difficult time eating "clean" and no cheating!

elaineamj

TennesseeJen wrote: »

Heeeey- they changed my naughty word to "kitten." Big butt appetite is what I meant. I don't eat cat. "Big kitten appetite" sounds even naughtier MFP. Just saying.

I've been WONDERING about the whole kitten thing for the last couple of days. I figured out pretty quickly it was substitute, but I thought it was an insider joke on here or something that I missed. Most websites just ** out any undesirable words

Francl27

Get rid of the 'reward' mentality first. You do NOT deserve a food reward for sticking to your plan for a few days. You however can absolutely fit a beer or two in your calories if you really want to.

As people said, if it's already hard for you after a couple weeks, it's not sustainable long term. Find a sustainable plan... because you're going to be stuck with it forever (there's no magic that happens when you're at your goal weight, you still have to stick to your plan, just with a few more calories).

WinoGelato

I_Will_End_You wrote: »

It doesn't have to be miserable. While I'm sure your cousin means well, she is wrong about having to eat "clean" and not have anything you like. Set a calorie goal on MFP and do your best to stay within it. I have drinks on the weekends, go out to eat at restaurants, have donuts at work, etc... and have no problem losing (or now, maintaining) my weight. It's all about staying in a deficit, not food choices. Some foods will help you feel full for longer, will be more satisfying, but that doesn't mean you can't have the other stuff, too.

All of this. I'm another who lost the weight I set out to lose and an maintaining that 30 lb loss. I never gave up wine or any other foods I enjoy.

A program that makes you miserable won't be sustainable, and no offense to your cousin but it sounds like she needs to revamp her approach if she wants to be successful building and maintaining a client base.

goldthistime

Having someone who you consider to be a voice of authority to monitor you could be beneficial in the short run at least. Is there a compromise arrangement? How about telling her you only want to lose .5lb/week to take the pressure off?

If adhering to ANY plan, even one with a small deficit is a problem for you, I'm here to argue that dedication trumps consistency. You can still get to where you want to go as long as you don't quit. Follow any plan you want (your cousin's or one you devise for yourself), but try to consider "slip ups" part of the process, rather than something to stress over. I have convinced myself that slow weight loss is the best choice for me. Maybe it is for you too.

mburgess458

I don't understand how "clean" eating has jack squat to do with weight loss. To me eating "clean" is about health. To me eating "clean" = eating healthy... no junk food, no fast food, more veggies, etc. Overeating "clean" foods WILL lead to weight gain, but it would be healthier than getting fat from junk food.

cathipa

The closer you get to your goal weight the slower it will be for you to lose. If you are losing at least 0.5 pounds a week you are still losing.

Mentali

mburgess458 wrote: »

I don't understand how "clean" eating has jack squat to do with weight loss. To me eating "clean" is about health. To me eating "clean" = eating healthy... no junk food, no fast food, more veggies, etc. Overeating "clean" foods WILL lead to weight gain, but it would be healthier than getting fat from junk food.

Two things:

1. People tend to distinguish between health and weight loss on this site. One style of eating may give a better rounded diet as far as nutrition goes, and may result for some people in feeling fuller or having more energy or any number of nice things, but any style of eating can result in weight loss. It can be very motivating to know that you're not required to cut out all the foods you love just because they're not "clean."
2. There is no objective definition of "clean" and for many things not in that category, there's nothing wrong with them. Some people think clean eating is all organic, no GMO, wild-raised meat (or no meat at all). Some people think clean eating is buying all your ingredients fresh and cooking every meal yourself. Some people think clean eating is buying food from the grocery store instead of a fast food place, no matter what kind of food you buy. Some people think frozen food is "clean" but canned food isn't. Some people actually think a certain amount of the food you eat you should grow yourself or else it's not clean. The definition of junk food is just as vague. It also doesn't help that you don't have to cut out "dirty" things to lose weight, and that insisting on this style of eating often ends in binges and weight gain for those that are miserable giving up those things for the rest of their lives.

lemurcat12

mburgess458 wrote: »

I don't understand how "clean" eating has jack squat to do with weight loss. To me eating "clean" is about health. To me eating "clean" = eating healthy... no junk food, no fast food, more veggies, etc.

That's not what it normally means. After all, if you mean "eat a healthy diet" why not say that?

It normally means cutting out "processed" foods (processed foods including things like plain greek yogurt and smoked salmon, although people often seem to employ in in a strange and non-standard way). Sometimes it means eating according to a particular diet (no "white" foods, like those (sarcasm) awful potatoes, following paleo rules, no animal products, whatever). Basically, who knows.

But even if it meant eating no fast food or junk food, eating those foods in moderation isn't going to affect overall weight or health. (I don't care for most fast food, but I seriously doubt eating occasional ice cream after dinner is going to make me less healthy, and I did it more while losing weight than I did while gaining.)

I am very interested in nutrition and health and fitness (which is aided by good nutrition), and I don't think a focus on "eating clean" (i.e., on what you don't eat or some odd idea about "processed"=bad) is a good approach to get there. I think the focus ought to be on what you do eat, and as a side effect of that you don't really have room to eat less nutrient dense foods other than in moderation or on occasion in some cases.

But in any case, that something is good for health doesn't make it always enough for weight loss (and if one is obese weight loss is the best thing most can do for health).

endlessfall16

trjjoy wrote: »

endlessfall16 wrote: »

trjjoy wrote: »

Weight loss doesn't necessarily get slower once we are near our goal. Our body doesn't know how much weight we want to lose. It depends on what our current weight's maintenance calories are, and it depends on the calorie deficit we're working with.

Actually not necessary. When you have very few lbs to lose, your body will feel lousy, eg dizzy, if you are too aggressive with deficit. That's how you know. There seems to be a bottom with the daily requirement for one's particular lifestyle.

(I'm 5 lbs from reaching normal bmi. I could do 2+ lbs drop / week but I better not! I'm very keen with observation )

Who mentioned or suggested ANYTHING about doing an aggressive deficit to lose weight? Again, let me say the following: your body doesn't know how much weight you want to lose. It depends on what our current weight's maintenance calories are, and it depends on the calorie deficit we're working with.

But that's what your post implied (whether you were aware or not) by saying "Weight loss doesn't necessarily get slower once we are near our goal. Our body doesn't know .." If we kept going at the same speed we started out when we were very overweight, it'd be detrimental. That's what I want to say.

ASKyle

Quit labeling foods as good bad and clean.

Eat what you want at a calorie deficit. WEIGH your foods. Make the alcohol and treats fit into that daily goal number.

The reason you keep restarting your diet is because you're trying methods that aren't sustainable.