Calories/Clean Eating/Undereating

cecsav1

I get the math of calories in vs calories out, but I'm somewhat confused regarding minimum calorie intake and the hate on clean eating VS the eat whatever you want, as long as it's within your calories mindset.

How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies? The general reasoning behind consuming no less than 1200 calories (or 1500 for men) is that you won't get enough nutrients. However, I honestly believe you'd actually get better nutrition and be healthier on a diet that consisted of clean eating but less calories.

Disclaimers: I am not advocating a super low calorie diet, just asking a question. Also, I do acknowledge that "clean eating" doesn't have a clear definition. Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

lemurcat12

cecsav1 wrote: »

I get the math of calories in vs calories out, but I'm somewhat confused regarding minimum calorie intake and the hate on clean eating VS the eat whatever you want, as long as it's within your calories mindset.

Personally, I don't "hate on" "clean" eating. I dislike the name, and think that most people who claim to "clean eat" in reality eat like most of us who are nutrition conscious, but want to have a special name for some reason. (My suspicion is calling their eating "clean" is a way of looking down on others and what they (wrongly) assume we do, so I do tend to have a kneejerk negative reaction about people who seem really tied to using the term, especially when they claim to eat no processed foods but in reality do.)

If by "clean eating" someone means "I try to mostly eat homecooked from scratch foods, am nutrition conscious, and look for high quality things that fit in my eating style when I go out," well, so do/am I. I don't see how that's "clean eating," and I suspect almost everyone on MFP eats plenty of "processed" stuff if the term is used correctly. (As I mentioned in the other thread, I picked up cheese and pickled vegetables along with other veg and fruit at my super green local green market this morning.)

Anyway, all of this is aside from calories.

How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies?

Neither is good for most people. In limited situations 1000 can be okay, but most people would be better off working with a dietitian if they think there's a need to eat that low.

(If you mean canned tuna, also, how is that "clean"? It's in a can, so processed. And any tuna where I am, canned or no (I hate canned tuna, love tuna steak and sashimi) would have been frozen, because I'm in the US midwest.)

I also don't think many people eat only ice cream, fast food, and alcohol, no matter the calories, and have not seen anyone here recommend or approve such a choice, so that's a straw man.

The general reasoning behind consuming no less than 1200 calories (or 1500 for men) is that you won't get enough nutrients. However, I honestly believe you'd actually get better nutrition and be healthier on a diet that consisted of clean eating but less calories.

(1) Clean eating doesn't guarantee enough nutrients at all. One of my problems with that approach is that focusing on what you don't eat does nothing to make sure you eat enough of what you should be eating. I think it's pointless to cut things out (for me), since if I focus on eating a nutritious and balanced diet with adequate vegetables, protein, healthy fats, it's not possible to eat excessive amounts of "junk food" without going over calories, especially on a cut. (Of course, what's excessive depends on calories and overall diet.)

(2) Micros aren't the only reason not to cut too low. Protein is hard to get enough of on 1000, especially to avoid muscle loss. Such a low amount is bad for you because an overly aggressive deficit is bad for you (for a small and sedentary older woman, maybe okay).

3dogsrunning

cecsav1 wrote: »

I get the math of calories in vs calories out, but I'm somewhat confused regarding minimum calorie intake and the hate on clean eating VS the eat whatever you want, as long as it's within your calories mindset.

How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies? The general reasoning behind consuming no less than 1200 calories (or 1500 for men) is that you won't get enough nutrients. However, I honestly believe you'd actually get better nutrition and be healthier on a diet that consisted of clean eating but less calories.

Disclaimers: I am not advocating a super low calorie diet, just asking a question. Also, I do acknowledge that "clean eating" doesn't have a clear definition. Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

The hate on "clean eating" is for the term, not the idea. There is no definition. Most of the people who argue with the idea of "clean eating" eat the same type of diet as those who eat clean, primarily whole foods with the occasion less nutrient dense food included.
Eat whatever you want within you calories doesn't mean you have to eat nothing but ice cream and fast food.

Even ice cream and fast food have nutrients. They also happen to be calorie dense.

1000 calories of even "clean" food is too low for the vast majority of people to get nutrition.
No one is saying you can get enough nutrients on 1200 of all "junk" food. It isn't one or the other. You can eat tuna, eggs and veggies AND have a serving of ice cream.

diannethegeek

There are a lot of people in the world living happy and healthy lives eating clean. There are also, unfortunately, a lot of people in the world who are doing their best to eat clean but feel a lot of fear or anxiety around food. People who can't figure out how to eat more than 600 or 800 calories because of the definition of clean that's been pushed upon them. People who cut out a lot of perfectly good foods because someone says they're unclean. A lot of those people find their way here looking for answers about what they can eat.

I think a lot of the hatred isn't really hatred. It's a way of pushing back against the media to try and open up some space for those people who aren't happy or healthy with their version of clean eating. They just need a little wiggle room to breathe and having a few people here say that it's okay to eat a little dirty can be very empowering for those people.

If someone is happy with the way they're eating, great! But the rest of the comments on these boards aren't really aimed at those people. They're for everyone else with the questions and the guilt and the uncertainty.

sympha01

For me the issue is that the way most "clean eating" propenents talk and argue, there are two states:

1. Nothing you deem "unclean" passes your lips
2. You stuff your face with pop tarts all day.

The truth to me that's concealed by this kind of arguing is that for the VAST MAJORITY of people, life is somewhere in between, and also, that a "healthy diet" is actually a thing where personal subjective feelings of satiety and happiness MATTER. (If I truly believe that the only healthy diet totally cuts out say, cookies, but I LOVE COOKIES, then cutting cookies out of my life entirely will make me miserable, which has downstream impacts on my mental and yes, PHYSICAL health. The repressed returns, often with a vengeance).

I mean, I think it's solid advice for pretty much everyone (people with rare genetic freaky conditions excepted) should eat more vegetables and limit their intake of empty calories. But to extend that to say everyone should eat at least x grams of kale and should totally give up booze (the emptiest calories of them all) and cookies is sad and not terribly healthy in the long run.

goldthistime

We need enough nutrients AND enough calories. So yes, you might be able to get all the vitamins and minerals you need by eating clean on 1200 calories a day, but I would argue that you would be better off eating more and losing the weight more slowly. For a multitude of reasons.

Let's pretend that you bought into the idea that losing weight slowly was better for your health and improved your chances of reaching goal weight and staying there. If you added say 300 calories a day to your "1200 calorie a day clean eating diet", a diet that already met all your nutritional requirements, can you see that you could spend a substantial part of those extra calories on low nutrient foods and still be equally healthy?

cecsav1

All of the above illustrates my point. Every single comment was hung up on the term. My question was actually about the calorie limit. That's the "hate" I see. I don't know what other term to use, and I even explained what I meant by clean eating.

cecsav1 wrote: »

Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

(Bold added after the fact to emphasize the difference between canned tuna and a Pop Tart.)

Semantics: protein is a nutrient. MacroNUTRIENTS include protein, carbs, and fat. Also, saying, "such a low amount is bad for you because an overly aggressive deficit is bad for you" is like saying "Ford's better than Chevy because Ford's better than Chevy."

Again, I'm not advocating extremely low calorie for anyone. I'm also not saying everyone should be on 1200 or 1500 calories, respectively. But where did that number come from? WHY is it 1200/1500?

I think part of the dissention is my own fault for not being clear, as well. I didn't mean to suggest that anyone actually consumes ONLY fast food, ice cream, and alcohol. I've seen several posts and comments though that indicate many people get a significant amount of calories by eating ice cream daily or drinking alcohol several times per week.

If my goal is to save money, is it unreasonable to never eat out? If my goal is to finish college with all A's, is it unreasonable to never skip class? If my goal is to be fit and healthy (not just lose weight), why is it so unreasonable to never drink alcohol or eat cookies?

***Also, while this IS the debate forum, I am not arguing just to argue. I honestly don't understand the logic and am looking for answers. ***

stevencloser

cecsav1 wrote: »

I get the math of calories in vs calories out, but I'm somewhat confused regarding minimum calorie intake and the hate on clean eating VS the eat whatever you want, as long as it's within your calories mindset.

How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies? The general reasoning behind consuming no less than 1200 calories (or 1500 for men) is that you won't get enough nutrients. However, I honestly believe you'd actually get better nutrition and be healthier on a diet that consisted of clean eating but less calories.

Disclaimers: I am not advocating a super low calorie diet, just asking a question. Also, I do acknowledge that "clean eating" doesn't have a clear definition. Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

People have a hate because of statements like "How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies?"
Do you SERIOUSLY *PUPPY* BELIEVE that even a single person on this forum does that?

diannethegeek

cecsav1 wrote: »

All of the above illustrates my point. Every single comment was hung up on the term. My question was actually about the calorie limit. That's the "hate" I see. I don't know what other term to use, and I even explained what I meant by clean eating.

cecsav1 wrote: »

Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

(Bold added after the fact to emphasize the difference between canned tuna and a Pop Tart.)

Semantics: protein is a nutrient. MacroNUTRIENTS include protein, carbs, and fat. Also, saying, "such a low amount is bad for you because an overly aggressive deficit is bad for you" is like saying "Ford's better than Chevy because Ford's better than Chevy."

Again, I'm not advocating extremely low calorie for anyone. I'm also not saying everyone should be on 1200 or 1500 calories, respectively. But where did that number come from? WHY is it 1200/1500?

I think part of the dissention is my own fault for not being clear, as well. I didn't mean to suggest that anyone actually consumes ONLY fast food, ice cream, and alcohol. I've seen several posts and comments though that indicate many people get a significant amount of calories by eating ice cream daily or drinking alcohol several times per week.

If my goal is to save money, is it unreasonable to never eat out? If my goal is to finish college with all A's, is it unreasonable to never skip class? If my goal is to be fit and healthy (not just lose weight), why is it so unreasonable to never drink alcohol or eat cookies?

***Also, while this IS the debate forum, I am not arguing just to argue. I honestly don't understand the logic and am looking for answers. ***

It's incredibly hard, if not impossible, to compare two hypothetical diets that aren't very well spelled out for two hypothetical people who's stats and goals we don't know. If you want people to focus on that, keep in mind that context is everything. Everything. A young man, 18 years old, trying to gain weight because he's underweight would absolutely be unhealthy on 1000 calories of clean food. A 50-year-old woman trying to lose lose weight might, maybe be okay on that diet, but we'd need to know more about her goals and stats. A 30-year-old man, 6'0", trying to lose weigh but maintain muscle mass would not be okay on the diet you describe. A 40-year-old woman who's 5'1" trying to lose weight might be okay.

Calorie limits, clean eating, and reaching your macros/micros are three completely different goals and conversations.

lemurcat12

cecsav1 wrote: »

Semantics: protein is a nutrient. MacroNUTRIENTS include protein, carbs, and fat.

What does "clean eating" have to do with protein, though, or micros, for that matter.

Move away from the term, and we can discuss this without getting into a discussion of what processing is and whether it's bad. For example, a processed food I eat a lot because it is EXTREMELY helpful in getting in my protein is cottage cheese. Others eat bottled egg whites or protein powder.

Reframing your question, it seems to be: why is a nutrient-dense diet of only 1000 calories better than a nutrient-poor diet of 1200 calories (a bit of a straw man, because who recommends that or wouldn't question it?). My answer is it's not -- both are bad. But the fact that you could eat fewer nutrients on 1200 than on 1000 says NOTHING about the merits of eating 1000 calories.

Also, saying, "such a low amount is bad for you because an overly aggressive deficit is bad for you" is like saying "Ford's better than Chevy because Ford's better than Chevy."

No: I'm not sure if you are genuinely misunderstanding my point or not, but an overly aggressive deficit (i.e., too high a cut from whatever your TDEE is, especially as you get closer to goal) is bad for a variety of reasons. (1) it risks unnecessary muscle loss. (2) it doesn't fuel activity (matters more if one is not sedentary, of course). (3) it may well result in bingeing or an unsustainable way of eating that backfires. And, (4) it makes it much too hard to get adequate nutrients (I did 1250 for a while, and I found I had to be careful and mindful to get adequate nutrients -- micros + protein + fiber -- and this would be tougher on 1000 or less, obviously). Whether 1000 is an overly aggressive deficit (or whether 1200 is) depends on TDEE plus how fat you are.

Is 1000 never the right number? No, I am not saying that, but it's unlikely to be the right number unless you have serious health issues due to weight that require fast loss (in which case it should be recommended and supervised by a medical team) or unless you are a small woman who is also older and sedentary (and being small may mean close to goal, so consider carefully whether the risk of more muscle loss is worth it -- as a 40-something woman who cares about how I look naked, not just how little I weigh, I was really worried about this).

Again, I'm not advocating extremely low calorie for anyone. I'm also not saying everyone should be on 1200 or 1500 calories, respectively. But where did that number come from? WHY is it 1200/1500?

Just an easy rule of thumb. For me, because I'm quite active, 1200 would be ridiculous right now.

If my goal is to be fit and healthy (not just lose weight), why is it so unreasonable to never drink alcohol or eat cookies?

It's unreasonable to think it matters or that one would be healthier never drinking alcohol (unless you have issues with it) or eating cookies than if one eats them in moderation. Say I eat 14000 calories in a week, and it's all nutrient dense except I eat 2 homemade chocolate chip cookies (180 calories each) and 1 serving of ice cream (200 calories). Is that going to be the difference between being healthy or not? No, it will make no difference. Everyone eats a variety of foods with different nutrients, some more nutrient dense than others (I don't think cookies are particularly less nutrient dense than white bread, and if I want to eat a cookie and tons of vegetables and lean protein and someone else prefers to eat fewer veg, fattier meat, and some bread, who has eaten more nutrients? Not immediately obvious, and it's not a competition -- the issue is just to eat enough, which isn't that tough on a normal amount of calories. As you cut more and more aggressively, it gets harder.)

What I dislike about the focus on NEVER eating something as the supreme arbiter of what is healthy is that it takes the focus off what actually matters -- what you do eat. I've seen lots of people patting themselves on the back for not eating ice cream or some such who have few vegetables in their diary and no variety at all or far too little protein or almost all protein from sources like bacon and sausage. Ultimately, overall diet is what matters.

Now, is it reasonable to decide on a personal level that you'd rather not drink or eat cookies? Sure, why not. I don't drink, and I rarely eat cake or pie (love pie, but it's a holiday indulgence for me) or any of a number of other things. Again, what I think is unreasonable is claiming that NEVER drinking wine makes you healthier than someone who has a glass 3 nights/week, or some such. It doesn't. I think that's the kind of claim that "clean eating" = the healthiest! makes, and I just think it's based on a misunderstanding of nutrition.

3dogsrunning

cecsav1 wrote: »

All of the above illustrates my point. Every single comment was hung up on the term. My question was actually about the calorie limit. That's the "hate" I see. I don't know what other term to use, and I even explained what I meant by clean eating.

cecsav1 wrote: »

Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

(Bold added after the fact to emphasize the difference between canned tuna and a Pop Tart.)

Semantics: protein is a nutrient. MacroNUTRIENTS include protein, carbs, and fat. Also, saying, "such a low amount is bad for you because an overly aggressive deficit is bad for you" is like saying "Ford's better than Chevy because Ford's better than Chevy."

Again, I'm not advocating extremely low calorie for anyone. I'm also not saying everyone should be on 1200 or 1500 calories, respectively. But where did that number come from? WHY is it 1200/1500?

I think part of the dissention is my own fault for not being clear, as well. I didn't mean to suggest that anyone actually consumes ONLY fast food, ice cream, and alcohol. I've seen several posts and comments though that indicate many people get a significant amount of calories by eating ice cream daily or drinking alcohol several times per week.

If my goal is to save money, is it unreasonable to never eat out? If my goal is to finish college with all A's, is it unreasonable to never skip class? If my goal is to be fit and healthy (not just lose weight), why is it so unreasonable to never drink alcohol or eat cookies?

***Also, while this IS the debate forum, I am not arguing just to argue. I honestly don't understand the logic and am looking for answers. ***

Your post specifically said
"I'm somewhat confused regarding minimum calorie intake and the hate on clean eating VS the eat whatever you want, as long as it's within your calories mindset.

I responded and addressed the "hate" you were questioning.

kimny72

You don't just need nutrients, you need calories. Calories are fuel, if you don't eat enough calories, you don't get enough fuel for what your body needs to do every day.

Hypothetically, sure, you will get more nutrition in less calories if you are eating nutritionally-dense whole foods. But that's assuming good health comes from getting the most nutrition you can on a minimal amount of calories. And while it may be possible to get enough nutrition in 1000 calories of "clean" eating, it would be difficult and require very careful planning.

And why would I want to eat 1000 calories if I can eat 1800 calories, get all the nutrition I need, have awesome health markers, maintain a healthy weight, and have the energy to do a fun workout that helps me build more muscle so I can feel like Wonder Woman???

Oh, and no one here ever says, "1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol are better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies". "Clean isn't better than moderation" /= "100% "junk" food is better than whole food". The advice is almost always, "Eat healthy nutritious food, PLUS eat some of the treats you love as long as you stay at your calorie goal."

mommarnurse

No one ever claimed it was healthy or nutritious , just that either way, it will equal to a deficit and thus weight loss.

goldthistime

I was very much in the mindset of "maximize your nutrition per calorie and eat fewer calories to lose weight quickly" when I first joined MFP in 2013. I found the constant reminders that it's ok to include some treats perplexing. To me, there was far too much "daily gelato" and not enough "eat your vegetables" going on.

In Aug 2015 (after losing and regaining 25lbs quickly and efficiently, twice!), I finally decided to try to lose weight slowly and now I'm like an ex-smoker, lecturing at every opportunity. My original reason for wanting to lose weight slowly was that I kept getting injured whenever I would try to jump to the extreme levels of exercise I used to use to get me to goal quickly, and I was tired of waiting for that magical motivation that would see me through hunger/fatigue. In order to diet the way I used to diet, the stars had to be perfectly aligned. Typically I had just finished some major project or another and found myself feeling confident and with spare time. Last August I just tried to eat in a healthier way than I had been in the months prior and aimed for a small deficit (250 cal per day or .5lb/week).

Now that my dieting MO has been small deficit/slow loss, it's easy to go back to "diet mode" when I need to. Versus spending most of July 2015 suffering from "Last Supperitis", meaning I would overeat each night, especially sweet treats, because I was constantly convinced I would wake up the next morning with the determination to launch an attack on my weight and I'd have to say goodbye to all that stuff.

This no deprivation way to diet means that I can jump back into "diet mode" at the drop of a hat. This has given me enough confidence to, for the first time in my life, throw away my big clothes.

Did that help at all?

JaneSnowe

I don't have a problem with people who try to eat clean, however they define it and however well they adhere to their conditions.

I don't like it when people:

• tell others they also need to eat "clean", e.g., cutting out sugar and carbs, eating only whole foods, etc.
• say that you can eat as much as you want and still lose weight as long as it's "clean" food, or that you'll never lose weight unless you eat "clean"
• use logical fallacies to defend their way of eating and are totally closed to any other viewpoints

Orphia

I just find it funny all the people in the General Weight Loss forum who vehemently declare they're eating clean all week then wonder why they binge on weekends.

bioklutz

cecsav1 wrote: »

Again, I'm not advocating extremely low calorie for anyone. I'm also not saying everyone should be on 1200 or 1500 calories, respectively. But where did that number come from? WHY is it 1200/1500?

Here you go: https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1375583-a-message-about-myfitnesspal-s-updated-nutrition-goals

cecsav1 wrote: »

I think part of the dissention is my own fault for not being clear, as well. I didn't mean to suggest that anyone actually consumes ONLY fast food, ice cream, and alcohol. I've seen several posts and comments though that indicate many people get a significant amount of calories by eating ice cream daily or drinking alcohol several times per week.

If my goal is to save money, is it unreasonable to never eat out? If my goal is to finish college with all A's, is it unreasonable to never skip class? If my goal is to be fit and healthy (not just lose weight), why is it so unreasonable to never drink alcohol or eat cookies?

***Also, while this IS the debate forum, I am not arguing just to argue. I honestly don't understand the logic and am looking for answers. ***

If you want to eat like that it is entirely up to you. Nobody can force you to have a cookie or alcohol if you don't want it.

I have some just for fun food daily. It is easier for me to stick to my daily calorie goal if I do. If I deprive myself I get cranky and moody. Why would I do that to myself and others around me?

Lounmoun

cecsav1 wrote: »

I get the math of calories in vs calories out, but I'm somewhat confused regarding minimum calorie intake and the hate on clean eating VS the eat whatever you want, as long as it's within your calories mindset.

How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies? The general reasoning behind consuming no less than 1200 calories (or 1500 for men) is that you won't get enough nutrients. However, I honestly believe you'd actually get better nutrition and be healthier on a diet that consisted of clean eating but less calories.

Disclaimers: I am not advocating a super low calorie diet, just asking a question. Also, I do acknowledge that "clean eating" doesn't have a clear definition. Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

I've been on these forums for awhile now and have never seen anyone say that consuming 1200 calories of low nutrition food is better than 1000 calories of more nutritious foods. I have seen posts time after time reassuring others that for weight loss calories matter most but also encouraging other posters to eat more protein, vegetables, fruits and whole grains rather than low nutrition foods.
I don't think someone eating a very limited diet of 1000 calories of highly nutritious foods is as healthy long term as a person who eats 1200 calories or more but with a wide variety of foods- mostly highly nutritious. Long term the more restrictive a diet is the harder it is for many people to sustain. Non-sustainable diets often lead to yo-yoing weight, binging episodes, frustration, self hatred, etc.
Eat less processed foods if you prefer but it isn't necessary to "eat clean" or eat extremely low calorie to lose weight and be healthy.

cecsav1

diannethegeek wrote: »

Calorie limits, clean eating, and reaching your macros/micros are three completely different goals and conversations.

I think this exactly addresses my problem. I may have clouded the issue by including too many parts of the equation. Thank you. I have a bad habit of overcomplicating things.

cecsav1

And @goldthistime yes both of your answers were extremely helpful. I definitely appreciate the way you explained it to me. Thank you

moe0303

stevencloser wrote: »

cecsav1 wrote: »

I get the math of calories in vs calories out, but I'm somewhat confused regarding minimum calorie intake and the hate on clean eating VS the eat whatever you want, as long as it's within your calories mindset.

How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies? The general reasoning behind consuming no less than 1200 calories (or 1500 for men) is that you won't get enough nutrients. However, I honestly believe you'd actually get better nutrition and be healthier on a diet that consisted of clean eating but less calories.

Disclaimers: I am not advocating a super low calorie diet, just asking a question. Also, I do acknowledge that "clean eating" doesn't have a clear definition. Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

People have a hate because of statements like "How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies?"
Do you SERIOUSLY *PUPPY* BELIEVE that even a single person on this forum does that?

I took her point as being more conceptual. It is possible, even probable, that a 1000 calorie diet of tuna, eggs and veggies is more nutritious than a 1200 calorie diet without restrictions. She is asking an honest question as to why there seems to be a much greater emphasis on the 1200 calorie minimum than the nutritional content of the diet.

@cecsav1 I think the answer lies in the liability of promoting such a plan. Medical professionals have put that 1200 calorie forth as the bottom line number and most people trust in that. It is seen as a hard fact with dangerous consequences. I don't think there is a comparable figure for nutrients which carries the same weight.

When you look at either concept in practical terms though, I don't see much danger there. People who decide to restrict themselves to less than 1000 calories are not very likely as a whole to be successful enough to able to restrict themselves into a nutrient deficiency (excepting those with eating disorders). The same could be said of those only seeking to eat "dirty" foods (whatever that means).

I am not advocating very low calorie diet, just talking ideas. Please don't read my writings (or any other random thing on the internet) and act as if they are fact.

Need2Exerc1se

A lot of people are really screwed up in their thinking about food. I didn't really realize that until I joined this site. It's like an episode of the Twilight Zone.

ndj1979

stevencloser wrote: »

cecsav1 wrote: »

I get the math of calories in vs calories out, but I'm somewhat confused regarding minimum calorie intake and the hate on clean eating VS the eat whatever you want, as long as it's within your calories mindset.

How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies? The general reasoning behind consuming no less than 1200 calories (or 1500 for men) is that you won't get enough nutrients. However, I honestly believe you'd actually get better nutrition and be healthier on a diet that consisted of clean eating but less calories.

Disclaimers: I am not advocating a super low calorie diet, just asking a question. Also, I do acknowledge that "clean eating" doesn't have a clear definition. Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

People have a hate because of statements like "How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies?"
Do you SERIOUSLY *PUPPY* BELIEVE that even a single person on this forum does that?

i am still waiting for this mythical person that advocates for a diet of 100% ice cream and pop tarts to show themselves...

ForecasterJason

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

A lot of people are really screwed up in their thinking about food. I didn't really realize that until I joined this site.

I feel the same way.

ForecasterJason

ndj1979 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

cecsav1 wrote: »

I get the math of calories in vs calories out, but I'm somewhat confused regarding minimum calorie intake and the hate on clean eating VS the eat whatever you want, as long as it's within your calories mindset.

How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies? The general reasoning behind consuming no less than 1200 calories (or 1500 for men) is that you won't get enough nutrients. However, I honestly believe you'd actually get better nutrition and be healthier on a diet that consisted of clean eating but less calories.

Disclaimers: I am not advocating a super low calorie diet, just asking a question. Also, I do acknowledge that "clean eating" doesn't have a clear definition. Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

People have a hate because of statements like "How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies?"
Do you SERIOUSLY *PUPPY* BELIEVE that even a single person on this forum does that?

i am still waiting for this mythical person that advocates for a diet of 100% ice cream and pop tarts to show themselves...

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I also don't think many people eat only ice cream, fast food, and alcohol, no matter the calories, and have not seen anyone here recommend or approve such a choice, so that's a straw man.

While I don't think anyone here is suggesting that one should do that, the problem IMO is that in general a lot of people simply don't have much knowledge or regard for general nutrition. I don't have a problem with the general advice given to focus on nutrient dense foods with the option of including low nutrient dense foods as a small component of the diet. But I've read several accounts of people on here who have stated that they either did or know people eating a nutrient poor diet similar to what's mentioned there. And while I don't think most people on here are eating that way, in a lot of cases when new people join we have no idea what their diet was like. So, I don't consider it a straw man argument since both kinds of diets do exist in the real world.

RoxieDawn

I am gonna take the stance that I still HATE the term clean eating as much as I hate seeing it discussed and debated over and over again here in MFP. I just hate the term clean eating.. it makes food seem like to all that say it, "my food is better than your food" and shame on you for not eating clean.. sigh..

I am also gonna take the stance that 1200 calories is not better quality calories nutritionally (i.e pop tarts, and ice cream) than 1500 calories of lean meat, fruits and veggies, etc..) but a person can loose weight on the 1200 calories of this pop tarts and ice cream if it is a deficit for loosing weight.. I personally love pop tarts and ice cream, maybe even together.

3dogsrunning

ForecasterJason wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

cecsav1 wrote: »

I get the math of calories in vs calories out, but I'm somewhat confused regarding minimum calorie intake and the hate on clean eating VS the eat whatever you want, as long as it's within your calories mindset.

How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies? The general reasoning behind consuming no less than 1200 calories (or 1500 for men) is that you won't get enough nutrients. However, I honestly believe you'd actually get better nutrition and be healthier on a diet that consisted of clean eating but less calories.

Disclaimers: I am not advocating a super low calorie diet, just asking a question. Also, I do acknowledge that "clean eating" doesn't have a clear definition. Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

People have a hate because of statements like "How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies?"
Do you SERIOUSLY *PUPPY* BELIEVE that even a single person on this forum does that?

i am still waiting for this mythical person that advocates for a diet of 100% ice cream and pop tarts to show themselves...

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I also don't think many people eat only ice cream, fast food, and alcohol, no matter the calories, and have not seen anyone here recommend or approve such a choice, so that's a straw man.

While I don't think anyone here is suggesting that one should do that, the problem IMO is that in general a lot of people simply don't have much knowledge or regard for general nutrition. I don't have a problem with the general advice given to focus on nutrient dense foods with the option of including low nutrient dense foods as a small component of the diet. But I've read several accounts of people on here who have stated that they either did or know people eating a nutrient poor diet similar to what's mentioned there. And while I don't think most people on here are eating that way, in a lot of cases when new people join we have no idea what their diet was like. So, I don't consider it a straw man argument since both kinds of diets do exist in the real world.

I haven't seen those kinds of posts. People do have that type of diet but I've never seen it advocated here as healthy. There is always a clear line drawn between eating for losing weight and eating for health (and losing weight).

Personally, I think it setting people up for failure by telling them they *must* cut out all foods they indulge in.

lemurcat12

ForecasterJason wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

cecsav1 wrote: »

I get the math of calories in vs calories out, but I'm somewhat confused regarding minimum calorie intake and the hate on clean eating VS the eat whatever you want, as long as it's within your calories mindset.

How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies? The general reasoning behind consuming no less than 1200 calories (or 1500 for men) is that you won't get enough nutrients. However, I honestly believe you'd actually get better nutrition and be healthier on a diet that consisted of clean eating but less calories.

Disclaimers: I am not advocating a super low calorie diet, just asking a question. Also, I do acknowledge that "clean eating" doesn't have a clear definition. Operate with the understanding that, to me, clean eating = minimally processed, lots of fresh vegetables, pronouncable ingredients.

People have a hate because of statements like "How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies?"
Do you SERIOUSLY *PUPPY* BELIEVE that even a single person on this forum does that?

i am still waiting for this mythical person that advocates for a diet of 100% ice cream and pop tarts to show themselves...

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I also don't think many people eat only ice cream, fast food, and alcohol, no matter the calories, and have not seen anyone here recommend or approve such a choice, so that's a straw man.

While I don't think anyone here is suggesting that one should do that, the problem IMO is that in general a lot of people simply don't have much knowledge or regard for general nutrition.

Oh, I think anyone not totally stupid knows perfectly well what a good diet is and is not. If someone chooses to eat only ice cream (which no one does), it's not because they are confused about whether or not that's a sensible diet. It's because they don't care.

You seem to like to imagine that others are idiots when it comes to knowing the most basic things and then to demand that all advice be aimed at this hypothetical lowest common denominator. I prefer to assume that others have at least a minimally adequate level of knowledge and intelligence, because to talk to someone as if he or she did not is, IMO, rude and insulting.

SezxyStef

based on my reading etc the 1200 calorie limit is based on the ability to get in the minimum RDA of Macros.

You can do that on 1200...but not on 1k.

as for clean eating...I can pronounce a lot of words...so that means my "clean" is not your "clean"...so there is that.

As well I did a test one day to see if I could hit my macros and stay in goal eating only Micky D's.

And yes I can and I suspect it would be filling....

AS for your assertion of "I honestly believe you'd actually get better nutrition and be healthier on a diet that consisted of clean eating but less calories."

no you can't...eating clean has no clear definition and if I can eat 1500 calories of MacDonalds hit my macros and still lose weight at a reasonable pace how is eating only "clean" foods and losing fast and not hitting my macros healthier?

WinoGelato

I think the issue is that people always fall to extremes with their examples and assumptions. I don't know of anyone recommending a diet of nothing but cookies, ice cream and alcohol and/ or saying that is a healthy diet. I also don't know of anyone who actually eats a 100% clean diet, by any definition of that word. Most oeople, whether they identify as clean eaters or flexible eaters or whatever way of eating they label themselves as, eat a mix of processed, minimally processed, and whole foods.

On the calorie thresholds, again, they are meant to be baseline recommendations that should apply for the majority of the population. On any bell curve there will be outliers, but for the vast majority of people, 1200/1500 is the MINiMUM (caps for emphasis as some think it is an average) amount of total cals needed in order to achieve nutritional goals. Sure there are some women and men for whom lower calorie goals are appropriate but when the vast majority of people can lose weight eating more calories, AND have a better chance of getting a variety of macro/micronutrients AND have a treat or two which may help with long term adherence to a diet that isn't so restrictive... I think that's what we should focus on and not the fraction of the population who needs to be lower.

JeromeBarry1

It's not the clean eating that we hate on. It's the communicated concept of moral superiority when someone describes their clean eating. For all food, your fruit and vegetables began the rotting process immediately upon being harvested, your animal flesh is awash with bacterial pathogens that must be killed with fire before you can eat it. Tell me you 'eat clean' and I'll tell you I wash the *kitten* off my carrots, too.