Eat 100% clean for 7 days!
Replies
-
Yes, I did leave that out! Good catch, but I still stand by my orginal point....Science is not always accurate. For example, somebody with hypothryoidism off meds, do you think they would lose weight on a negative caloric deficeit?
My apologies, but she is trying to do something out of what she feels is good, and people throw science and negativity at her. Everyone is different and has different views of weight loss, and yes the caloric balance has proven to work! But others do not even count calories and have a weight loss story (and have a positive balance)....My point is this, regardless of any weight loss story, there is going to be a different view by someone. For example, my clients BMR is around 2100 and she consumes 2500-2700 hundred calories a day....she is not gaining weight....in fact shes down 3 pounds...Is this cause of hormones, body compostion, etc? Is it normal? Science tells me for her to lose weight she should have a negative balance right?....Hers is positive... Science is accurate to an extent, but that is it and people will have their own beliefs that they think is accurate (which may or not be given the scenario). Btw congrats on the loss! Awesome accomplishment!
yes, only listen to the people that agree with you!
I wouldn't let troll's bother you...they will argue with you for whatever you put up! Keep doing your thing! Unprocessed food is good! Focus on the ones who are interested!Oh good, more people focusing on the wrong things and who will eventually wonder why they're not losing weight. Have fun!
I don't understand how wanting to eliminate processed food from my diet is focusing on the wrong thing?
I will still get all the food elements, protein, carbs, sugar etc... Just from natural, unprocessed food. And I certainly won't be starving myself!Search the forums and take a look at the number of people confused because they're "eating clean" and yet not losing weight. If you're focused on a calorie deficit that's pretty much all you need for weight loss. Being healthy is a combination of nutrient intake and exercise. None of that has anything to do with "eating clean." That is a bunch of pseudoscientific garbage with zero basis in science.
that's perfect valid advice, not trolling.
Unless your client is doing nothing but sleeping all day it still is a negative balance. BMR is what it would take for her body to function if she did absolutely nothing. I assume she's doing something throughout the day so she's still not eating at maintenance which would explain the loss...DAMN THAT SCIENCE.
I'm going to answer the question you meant to ask: For example, somebody with hypothryoidism off meds, do you think they would lose weight with a caloric deficit?
Yes. They would lose weight if they were eating a caloric deficit. The tricky bit would be that their daily energy expenditure would be lower than for someone with a normal thyroid. They would need to get their RMR tested and use that to figure out how much to eat and still be in a deficit. If they used a TDEE estimator, like someone with a 'normal' metabolism, the estimate would be too high and the calories they calculated would put them in a deficit would be too high as well. Then they think they are eating at a deficit and don't lose weight, when actually, they're not eating at a deficit at all and may still be eating at a surplus.0 -
I agree, well stated..But some do not know how to come across with their approach, so it sounds as if they are attacking the person who posted.I'm not sure why I thought this website would be a supportive forum.... Guess it was that whole common interest thing that led me astray.
I don't understand why people have to poop all over someone else's idea. If you don't want to be a part of her project, don't do it....no need to be smug and negative toward others.
Interesting thing to learn on my first day here....
it's nothing personal directed at the OP.
it's the mindset and the incorrect logic behind the mindset that is the issue.
nobody really cares if you decide you only want to eat carrots and kale that you grow in your backyard. they do care that incorrect information and assumptions are posted and left without rebuttal. if somebody posted a diet challenge that forbade eating fruit and vegetables as "bad", they would also be rebutting that diet as unnecessary.
also, this is a public forum. if this was posted in a private group, you'd not have seen any responses dismissing it.
in the end, all i care about is accurate and complete information. if i see something that i know is wrong or unnecessary and i'm not so annoyed at the forum derp that day, i'll usually say something. information is power. if you're armed with all of the information you need to make a choice, then most of us don't begrudge you that choice no matter what it is.
Well stated!0 -
Is it not what science is about, but to question? Critical thinking?
Yes, I did leave that out! Good catch, but I still stand by my orginal point....Science is not always accurate. For example, somebody with hypothryoidism off meds, do you think they would lose weight on a negative caloric deficeit?
My apologies, but she is trying to do something out of what she feels is good, and people throw science and negativity at her. Everyone is different and has different views of weight loss, and yes the caloric balance has proven to work! But others do not even count calories and have a weight loss story (and have a positive balance)....My point is this, regardless of any weight loss story, there is going to be a different view by someone. For example, my clients BMR is around 2100 and she consumes 2500-2700 hundred calories a day....she is not gaining weight....in fact shes down 3 pounds...Is this cause of hormones, body compostion, etc? Is it normal? Science tells me for her to lose weight she should have a negative balance right?....Hers is positive... Science is accurate to an extent, but that is it and people will have their own beliefs that they think is accurate (which may or not be given the scenario). Btw congrats on the loss! Awesome accomplishment!
yes, only listen to the people that agree with you!
I wouldn't let troll's bother you...they will argue with you for whatever you put up! Keep doing your thing! Unprocessed food is good! Focus on the ones who are interested!Oh good, more people focusing on the wrong things and who will eventually wonder why they're not losing weight. Have fun!
I don't understand how wanting to eliminate processed food from my diet is focusing on the wrong thing?
I will still get all the food elements, protein, carbs, sugar etc... Just from natural, unprocessed food. And I certainly won't be starving myself!Search the forums and take a look at the number of people confused because they're "eating clean" and yet not losing weight. If you're focused on a calorie deficit that's pretty much all you need for weight loss. Being healthy is a combination of nutrient intake and exercise. None of that has anything to do with "eating clean." That is a bunch of pseudoscientific garbage with zero basis in science.
that's perfect valid advice, not trolling.
Unless your client is doing nothing but sleeping all day it still is a negative balance. BMR is what it would take for her body to function if she did absolutely nothing. I assume she's doing something throughout the day so she's still not eating at maintenance which would explain the loss...DAMN THAT SCIENCE.
Last time I checked science accounted for modern medicine and a diagnosis of hyperthyroidism would fall under that umbrella. Please tell me that you're not anti-science while working on your Master's.
That's certainly part of what science is about and I see very little of it in pro clean eating arguments.0 -
I'm not sure why I thought this website would be a supportive forum.... Guess it was that whole common interest thing that led me astray.
I don't understand why people have to poop all over someone else's idea. If you don't want to be a part of her project, don't do it....no need to be smug and negative toward others.
Interesting thing to learn on my first day here....
I'm interested in success and the most painless and effective way to get there. For that, I'll stick with science. Feel free to find people to support you in whatever fad diet nonsense you wish to partake in though.
So what's your method? I'm assuming you're just talking counting calories/macros, but to me, that's the difficult way if I just eat whatever to get there. I can fit a donut or ice cream into my calories and macros every day, but if I eat that, it triggers me to crave junk food constantly. (my gluten issues aside on the donut). Then it's like torture to stay within my calorie counts/macros. On the other hand, I find it rare to go much over 1600 calories a day of meat/fish/veggies, even if I'm eating all I want.
So to me - eating clean is the easy way to stay withing the "science" parameters for weight loss.
I eat a well balanced diet, much of which would fall under at least a percentage of clean eaters' definition of "clean." I do, however, eat grains and dairy and do not bother with organic produce, and each of these would fall outside of that umbrella for a percentage of clean eaters. My point is that I see nothing to be gained in the semantics that surround clean eating arguments. Instead, let's go right to the heart of what we see from studies on nutrition and exercise and then we can each decide for ourselves how we handle the grey areas. To do otherwise, I think, is intellectually dishonest and clearly confuses the uninformed.
Purely as an example, if your position is that we should eat organic then that is an opinion that is not backed up by the science. Does that mean that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by eating organic? Possibly yes and possibly no. We don't know. We each can handle that ourselves but I think we all should be intellectually honest about that decision rather than insisting that clean means organic and not eating clean means a lack of weight loss, cancer, etc.
Edit: Yes. I absolutely do count my macros, plus fiber and I track calcium and Vitamin A and C.0 -
didn't you know that chemicals are bad?I just went and looked at the rules, no chemicals. Looks like a 7 day fast to me.
lololol0 -
I ALWAYS clean my fruits and veggies with produce rinse. Fit for the win! #BAM0
-
I eat a well balanced diet, much of which would fall under at least a percentage of clean eaters' definition of "clean." I do, however, eat grains and dairy and do not bother with organic produce, and each of these would fall outside of that umbrella for a percentage of clean eaters. My point is that I see nothing to be gained in the semantics that surround clean eating arguments. Instead, let's go right to the heart of what we see from studies on nutrition and exercise and then we can each decide for ourselves how we handle the grey areas. To do otherwise, I think, is intellectually dishonest and clearly confuses the uninformed.
Purely as an example, if your position is that we should eat organic then that is an opinion that is not backed up by the science. Does that mean that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by eating organic? Possibly yes and possibly no. We don't know. We each can handle that ourselves but I think we all should be intellectually honest about that decision rather than insisting that clean means organic and not eating clean means a lack of weight loss, cancer, etc.
Edit: Yes. I absolutely do count my macros, plus fiber and I track calcium and Vitamin A and C.
I don't eat all organic either - when I do it's as much for ethical reasons as anything - I try to eat locally produced food as well and obviously that doesn't have much to do with nutrition either. I also eat free range eggs when I can, (or eggs from neighbors with free range chickens) because I feel bad for mistreated chickens as much as for any hypothetical health benefits for myself. And generally I can afford to do this, so I do. I agree though that those things aren't necessarily related to clean eating. I'd recommend that people cut out fast food, packaged mixes, things with sugar added for no reason (like spaghetti sauce), foods with unnaturally long shelf lives, etc. To me, that's more important to "clean eating" than organic is. This goes back to the trouble with defining something that's so vague.
And I guess I at least partly see what you're saying about confusing the uninformed, but by the same logic, if you're just advising people to count calories/follow macros/etc - and they have an undiagnosed food sensitivity like I did, it's going to be really difficult for them. I'm pretty sure that's the main reason why so many people DO have success with Paleo, etc. I know if I eat dairy, I wind up congested and can't sleep well. Back when I was eating dairy and gluten, I just assumed that was a fact of life. I assumed my knee pain was a fact of life after 5 knee surgeries. My doctors never had any solutions for me other than drugs to mask the symptoms (which just created other side effects just as bad as the issue we were treating). But changing my diet got rid of these issues.
So I guess I also think that people are uninformed about the fact that food sensitivities can be a big issue and don't always show up as gastrointestinal issues. And depending on the definition of eating "clean", you might be able to figure out if you have food sensitivities by eliminating things from your diet for a while. Personally I'd recommend more like 3 weeks or so and you'd need to eliminate specific things, but maybe a week gets someone motivated to try more. I do know a lot of people who want to take baby steps in cleaning up their diet and maybe this works as a step for someone.
If this was advertised as some sort of miracle weight loss program or "eat organic and feel 100% healthy!", then yes. It would be misleading BS. But I don't see what there is to be outraged about with a challange that isn't promising anything in terms of results. If people are looking for specific results, they've got to do more research than just jumping in to a diet challenge for a week.0 -
I eat a well balanced diet, much of which would fall under at least a percentage of clean eaters' definition of "clean." I do, however, eat grains and dairy and do not bother with organic produce, and each of these would fall outside of that umbrella for a percentage of clean eaters. My point is that I see nothing to be gained in the semantics that surround clean eating arguments. Instead, let's go right to the heart of what we see from studies on nutrition and exercise and then we can each decide for ourselves how we handle the grey areas. To do otherwise, I think, is intellectually dishonest and clearly confuses the uninformed.
Purely as an example, if your position is that we should eat organic then that is an opinion that is not backed up by the science. Does that mean that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by eating organic? Possibly yes and possibly no. We don't know. We each can handle that ourselves but I think we all should be intellectually honest about that decision rather than insisting that clean means organic and not eating clean means a lack of weight loss, cancer, etc.
Edit: Yes. I absolutely do count my macros, plus fiber and I track calcium and Vitamin A and C.
I don't eat all organic either - when I do it's as much for ethical reasons as anything - I try to eat locally produced food as well and obviously that doesn't have much to do with nutrition either. I also eat free range eggs when I can, (or eggs from neighbors with free range chickens) because I feel bad for mistreated chickens as much as for any hypothetical health benefits for myself. And generally I can afford to do this, so I do. I agree though that those things aren't necessarily related to clean eating. I'd recommend that people cut out fast food, packaged mixes, things with sugar added for no reason (like spaghetti sauce), foods with unnaturally long shelf lives, etc. To me, that's more important to "clean eating" than organic is. This goes back to the trouble with defining something that's so vague.
And I guess I at least partly see what you're saying about confusing the uninformed, but by the same logic, if you're just advising people to count calories/follow macros/etc - and they have an undiagnosed food sensitivity like I did, it's going to be really difficult for them. I'm pretty sure that's the main reason why so many people DO have success with Paleo, etc. I know if I eat dairy, I wind up congested and can't sleep well. Back when I was eating dairy and gluten, I just assumed that was a fact of life. I assumed my knee pain was a fact of life after 5 knee surgeries. My doctors never had any solutions for me other than drugs to mask the symptoms (which just created other side effects just as bad as the issue we were treating). But changing my diet got rid of these issues.
So I guess I also think that people are uninformed about the fact that food sensitivities can be a big issue and don't always show up as gastrointestinal issues. And depending on the definition of eating "clean", you might be able to figure out if you have food sensitivities by eliminating things from your diet for a while. Personally I'd recommend more like 3 weeks or so and you'd need to eliminate specific things, but maybe a week gets someone motivated to try more. I do know a lot of people who want to take baby steps in cleaning up their diet and maybe this works as a step for someone.
If this was advertised as some sort of miracle weight loss program or "eat organic and feel 100% healthy!", then yes. It would be misleading BS. But I don't see what there is to be outraged about with a challange that isn't promising anything in terms of results. If people are looking for specific results, they've got to do more research than just jumping in to a diet challenge for a week.
So you mix in your personal ethical beliefs with your personal and undiagnosed food sensitivities and call that clean eating? I hope you're starting to see why many of us start to simply laugh at this all bottled up as a path towards a healthy lifestyle that should be followed by all.
If someone has a medical issue then they should see a MD. Anything less is so much pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. Self diagnosed "food sensitivities" with no gastrointestinal problems and that don't show up on allergy tests? Knee pain from gluten and milk? Righto.
I'll continue to read scientific articles and listen to experts who do the same and are not guided by agendas disguised as health advice.0 -
Wow! I didn't think my topic would spark this much of a debate, but I'm glad to see that we are all so passionate about what we put into our bodies!
I'll explain myself a little more!
For me, clean eating is eating nutritionally dense food, as close to it's natural state as I can get it. So when I say "non-processed", I mean food that has not been altered with man made chemicals. As someone pointed out above, I avoid food with long shelf lives etc.
I don't plan on eating any less calories than I need. I don't plan on fasting. I don't plan on cutting out major food groups.
I do plan on cutting out all man made sweeteners, chemicals etc. So, while normally if I fancied something sweet I would eat some chocolate or candy, I will now, instead make (for example) chocolate, coconut balls, using coconut oil, almond meal, and raw cacao powder. It's all natural. It all came from the earth. That, to me, is clean eating.0 -
Someone asked for a sample menu!
Breakfast - Oats, made with almond milk, and cinnamon.
Lunch - Baked sweet potato, served salad with perhaps some fish/chicken/turkey.
Dinner - Selection of vegetables stir fried in coconut oil, with chicken and chilli. Served with wild rice.
Snacks - Fruit - Nuts - Coconut balls (see above)
Drinks - Water - Herbal teas (I grow mint, so I generally make fresh mint tea)0 -
I too struggle with the words clean and processed. But I am on day 5 of my own challenge, I cut out grains and dairy (paleo esque) just to see if I could do it (since I am could live on mac n cheese), and what the results would be, I have tried eating stuff like poptarts and snickers and staying under my calorie goal, I wasn't getting anywhere, So I think my version of moderation will be to avoid these foods most days of the week and enjoy them in moderation one or two days a week, at least thats the plan. So far I feel great only mildly craving the stuff, Find what works for you but the terms clean and processed mean nothing, I like me some sausage! lol0
-
I believe that clean eating means eating food as close to its natural state as possible, i.e. fresh carrots rather than canned; meat from the meat case that you cook yourself rather than from the frozen food section (chicken nuggets); clean eating is meant to eat food that has the least amount of additives in it, some of which can be added fats, sodium, calories, etc. that we dont need IF you want to eat as fresh food as possible.
Basically its buying the food from the edges of the store (fruits, veg, meat, dairy) rather than the middle aisles where they have all the canned and packaged food.
As to that - i buy some organic vegs because some of them have a better flavor than the usual market produce, but some organic which doesn't have preservatives - they are more bruised, so in that way, i buy what looks more appealing. I dont go all religious with eating clean, i just use reasonableness and what looks good to me and what is the price i want to pay. I've seen blackberries from $2.99 a box to $5.99 a box. sheesh.0 -
I am going to be a complete fence sitter on this one because apparently I have been on a "clean" eating challenge for 42 years without realising it. I'd never even heard of clean eating until I joined MFP but have always bought raw ingredients and cooked everything from scratch as I've never liked the taste of packet stuff. I rarely eat out and I hate the greasy taste of fast food.
Wait a minute why am I on MFP? Well I ate too much and I put on weight. So if anyone is reading this and thinks that "clean" eating may be the answer to their weight loss remember that it all comes down to that most common of quotes "calories in, calories out".
Right hopping off the fence now, I will be over there pulling splinters out of my *kitten* if anyone needs me.0 -
I eat a well balanced diet, much of which would fall under at least a percentage of clean eaters' definition of "clean." I do, however, eat grains and dairy and do not bother with organic produce, and each of these would fall outside of that umbrella for a percentage of clean eaters. My point is that I see nothing to be gained in the semantics that surround clean eating arguments. Instead, let's go right to the heart of what we see from studies on nutrition and exercise and then we can each decide for ourselves how we handle the grey areas. To do otherwise, I think, is intellectually dishonest and clearly confuses the uninformed.
Purely as an example, if your position is that we should eat organic then that is an opinion that is not backed up by the science. Does that mean that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by eating organic? Possibly yes and possibly no. We don't know. We each can handle that ourselves but I think we all should be intellectually honest about that decision rather than insisting that clean means organic and not eating clean means a lack of weight loss, cancer, etc.
Edit: Yes. I absolutely do count my macros, plus fiber and I track calcium and Vitamin A and C.
I don't eat all organic either - when I do it's as much for ethical reasons as anything - I try to eat locally produced food as well and obviously that doesn't have much to do with nutrition either. I also eat free range eggs when I can, (or eggs from neighbors with free range chickens) because I feel bad for mistreated chickens as much as for any hypothetical health benefits for myself. And generally I can afford to do this, so I do. I agree though that those things aren't necessarily related to clean eating. I'd recommend that people cut out fast food, packaged mixes, things with sugar added for no reason (like spaghetti sauce), foods with unnaturally long shelf lives, etc. To me, that's more important to "clean eating" than organic is. This goes back to the trouble with defining something that's so vague.
And I guess I at least partly see what you're saying about confusing the uninformed, but by the same logic, if you're just advising people to count calories/follow macros/etc - and they have an undiagnosed food sensitivity like I did, it's going to be really difficult for them. I'm pretty sure that's the main reason why so many people DO have success with Paleo, etc. I know if I eat dairy, I wind up congested and can't sleep well. Back when I was eating dairy and gluten, I just assumed that was a fact of life. I assumed my knee pain was a fact of life after 5 knee surgeries. My doctors never had any solutions for me other than drugs to mask the symptoms (which just created other side effects just as bad as the issue we were treating). But changing my diet got rid of these issues.
So I guess I also think that people are uninformed about the fact that food sensitivities can be a big issue and don't always show up as gastrointestinal issues. And depending on the definition of eating "clean", you might be able to figure out if you have food sensitivities by eliminating things from your diet for a while. Personally I'd recommend more like 3 weeks or so and you'd need to eliminate specific things, but maybe a week gets someone motivated to try more. I do know a lot of people who want to take baby steps in cleaning up their diet and maybe this works as a step for someone.
If this was advertised as some sort of miracle weight loss program or "eat organic and feel 100% healthy!", then yes. It would be misleading BS. But I don't see what there is to be outraged about with a challange that isn't promising anything in terms of results. If people are looking for specific results, they've got to do more research than just jumping in to a diet challenge for a week.
So you mix in your personal ethical beliefs with your personal and undiagnosed food sensitivities and call that clean eating? I hope you're starting to see why many of us start to simply laugh at this all bottled up as a path towards a healthy lifestyle that should be followed by all.
If someone has a medical issue then they should see a MD. Anything less is so much pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. Self diagnosed "food sensitivities" with no gastrointestinal problems and that don't show up on allergy tests? Knee pain from gluten and milk? Righto.
I'll continue to read scientific articles and listen to experts who do the same and are not guided by agendas disguised as health advice.
I said over and over again that there is no specific way to define clean eating and that it's whatever makes sense to the individual and you're accusing me of telling everyone to do what I'm doing? Where did I tell anyone what to eat? I'm just explaining my personal diet plan (which has been very successful!), not telling anyone else what to do.
My food sensitivities DO show up on allergy tests now that I've had them done. But I never had a doctor recommend that until I asked for it.
But you clearly know what's going on with my body better than I do, right? I should just eat cake and take drugs to keep myself functioning? That's great that you think that my gluten sensitivity isn't related to inflammation, but if I eat it, my knees are visibly swollen the next day (and it hurts). If I don't, they're never swollen. They were perpetually swollen for years before I made this change. If you've got a better explanation, please do fill me in.0 -
The best definition that I have heard is one ingredient foods. So apple, lettuce, beef, etc. not saying that I agree with it. But this is how I define it. I try to stay out of the middle isles of the grocery store and only shop the perimeter.
What lol?0 -
Can I eat natural chemicals? Like aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, ergot alkaloids, fumonisins, patulin, trichothecenes (such as deoxynivalenol which is also known as vomitoxin) and zearalenone?
You're my hero.0 -
0
-
Exactly how does one eat 100% clean??
Can you provide a sample meal plan?
Meal 1: 1 Rice Cake
Meal 2: 1 Paper Towel
Meal 3: A slice of Lembas Bread
Meal 4: 1 Glass of Water
Meal 5: 1 Cinnamon Stick
Meal 6: 1 Leaf of Lettuce
Repeat for 7 days. Are you up for the challenge?
0 -
Exactly how does one eat 100% clean??
Can you provide a sample meal plan?
Meal 1: 1 Rice Cake
Meal 2: 1 Paper Towel
Meal 3: A slice of Lembas Bread
Meal 4: 1 Glass of Water
Meal 5: 1 Cinnamon Stick
Meal 6: 1 Leaf of Lettuce
Repeat for 7 days. Are you up for the challenge?
~shreds a tear~ that....was beautiful...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions