy diet that is delicious and satisfying to me.

As for:

I've read somewhere that your body can process natural food because of things like fiber and therefore you'll usually end up more fit and at a healthier weight if you choose natural options rather than highly processed but low cal options.

This doesn't really make sense. Your body couldn't gain weight from food it could not "process" and one of the issues with some foods that are easily eaten in excess (fats, highly refined carbs) is that they are so easily processed. Fiber can't really be digested (in part, it's more complicated than that), which is why we don't get the calories from it, it just passes out.

Need2Exerc1se

I evaluate each food distinctly. Most of foods are pretty close to their natural state - fruit, vegetables, meat. But I eat a high fiber low calorie pasta, which obviously is processed. I eat both margarine and butter, but much more often I go for olive oil. Most of my dairy is reduced fat or fat free. I eat low calorie bread.

And I eat convenience or pleasure foods that are processed when I want. Some low calorie, some not.

mkakids

Depends on the foods.


i always choose butter over margarine, because i like the taste better and its worth the extra calories.

I always choose splenda over sugar or honey because its not worth the extra calories to me.

If i cant make my own, i choose full fat dressing rather than low fat (and more highly processed) dressing because the taste is worth the calories.

finneyjason218

"natural" doesn't matter at all. However, many of the low fat or low calorie foods have artificial sweeteners which will make you hungrier, faster. If you are still staying within your calorie goal, this doesn't matter, but you will find it easier to stay within it eating regular butter over margarine for example. Regular butter 'feels' like more calories than it is in terms of satiating you, whereas margarine 'feels' like less calories than it is. Many 'processed' foods share this flaw, so while they aren't worse for you, your best, most filling, diet contains more whole foods.

NaturalNancy

I strongly believe in natural foods.
Of course you can over eat on them too but your body processes natural foods better than fake ingredients.
I use organic smart balance for butter and try to eat organic when possible.
I heard that fake sugar has harmful chemicals and it used to make me crave more sugar so I do not invest it.
I prefer honey or agave syrup to Splenda.

NaturalNancy

*ingest

Carlos_421

AnnaJarmila wrote: »

I strongly believe in natural foods.
Of course you can over eat on them too but your body processes natural foods better than fake ingredients.
I use organic smart balance for butter and try to eat organic when possible.
I heard that fake sugar has harmful chemicals and it used to make me crave more sugar so I do not invest it.
I prefer honey or agave syrup to Splenda.

The bolded is all myth. And what are fake ingredients? Either they're ingredients or they're not. Do you mean man-made or processed? Those things are still real.

tnm7760

I try to stay within my calorie goal by eating as many "real" foods as I can. I try to avoid low-cal/processed stuff if I can, because I believe "real" foods are more nutritionally dense and that the fillers in processed food aren't that great for you.

But, that being said, I'm trying to stick to 1200-1300 calories. Hitting my protein allotment alone takes a nice chunk of that. And a little sour cream and cheese makes a HUGE difference when your meals are only about 300-400 calories. So, I do use some processed foods (more lately because I'm stuck in a mental/lazy rut and it's easy, gah!). Light yogurts (because I don't really notice a difference), light salad dressings if they're good enough, turkey sausage, egg beaters, etc. I refuse to use light sour cream. I don't care much for artificial sweeteners, but I do keep some Truvia in my pantry for a few things. I'd rather use full fat cheese with a strong flavor (sharp cheddar, goat cheese, feta, etc) and just use less of it because I think low fat cheese is terrible and tasteless.

It's about CICO, but I am *trying* to also give my body an optimal amount if nutrition via natural foods. But it's all about balance for me. I eat plenty of crap food. Haha.

lemurcat12

Natural doesn't really mean anything if it can refer to Smart Balance Dairy-Free Butter.

On another issue, I think 0% Fage is a wonderful substitute for sour cream, with lots more protein.

janejellyroll

finneyjason218 wrote: »

"natural" doesn't matter at all. However, many of the low fat or low calorie foods have artificial sweeteners which will make you hungrier, faster. If you are still staying within your calorie goal, this doesn't matter, but you will find it easier to stay within it eating regular butter over margarine for example. Regular butter 'feels' like more calories than it is in terms of satiating you, whereas margarine 'feels' like less calories than it is. Many 'processed' foods share this flaw, so while they aren't worse for you, your best, most filling, diet contains more whole foods.

Why would the calories in margarine "feel" like less than butter? Oils, which is what margarine is made of, is a satiating fat for many people (including myself).

janejellyroll

AnnaJarmila wrote: »

I strongly believe in natural foods.
Of course you can over eat on them too but your body processes natural foods better than fake ingredients.
I use organic smart balance for butter and try to eat organic when possible.
I heard that fake sugar has harmful chemicals and it used to make me crave more sugar so I do not invest it.
I prefer honey or agave syrup to Splenda.

If your body processes natural foods better, then more of those calories would be available for your body. Food we can't process isn't available for us as energy. If what you're saying is true (and I don't think that it is) someone who is losing weight should consider eating *more* "fake ingredients" as their bodies cannot process as many of the calories in them.

lemurcat12

Neither oil nor butter are satiating at all to me, but they feel identical in how satisfying/satiating they are (actually, I usually enjoy good olive oil even more than butter). And as I said upthread, 0% Fage is no less satisfying to me than the same amount of full fat Greek yogurt (which would have many more calories). For me it seems to be more about volume or the protein.

cwolfman13

bluesky1516 wrote: »

Hey all!

What do you put more emphasis on? Natural and clean food? or Low calorie?

I've read somewhere that your body can process natural food because of things like fiber and therefore you'll usually end up more fit and at a healthier weight if you choose natural options rather than highly processed but low cal options.

For example: Honey vs. Splenda, Butter vs. Margarine etc.

Has anybody tried both? Which gave better results?

There are a lot of natural, "clean" foods that are also calorie bombs...

As a personal eating preference, I eat a lot of whole foods and some minimally processed food goods...I can still get plenty of calories and over eat with "clean" foods.

lemurcat12

On the other hand, roasted chicken breast with skin and bones is much more satisfying to me than a boneless, skinless chicken breast (which would have fewer calories). NOT because the latter isn't filling (it is), but because the former is more to my taste and gives me more of what I want from a meal, usually (there are some preparations of the boneless, skinless that also would). I think this kind of satisfaction matters a lot, but it's not really about hunger (or "natural" vs. not).