Calories/Clean Eating/Undereating
Options
Replies
-
SymbolismNZ wrote: »One thing to note in the "A calorie is a calorie" debate - certain foodgroups require more thermic energy to process ( protein being a good one, as long as it's not excess protein ) and therefore mean your body consumes more calories in a day than it otherwise would've.
I dare say if someone did manage to somehow consume lets say 2500 calories of raw kale and carrots, with a further 500 calories through the day of protein + EFAs; their BMR before any exercise would be higher (possibly by as many as 200-300 burned calories within a day) than someone who had consumed breads, sugars and such to get to 2500 calories.
So while you're accurate in saying Kale Calories In are the same as say Chocolate Calories In purely from an energy standpoint, you're not accounting for the changes to your metabolic rate. There is a ton of research here, just google "Thermic Effect of Food"
Nah.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Relevant bit:On the basis of a meta-analysis, it was concluded that the thermic effect of food increases ≈7 kcal/1000 kcal of ingested food for each increase of 10 percentage points in the percentage of energy from protein. Thus, if a subject is instructed to consume a 1500-kcal/d energy-restricted diet with 35% of energy from protein, then the thermic effect of food will be 21 kcal/d higher than if protein contributes only 15% of the dietary energy.
21 extra calories from going from recommended minimum amounts of protein to bodybuilder levels.4 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »One thing to note in the "A calorie is a calorie" debate - certain foodgroups require more thermic energy to process ( protein being a good one, as long as it's not excess protein ) and therefore mean your body consumes more calories in a day than it otherwise would've.
In addition to stevencloser's point, focusing on TEF as a reason to make food decisions just isn't sensible. Pretty much the difference is that protein's TEF is higher, fat's is the lowest, and refined carbs are similar to fat whereas carbs with more fiber are somewhat higher. So choose more protein? No, there's already a good reason to get a decent amount of protein independent of TEF (I'd recommend around .6-.8 g/lb of healthy body weight or goal weight and aim for .8 g/lb myself). Getting more than that because TEF would lead to an unbalanced diet (vs. eating somewhat more just because your tastes lean that way, perhaps), and it is based on a rather silly idea that there's some benefit to eating more calories on paper. Seriously, who cares.
So if you don't vary protein much, changing diet has no meaningful effect on TEF. (May not anyway as stevencloser noted.)
Obviously, pay attention to satiety, but TEF has nothing to do with that. In fact, much more important than "eating more calories on paper," things that relate to satiety include satisfaction, and I suspect most would be more satisfied with a balanced diet than one made up mostly of protein, and getting in nutrients and their own personal foods that make them feel satisfied (again, requiring much more than a focus on TEF and people vary in what they find sating). Indeed, although fat has a low TEF, many people find that eating more makes them feel fuller (which I think likely relates to the satisfaction element).
Also, pay attention to nutrition/health, and again that would indicate that a diet biased toward very high protein because TEF may not be a good idea.0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Basically "clean" in my view is eating foods that fuel your body, rather than foods (or drinks) that simply add calories and little else.
What's the point of using the term if it's not how it's normally used and you could easily explain what you mean in a way that's clearer? Is it because then you couldn't accuse others (who also believe that they are eating foods that fuel their body) of not eating clean? It's this effort to claim superiority (often while eating the same) that I think makes the "clean" label rather objectionable (and sometimes humorous, as often the people going on about how "clean" they eat don't seem to know much about nutrition and assume everyone else eats only fast food fries or some such).
Personally, I wouldn't use the term "clean" for my diet as I know I eat foods that are processed and thus not normally considered "clean" (like cheese or smoked salmon). Plus, I don't see any reason to use the term but as an effort to claim my diet is purer or better or more morally upright or beyond reproach or otherwise superior to others, and that strikes me as an inappropriate way to talk about my diet and unduly judge-y of people who may simply have different concerns or ideas about nutrition than I do. I think it's better to focus on the facts and not language with a moral connotation and say I try to eat a nutritious diet.
Or does it go back to the all or nothing distinction?
"Clean" means a diet that attempts to 100% exclude certain foods as unhealthy, in any amount and however rarely they may be eaten, although "clean eaters" differ on what these foods are. Therefore, a given a "clean eater" may have a diet much more similar in most respects to someone who eats a healthful, nutrition-conscious diet and yet includes some lower-nutrient foods in moderation* (although what a lower nutrient food is is debatable, as I think cheese counts, even though I eat it because I love it and it makes my diet more satisfying and I don't think it's harmful).
*Moderation means "an amount that fits within a sensible calorie allotment when nutritional needs have been met. It could be something eaten regularly in somewhat small amounts or rarely in larger amounts."2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Not nitpick you, but I didn't even know the difference between a protein and a carb when I started dieting and I thought all fats were bad. Yeah, I knew vegetables were good for you, but I thought that meant I should only eat vegetables and that meat made people fat. It wasn't until I did some research that I even figured out what things were carbs, fats, and proteins. Granted, I was in middle school when I started trying to lose weight which might account for some of the unawareness. Still, I'm surprised even today when I find out a food has a certain vitamin or that a certain food has more carbs than fat etc.
Basically, what I'm trying to get at is it all depends on what you know/grow up learning. I know kids nowadays who eat more vegetables than I was ever exposed to. I swear my diet until middle school was mostly chicken nuggets, burgers, french fries, milkshakes...maybe lasagna and meatloaf. I ate a lot of sugary cereal, cookies, cakes....I'm surprised I got all the vitamins I needed!
0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
Basically "clean" in my view is eating foods that fuel your body, rather than foods (or drinks) that simply add calories and little else.
A calorie is a unit of energy so your comment is contradictory.5 -
OpalMagnus wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Not nitpick you, but I didn't even know the difference between a protein and a carb when I started dieting and I thought all fats were bad. Yeah, I knew vegetables were good for you, but I thought that meant I should only eat vegetables and that meat made people fat. It wasn't until I did some research that I even figured out what things were carbs, fats, and proteins. Granted, I was in middle school when I started trying to lose weight which might account for some of the unawareness. Still, I'm surprised even today when I find out a food has a certain vitamin or that a certain food has more carbs than fat etc.
Basically, what I'm trying to get at is it all depends on what you know/grow up learning. I know kids nowadays who eat more vegetables than I was ever exposed to. I swear my diet until middle school was mostly chicken nuggets, burgers, french fries, milkshakes...maybe lasagna and meatloaf. I ate a lot of sugary cereal, cookies, cakes....I'm surprised I got all the vitamins I needed!
I don't mean that I assume people know about fat and carbs and protein (beyond "we should have some protein in our diet" and maybe fears about carbs or fats) -- other than knowing meat, eggs, and dairy had protein, I don't think I knew much about those things until I bothered to learn about it (although once I did it seemed pretty simple and I read labels). I mean knowing what a balanced, healthy meal is -- vegetables, some sort of protein, maybe a starchy side, maybe some fat for cooking or a little for taste. Those were things that I wouldn't have said I knew, but if you asked me to describe a healthy dinner based on what I think I knew even as a 5 year old (or 8 year old, at least) I think it would have been pretty sensible.
What has surprised me at MFP is how many people assume that because vegetables are nutrient dense that that would be an ideal diet would be only vegetables (I don't mean sensible plant based diets, but eating only non starchy veg) or the related "only juice" things. So I do find that odd, but generally that's not the people that are being discussed who supposedly (SUCH a strawman) don't realize that eating only sweets or only burgers and fries would be a not so good choice. It's if anything more of a orthorexic kind of thing based on fear of foods.
I also was -- admittedly -- surprised at how many kids seem to have grown up never eating balanced meals or vegetables. I don't think we ate in any special way at all, but it was just normal to be told to eat a balanced meal, not to have sweets if they would spoil your dinner (or without eating your veg), stuff like that. So perhaps I was somewhat fortunate, but it seems to me that there's actually a lot more formal education in stuff like nutrition now then there was when I was a kid. And we didn't have the ability to look some food up on the internet and see the nutrient profile like, well, almost everyone does today.
Let me ask you, since I think this was the topic under discussion -- if someone eats a really bad diet now, like no vegetables, mostly fast food (and not careful choices that are nutrient-dense like you can make if you try), tons of high cal sweets, so on, do you think that person really doesn't know that they could improve their diet or some basic steps to do it? Do you think they need to be told by others at MFP that they should eat vegetables or that cake really shouldn't be the basic staple of their meals? I think people know that, so if they choose to eat that way it's not because of ignorance, but choice or desire.0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »One thing to note in the "A calorie is a calorie" debate - certain foodgroups require more thermic energy to process ( protein being a good one, as long as it's not excess protein ) and therefore mean your body consumes more calories in a day than it otherwise would've.
I dare say if someone did manage to somehow consume lets say 2500 calories of raw kale and carrots, with a further 500 calories through the day of protein + EFAs; their BMR before any exercise would be higher (possibly by as many as 200-300 burned calories within a day) than someone who had consumed breads, sugars and such to get to 2500 calories.
So while you're accurate in saying Kale Calories In are the same as say Chocolate Calories In purely from an energy standpoint, you're not accounting for the changes to your metabolic rate. There is a ton of research here, just google "Thermic Effect of Food"
As others have pointed out, the TEF piece is negligible in the grand scheme of things when you look at a total calorie TDEE in the neighborhood of 2000 and we are talking about an impact of 10 or less total calories.
Aside from that, do you really think eating a diet of nothing but kale and carrots is healthier than eating a balanced diet that includes SOME chocolate, or SOME ice cream? You really believe it is reasonable for people to strive for perfect macros and micros and zero foods for indulgence, simply because that's the BEST way? There is always more we can do in life: why go to the gym 5 days when you can go 7? Why work out for an hour when you could work out for 2? Why watch a movie with your kids when you could be exercising, or balancing your budget, or finishing a spreadsheet for the boss? Why spend money on a pair of boots you've been coveting when you could put that money in savings?
Because we are human beings and we are imperfect, but as someone else mentioned, perfection is the enemy of "good enough". Eating should provide nutrition, satiety, and enjoyment and a calorie level that enables a person to achieve a healthy weight. It does not need to achieve perfection in any one of those areas to be good enough and to provide a healthy overall body and mind....3 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »One thing to note in the "A calorie is a calorie" debate - certain foodgroups require more thermic energy to process ( protein being a good one, as long as it's not excess protein ) and therefore mean your body consumes more calories in a day than it otherwise would've.
I dare say if someone did manage to somehow consume lets say 2500 calories of raw kale and carrots, with a further 500 calories through the day of protein + EFAs; their BMR before any exercise would be higher (possibly by as many as 200-300 burned calories within a day) than someone who had consumed breads, sugars and such to get to 2500 calories.
So while you're accurate in saying Kale Calories In are the same as say Chocolate Calories In purely from an energy standpoint, you're not accounting for the changes to your metabolic rate. There is a ton of research here, just google "Thermic Effect of Food"
You may want to brush up on your knowledge of TEF. The Thermic Effect for kale (carbs) and chocolate (carbs/fats) are going to be very close to the same. Fat is slightly lower, but not significantly. The TEF is highest for protein, considerably higher than either carbs or fats. So if we're going to major in the minors and discuss hypothetical meals in which only one substrate is consumed in a fasted state (which is about the only time TEF of an individual macronutrient matters), maybe it would be more relevant to consider something like kale vs. tuna.0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »"Clean" is also a matter of interpretation, I consider myself to eat "clean" yet most would say the fact that I eat quite a bit of cheese ( "processed" ) , don't mind cured products like bacon and ham and consume other processed foods like protein powders or MCT Oils.
Basically "clean" in my view is eating foods that fuel your body, rather than foods (or drinks) that simply add calories and little else.
so basically "clean" is eating any food, because any food fuels your body ..
that is a new one...
4 -
The point is not all calories are created equal. I could sit here and eat that bagged spinach, cucumbers, kale etc till the cows come home and nothings gonna happen, in fact I'm gonna lose weight, if you sit there and eat the same amount of calories in cookies and cakes your probably not gonna lose weight.
They are both *kitten* examples because you would be malnourished in both instances...1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »"Clean" is also a matter of interpretation, I consider myself to eat "clean" yet most would say the fact that I eat quite a bit of cheese ( "processed" ) , don't mind cured products like bacon and ham and consume other processed foods like protein powders or MCT Oils.
Basically "clean" in my view is eating foods that fuel your body, rather than foods (or drinks) that simply add calories and little else.
In football, if you have two Quarterbacks you have no Quarterbacks. This clean nonsense is very similar. If you ask ten different people you'll probably get ten different answers, therefore, you have zero answers for what clean is...
2 -
-
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.
I think that stems from people who see a facebook post that says if you eat apples and raw vegetables every day you'll lose belly fat. Or those people who think that going vegetarian constitutes 'clean' eating. I have nothing wrong with eating whole (unprocessed) foods, and I'll be the first to agree that they are better for you than processed foods. However, just switching to 'clean eating' isn't going to lose you weight. A calorie deficit will lose you weight.How is 1200 calories of ice cream, fast food, and alcohol better for you than 1000 calories of tuna, eggs, and veggies?
It's not better for you. Calorie deficit is for weight loss. Macros/Micros/Nutrients are for your health and goals. For instance, if you eat 1200 calories a day of ice cream only you certainly can, and likely will, lose weight, but you're going to end up sick/unhealthy, probably get diabetes, but you can certainly lose weight. Eating 1200 calories of whole foods or 'clean' foods is certainly better for you but there's a common trend in both methods. The 1200 calories. All day long people flock to MFP and post things about how cutting out sugar and eating little or no carbs is all that is needed for weight loss. Hell sometimes they post stupid crap like drinking Apple Cider Vinegar melts fat in your belly area. None of that crap works without a caloric deficit in my humble opinion.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 1200 calorie minimum doesn't fit everyone. There are people who are shorter than 5' tall, might be very very inactive that may get by with less than 1200 calories a day without harm. There are others who'll eat less, then pick a day or two a week and eat more to catch up. It's all cumulative, and the 1200 calorie a day limit is simply the lowest some lawyer somewhere has told diet sites like MFP that they should recommend to avoid being sued (in my opinion lol). I have friends that consistently eat 1000 calories a day and do just fine, their health is good, they lose weight, yet when they increase to 1200+ they gain weight, probably due to their activity levels or other health reasons that are unique to them only. Everyone is different, nothing works perfectly for everyone. I'd have to agree with you though, to me the term 'clean' means unprocessed or minimally processed.
As always, these are my opinions only.
0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »
I guess you never heard that joke before...0 -
3
-
-
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »
I couldn't say why but this made me laugh and laugh. I want to be Canadian so that I can use it to explain all kinds of things.
At any rate, I'm an American (and from the midwest no less) and I have never heard that joke either.0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
I couldn't say why but this made me laugh and laugh. I want to be Canadian so that I can use it to explain all kinds of things.
At any rate, I'm an American (and from the midwest no less) and I have never heard that joke either.
If you watch Whose Line then, you have to say it like Colin does.1 -
It's the point of moving people away from items such as cookies, cakes, chips, pop tarts, ice cream to a diet of minimaly processed foods such as veggies, fruits, beans, and legumes. Honestly a lot of people are overfed but they are malnourished, I was one of those people! I am extremely passionate about a whole foods diet because it has radically changed my life. I lost weight in the past eating frozen diet meals and prepackaged diet foods but I still felt like garbage and I was always hungry. I switched to whole foods plant based and it completely changed my life. The point is not all calories are created equal. I could sit here and eat that bagged spinach, cucumbers, kale etc till the cows come home and nothings gonna happen, in fact I'm gonna lose weight, if you sit there and eat the same amount of calories in cookies and cakes your probably not gonna lose weight.
My "favorite" thing about clean eating is how chips are always mentioned as evil. Yet according to the rules of clean eating, chips should be allowed. (This is not a plug for chips as a health food BTW, just an example)
"Potatoes, Canola oil, salt" - ingredients in my favorite chips
I can pronounce all those ingredients, there are less than five of them, and know what they all are. Does this mean chips are good for you?
... just sayin
2
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