Calories/Clean Eating/Undereating
Options
Replies
-
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.6
-
stevencloser 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...6 -
I feel the same way.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.
0 -
stevencloser 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...
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.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.
0 -
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.7 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »stevencloser 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...
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.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.
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.3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »stevencloser 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.10 -
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?
4 -
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.
2 -
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.10
-
My diet consists of mostly what people would generally consider "clean" foods, such as fresh meats, vegetables, fruit, fish, yogurt, cheese, and milk. That said, the various definitions of clean eating tell me nothing about how much of each food I should eat, how often, etc. and can lead to declining to eat perfectly healthy foods. In addition, some definitions would strike off some of the above foods. For example, are any of the following clean foods to you (i.e. minimally processed): pre-mixed Greek yogurt such as chocolate or red velvet cake, whey protein powder, protein bars, dried pasta, jarred tomato sauce, store bought bread, high fiber tortillas, creatine monohydrate, coffee, coffee creamer, Breyer's ice cream, frozen vegetables, beef jerky, cheese, pre-packaged salads, beer, liquor, wine, regular jarred peanut butter, jarred jams and preserves, sugar, maple syrup, pancake mix, non-organic 1% milk, or chocolate bars? Each one of these items play a role in my diet and most of them serve a very positive role. The others serve a positive role in my enjoyment of eating. Moderation, macro- and micro-nutrients, and calories drive my diet rather than the concept of "clean eating."
None of this is not to say that using clean eating guidelines can't help someone in general terms in the beginning or even in conjunction with IIFYM, but it isn't the best tool in the toolbox, or even a very good tool when compared to something like attention to the details that matter. IIFYM also gets a very bad reputation on here because of the way it's often misrepresented and misinterpretted. It's not an eat junk diet because the macronutrient requirements bar that, and it also generally uses an 80/20 rule or 90/10 rule regarding eating mostly what people would refer to as clean foods. That's where I think the concept of clean eating is of some limited use, though I've been mostly eating that way since I was a young child when we simply referred to it as fresh food.3 -
While it's not like I didn't eat anything nutritious, for a period of time during part of my teen years I had a lot of meals (especially lunches) that were nutritionally poor. At the time did I think there was anything wrong with that? I'm pretty sure the answer is "no". Deep down I should have known that I shouldn't have been eating that way, but I certainly didn't care, that's for sure. IRRC one day during that time family members were telling me I wasn't eating enough protein, and I questioned the role of protein in building muscle. So yes I would say I was at least somewhat ignorant of what a sound diet should have been like, but I find it hard to believe I was a special snowflake in that regard. It's true that as a young kid I was taught and raised on a better diet, but as I got a little more independent for my meals that knowledge and advice went out the picture.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »stevencloser 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.
Now I'm not suggesting that the proper way to respond to new people here is to assume that they know nothing, but I guess it can be tricky assessing what people do know.
1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
While it's not like I didn't eat anything nutritious, for a period of time during part of my teen years I had a lot of meals (especially lunches) that were nutritionally poor. At the time did I think there was anything wrong with that? I'm pretty sure the answer is "no". Deep down I should have known that I shouldn't have been eating that way, but I certainly didn't care, that's for sure. IRRC one day during that time family members were telling me I wasn't eating enough protein, and I questioned the role of protein in building muscle. So yes I would say I was at least somewhat ignorant of what a sound diet should have been like, but I find it hard to believe I was a special snowflake in that regard. It's true that as a young kid I was taught and raised on a better diet, but as I got a little more independent for my meals that knowledge and advice went out the picture.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »stevencloser 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.
Now I'm not suggesting that the proper way to respond to new people here is to assume that they know nothing, but I guess it can be tricky assessing what people do know.
that is great for you; however, it does not give you liberty to then assume that every other person lacks the proper understanding of basic nutrition.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »stevencloser 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.
I don't think this is true. I probably would have before I joined this site but I have seen post after post where people say they thought (or think) they had to eat "healthy foods" to have a healthy diet. How many posts are there telling us not to eat <something>? How many asking "What can I eat"?
I think a good many people don't know what a good diet is and I doubt they are all totally stupid.5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't think this is true. I probably would have before I joined this site but I have seen post after post where people say they thought (or think) they had to eat "healthy foods" to have a healthy diet. How many posts are there telling us not to eat <something>? How many asking "What can I eat"?
I think a good many people don't know what a good diet is and I doubt they are all totally stupid.
I think this is the heart of the matter. For years we've been bombarded with seemingly contradictory and often downright false information, much of it from the diet industry, and there's widespread confusion (particularly among Americans, I think) about what constitutes a healthy diet. As children we're told "clean your plate, because starving children in Africa/India/Westeros." We're told to control our portion sizes but many don't understand what constitutes a portion. Watch your fats--no, avoid sugar--no, it's CARBS that are the enemy, etc. Worst of all, so many people are conditioned to think of food in terms of "good for you" and "bad for you" and if you enjoy some of that "bad for you" stuff then you are weak, a loser, and morally lacking.
I think this is where some of the "eat anything you want, just less of it" pushback comes from. Nobody's rejecting healthy, less-processed food with high nutritional value. I think it's more a rejection of the concept that you must stick to a diet of only certain foods to lose weight.
8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »stevencloser 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.
I don't think this is true. I probably would have before I joined this site but I have seen post after post where people say they thought (or think) they had to eat "healthy foods" to have a healthy diet. How many posts are there telling us not to eat <something>? How many asking "What can I eat"?
I think a good many people don't know what a good diet is and I doubt they are all totally stupid.
I think if they bothered to think about it, they'd know better. I don't mean something like not knowing optimum protein, but things like eat a balanced diet with protein and vegetables, don't base your diet around sweets and soda, ideally go for choices with more fiber vs. less when it comes to grains (but it's fine to eat some refined grains too and get your fiber elsewhere). That's the kind of basic, even a 5-year old could tell you better, stuff that Jason would have us believe people are too stupid to figure out on their own.
If someone eats only sweets (I have yet to see this myself) or no vegetables or the like, they know they aren't eating a good diet. It's just that often people don't care.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »stevencloser 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.
I don't think this is true. I probably would have before I joined this site but I have seen post after post where people say they thought (or think) they had to eat "healthy foods" to have a healthy diet. How many posts are there telling us not to eat <something>? How many asking "What can I eat"?
I think a good many people don't know what a good diet is and I doubt they are all totally stupid.
I think if they bothered to think about it, they'd know better. I don't mean something like not knowing optimum protein, but things like eat a balanced diet with protein and vegetables, don't base your diet around sweets and soda, ideally go for choices with more fiber vs. less when it comes to grains (but it's fine to eat some refined grains too and get your fiber elsewhere). That's the kind of basic, even a 5-year old could tell you better, stuff that Jason would have us believe people are too stupid to figure out on their own.
If someone eats only sweets (I have yet to see this myself) or no vegetables or the like, they know they aren't eating a good diet. It's just that often people don't care.
I'm not sure who Jason is or what he wants, but I still don't think it's true that only stupid people don't know what a good diet is. I think a shocking number of people think (or thought) things like ice cream or cookies or fast food or pizza can't be part of a good diet.
I do agree that few people eat only sweats, though I do several people IRL who get the majority of their meals from a drive thru and some who flat out refuse to eat most vegetables other than French fries. Oddly most of those will eat a few green beans.0 -
I know I've been guilty of using the term "clean eating," but that was because I was unaware that there have been many instances of others using it and being arrogant and condescending on this site. I now like to refer to it as a balanced diet. I try to eat by paying attention to protein, carbs, and fat, but until I started counting calories, guess what, I wasn't losing anything. I don't know if there is a right way to answer this question, but I'll try. You can lose on 1000 calories of healthy eating or you can lose on 1200 of what others consider unhealthy eating. I don't recommend eating only 1000 calories because your body needs the fuel, but I DO believe in maintaining a balanced diet. Wouldn't it be far easier to go against both extremes and just eat what calories you are allotted yet keep in mind that balance? I can eat stay within my calorie goal by eating a good diet and splurging on some ice cream when I'm able.1
-
alyssa_rest wrote: »I know I've been guilty of using the term "clean eating," but that was because I was unaware that there have been many instances of others using it and being arrogant and condescending on this site. I now like to refer to it as a balanced diet. I try to eat by paying attention to protein, carbs, and fat, but until I started counting calories, guess what, I wasn't losing anything. I don't know if there is a right way to answer this question, but I'll try. You can lose on 1000 calories of healthy eating or you can lose on 1200 of what others consider unhealthy eating. I don't recommend eating only 1000 calories because your body needs the fuel, but I DO believe in maintaining a balanced diet. Wouldn't it be far easier to go against both extremes and just eat what calories you are allotted yet keep in mind that balance? I can eat stay within my calorie goal by eating a good diet and splurging on some ice cream when I'm able.
the funny part is no one is advocating the other side of the extreme, which is this mythical diet of 100% pop tarts and ice cream ...1 -
She was referring to me.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »stevencloser 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.
I don't think this is true. I probably would have before I joined this site but I have seen post after post where people say they thought (or think) they had to eat "healthy foods" to have a healthy diet. How many posts are there telling us not to eat <something>? How many asking "What can I eat"?
I think a good many people don't know what a good diet is and I doubt they are all totally stupid.
I think if they bothered to think about it, they'd know better. I don't mean something like not knowing optimum protein, but things like eat a balanced diet with protein and vegetables, don't base your diet around sweets and soda, ideally go for choices with more fiber vs. less when it comes to grains (but it's fine to eat some refined grains too and get your fiber elsewhere). That's the kind of basic, even a 5-year old could tell you better, stuff that Jason would have us believe people are too stupid to figure out on their own.
If someone eats only sweets (I have yet to see this myself) or no vegetables or the like, they know they aren't eating a good diet. It's just that often people don't care.
I'm not sure who Jason is or what he wants, but I still don't think it's true that only stupid people don't know what a good diet is. I think a shocking number of people think (or thought) things like ice cream or cookies or fast food or pizza can't be part of a good diet.
I do agree that few people eat only sweats, though I do several people IRL who get the majority of their meals from a drive thru and some who flat out refuse to eat most vegetables other than French fries. Oddly most of those will eat a few green beans.
I don't doubt that there's a lot of people out there eating a diet based around highly processed, low nutrient rich foods.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions