Calories in/out verses clean eating

2»

Replies

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    charlieaulert wrote: »
    OP...

    Clean Eating Vs Calories in & Calories out…

    Cleaning eating would usually give the individual the correct amount of proteins to aid in recovery. The correct amount of carbs will fuel the work out and allow for a recovery afterwards. Fats are required and therefore will make up the diet too.

    As an example, I’m currently cutting and eating around 1g protein per lbs of body weight, I’m relatively low on carbs, but eat them around my workout & then my fats make up the rest of my macros. Please note that timing is also important.

    If I was low on proteins, I wouldn’t recover as I do; likewise with carbs, I may not be able to fuel my work out or recover in the way that I do.

    Calories in vs calories out will help you lose weight, but if you’re serious about weight loss (fat loss) and want to get the best results possible, ‘clean eating’ would be beneficial.

    Read the first post in this thread, OP achieved pretty good results without all the broscience: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    sarko15 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    sarko15 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    sarko15 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »

    People can do almost anything, but nobody *here* recommends living exclusively on pizza, cookies, and soda and I've never met a single person who only ate those three foods without ever eating anything else (well, I guess I have now that I've met you) and I have never seen it recommended anywhere else. I'm glad you realized that meeting your nutritional needs is going to require eating more than those three things. I think it's a bit of a dead end though, because absolutely nothing in the OP indicates that she is interested in restricting her diet to those three items.

    OP wants to know if she can meet her goals through calorie counting. The answer is yes, despite any restrictions that you may have practiced in the past. Meeting your nutritional needs *is* important, but "clean eating" isn't about that. Clean eating is about practicing additional restrictions above and beyond meeting one's needs.

    I wasn't saying just those three things, and I don't know if your definition of "clean eating" is the right one for everyone because there isn't really a right one, hence the "whatever that means." Still a worthwhile discussion. I acknowledged that I probably misunderstood the OP, we don't have to be snarky anymore :)

    When you responded to @malibu927 writing "nobody does that" with "I did that," I thought you meant what you wrote. I wasn't trying to be snarky, I was responding to what you wrote and assuming it was a reflection of what you meant.

    If you meant that you *didn't* do that, then I think we can go back to the original "Nobody does that."

    Again, not trying to be snarky -- I'm trying to respond to what you're writing and if you mean something other than that, I won't know until you clarify.

    Those were just examples...not every eating disorder is rice cakes and cucumbers and not every example is the full picture. I didn't have a well balanced diet for how many calories I was eating and it didn't serve me, and I know I'm not alone. Obviously, this isn't everyone and you don't have to have a perfect, flawless diet to be healthy. And maybe it's my own personal history that finds the general CICO to be uncomfortably simple (even if to others it is much more nuanced), even though I agree with it as a basic principle. I apologize if I wasn't being very clear, because I really do think we're on the same page. It's possible I was speaking for myself too much rather than actually interpreting the OP's post, for which I apologize.

    I completely agree that EDs can take many different forms. I don't see anything in OP's post to indicate that is what is at play here.

    Keep in mind that the choices aren't "clean eating" or "ignore my nutritional needs." It's completely possible to meet one's needs while ignoring the concept of "clean eating" and with the information we currently have available, I'm thinking that is what OP is asking about. Can you meet your weight and fitness goals without "clean eating"? That's the question in the OP and the answer is yes.

    For people with a history of malnutrition or a history of ED, the answer may be more complex. But bringing that framework to every post that is simply asking about "clean eating" seems unnecessary to me (not that I am the authority of what belongs in every post, it's just my opinion).
    Yes, I don't think that was at all what was in the heart of OP's post, I've said a couple times that I probably responded in the wrong way for the context as well as apologized. We all have emotional reactions in ways that aren't right sometimes, and it was probably my pre-coffee delicate state that caused my hasty response. :)

    I think we all agree but just come from different places and perceptions of what a horribly vague concept of "clean eating" is so it's not worth continuing to go in circles about it because there's no real right answer and we all agree.

    It may be a horribly vague concept. On the other hand "more than 40 percent of adults have dietary intakes of vitamin A, C, D and E, calcium and magnesium below the average requirement for their age and gender"
    http://www.ewg.org/research/how-much-is-too-much/appendix-b-vitamin-and-mineral-deficiencies-us
    In other words, more than 40 percent of people (none of them is here on mfp I suppose) eat a diet that is basically "junk" based.
    Good luck with that.
  • peaceout_aly
    peaceout_aly Posts: 2,018 Member
    naturallykinky wrote: »
    I would like to have a tone body getting rid of excess fat and cellulite. (Currently at 182 @ 5'7) Members at my gym suggest eating more cleaner. I would like to know if anyone has seen these type of results with just counting calories. Thanks in advance.

    Calories in versus calories out is the key to losing weight. Basic science. However, nutrition (clean eating, whatever) aids in building muscle mass and achieving fitness goals (focusing on getting enough protein, carbs, etc. to assist your energy levels, gain muscle and strength).

    If you're eating 4,000 calories of chicken it's still gonna make you fat just like 4,000 calories of Ben & Jerry's would. You'd just get more protein. Make every calorie count (clean eat) while still paying attention to calories in / out. That's key in my opinion.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    Gianfranco_R wrote: »
    sarko15 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    sarko15 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    sarko15 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »

    People can do almost anything, but nobody *here* recommends living exclusively on pizza, cookies, and soda and I've never met a single person who only ate those three foods without ever eating anything else (well, I guess I have now that I've met you) and I have never seen it recommended anywhere else. I'm glad you realized that meeting your nutritional needs is going to require eating more than those three things. I think it's a bit of a dead end though, because absolutely nothing in the OP indicates that she is interested in restricting her diet to those three items.

    OP wants to know if she can meet her goals through calorie counting. The answer is yes, despite any restrictions that you may have practiced in the past. Meeting your nutritional needs *is* important, but "clean eating" isn't about that. Clean eating is about practicing additional restrictions above and beyond meeting one's needs.

    I wasn't saying just those three things, and I don't know if your definition of "clean eating" is the right one for everyone because there isn't really a right one, hence the "whatever that means." Still a worthwhile discussion. I acknowledged that I probably misunderstood the OP, we don't have to be snarky anymore :)

    When you responded to @malibu927 writing "nobody does that" with "I did that," I thought you meant what you wrote. I wasn't trying to be snarky, I was responding to what you wrote and assuming it was a reflection of what you meant.

    If you meant that you *didn't* do that, then I think we can go back to the original "Nobody does that."

    Again, not trying to be snarky -- I'm trying to respond to what you're writing and if you mean something other than that, I won't know until you clarify.

    Those were just examples...not every eating disorder is rice cakes and cucumbers and not every example is the full picture. I didn't have a well balanced diet for how many calories I was eating and it didn't serve me, and I know I'm not alone. Obviously, this isn't everyone and you don't have to have a perfect, flawless diet to be healthy. And maybe it's my own personal history that finds the general CICO to be uncomfortably simple (even if to others it is much more nuanced), even though I agree with it as a basic principle. I apologize if I wasn't being very clear, because I really do think we're on the same page. It's possible I was speaking for myself too much rather than actually interpreting the OP's post, for which I apologize.

    I completely agree that EDs can take many different forms. I don't see anything in OP's post to indicate that is what is at play here.

    Keep in mind that the choices aren't "clean eating" or "ignore my nutritional needs." It's completely possible to meet one's needs while ignoring the concept of "clean eating" and with the information we currently have available, I'm thinking that is what OP is asking about. Can you meet your weight and fitness goals without "clean eating"? That's the question in the OP and the answer is yes.

    For people with a history of malnutrition or a history of ED, the answer may be more complex. But bringing that framework to every post that is simply asking about "clean eating" seems unnecessary to me (not that I am the authority of what belongs in every post, it's just my opinion).
    Yes, I don't think that was at all what was in the heart of OP's post, I've said a couple times that I probably responded in the wrong way for the context as well as apologized. We all have emotional reactions in ways that aren't right sometimes, and it was probably my pre-coffee delicate state that caused my hasty response. :)

    I think we all agree but just come from different places and perceptions of what a horribly vague concept of "clean eating" is so it's not worth continuing to go in circles about it because there's no real right answer and we all agree.

    It may be a horribly vague concept. On the other hand "more than 40 percent of adults have dietary intakes of vitamin A, C, D and E, calcium and magnesium below the average requirement for their age and gender"
    http://www.ewg.org/research/how-much-is-too-much/appendix-b-vitamin-and-mineral-deficiencies-us
    In other words, more than 40 percent of people (none of them is here on mfp I suppose) eat a diet that is basically "junk" based.
    Good luck with that.

    Don't see what clean eating has to do with that. Again, one can eat a healthful diet when not "clean eating" and eat a nutrient-poor diet following some kind of "clean eating" notion or another. This is why I think focusing on most of the definitions of "clean eating" (which are about what you leave out -- nothing in a package or whatever) is a distraction from what's much more relevant, eating a good, nutritious diet.

    (I think lots of people don't do that, obviously -- Americans eat too few vegetables on average, for example. But I don't think "clean eating" is the solution or even addresses that. And not "clean eating" rather obviously doesn't mean not eating vegetables.)

    On the various nutrients you identify, I'll note that for many a "processed" food -- dairy -- can be an excellent source of calcium, and I am always puzzled at how people fail to get plenty of A. I checked just my breakfast on Chronometer, and had 258% of the A goal. (E was the worst with breakfast alone, but I had more sources of that at lunch so I imagine I'd be fine by the end of the day. This is without clean eating, which wouldn't add a thing -- indeed, my purchased (so non clean) lunch of a salad with avocado, kale, romaine, spinach, broccoli, carrots, purple cabbage, roasted tofu, toasted hemp seeds and pumpkin seeds, chickpeas, and "house-made Creamy Chia dressing" helps me meet some of my nutrition goals, as did my breakfast despite the fact I included goat's milk yogurt and whey protein (also usually considered "unclean").
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    sarko15 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Counting calories trumps clean eating whatever that means.

    I disagree. With the "counting calories trumps" part any way. I don't particularly understand the meaning of clean eating either because it's such a vague concept.

    But I disagree that counting calories trumps a nutritious and nourishing lifestyle. You can absolutely be under your calorie goals but eat like crap, doesn't mean one poop that you are "healthy."

    EDIT: I'm not at all saying that eating "unhealthy" foods in moderation is a bad thing--I do it--and moderation is absolutely healthy. But CICO is super short sighted when some people use that to starve themselves. How many posts do I see here from people who can't seem to eat 1200 calories in a day?

    CICO is all about energy balance and the only way weightloss happens whether someone eats 'clean' or not.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories