Eating clean
Options
Replies
-
None of these things are really super clean eating, but they work for me when I need a "junk" fix. I find that bananas are very helpful for cravings, as well as stevia. I don't use too much of either, but also keep all natural cocoa powder around the house as well as a small bag of semi-sweet or dark chocolate chips to help me curb sweet cravings.
For my sweet craving mid-day (pretty much everyday) I typically add 2 tbsp of natural peanut butter and 1-2 TBSP of cocoa powder along with1/2 a banana to my vega protein shake. Mmmm-mmm so yummy! This tend to keeps sweet cravings at-bay, all day.
Sometimes for those really bad chocolate cravings at night I will make a rich hot cocoa using my cocoa powder, some stevia and an unsweetened nut milk (this is a lower carb fix). Sometimes I also make banana "nice-cream" for dessert. It has become a favourite of mine, hence keeping some choco chips around. I love mint chip ice cream so I add a little peppermint extract and a tablespoon of chocolate chips to my recipe.
Pomegranate seeds also give an incredible sugar fix (though they have actual natural sugars in them), as well as making your own jam or compotes. Dates give a very good fix for sugar cravings as well.
Obviously as everyone else has said everything in moderation but I totally understand the needs for sweets that comes about once and a while. My true weaknesses are Swedish Berries. I allow myself a few of these every once and a while to keep sane.
Good luck!0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »a small example "Yeah, they use lots of butter to make it taste good" - yet ingesting butter (so long as you're not also pounding a ton of carbs at the same time) and being within your calorie limit is absolutely fine.
Well, you ARE ingesting carbs at the same time in this example, or in a standard restaurant meal.
You are distorting what I said, though, because I did not say butter was bad. It is high cal, which is one reason why eating the same foods you'd eat at home in a restaurant are likely to result in much higher calories.
I know for a fact that if I ate indulgently at restaurants all the time (even lower carb, no dessert), I'd gain weight.
Of course, it's also true that sat fat still is recommended to be limited and the same correlation studies used against added sugar bear that out. Doesn't mean butter should be avoided, IMO. The butter in question was part of a meal I said I thought could be included in a healthful diet, after all. (Then again, I'd say the same thing of ice cream.)6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »a small example "Yeah, they use lots of butter to make it taste good" - yet ingesting butter (so long as you're not also pounding a ton of carbs at the same time) and being within your calorie limit is absolutely fine.
Well, you ARE ingesting carbs at the same time in this example, or in a standard restaurant meal.
You are distorting what I said, though, because I did not say butter was bad. It is high cal, which is one reason why eating the same foods you'd eat at home in a restaurant are likely to result in much higher calories.
I know for a fact that if I ate indulgently at restaurants all the time (even lower carb, no dessert), I'd gain weight.
Of course, it's also true that sat fat still is recommended to be limited and the same correlation studies used against added sugar bear that out. Doesn't mean butter should be avoided, IMO. The butter in question was part of a meal I said I thought could be included in a healthful diet, after all. (Then again, I'd say the same thing of ice cream.)
It depends on the restaurant, a lot of top quality bistros and steak houses these days separate out the protein portion from the vegetable/side selection portions to allow you to choose a meal that fits the structure you're looking for.
If you're going to "Joe's Pasta House" then sure, you'll be getting the holy dosage of carbs + fat and probably an overload of protein too.
Most of the "saturated fat is evil" research papers are starting to be questioned and discredited by a consistent range of research indicating that it was a scapegoat for other aspects in the diet and also an abundance of calories. The research is very scattered as to whether or not consumption of saturated fats like butter have any association with heart disease risk.
Now the problem with butter for instance usually lies in the fact that it's added to an already calorie dense portion; i.e a cheese scone, or bread, or in soups, sauces and desserts; a typical 50G cheese scone + butter will be around 300-400 calories yet people often have that as a "starter" to their lunch meal - conversely, garlic bread or bread with butter in general as part of their dinner.
I'd argue most of the research would correlate more towards a combination of carbohydrate + saturated fat causing issues personally, because your digestive system, in particular your liver, can only do so much. In this case, it's saying "Well, I've got an abundance of glucose in the blood stream that I can use for cell growth/repair, and also now an abundance of glycogen in the muscles should you want me to do anything hard... this fat you've given me, you must want me to store it because your body doesn't actually need it at the moment" - so it processes them into fatty acids and distributes them around the body, a lot of which then gets stored in fat tissues.
In essence your body is being ultra efficient, it's burning up all of the easily available glucose you're feeding it in the form of carbohydrates and it's placing the fat (and excess protein that isn't converted to BCAA) aside, owing to the fact that it wants to ensure it can keep producing glucose if you have a shortage of carbohydrates or calories.
Now if you moderate intake, in particular of carbohydrates - your body starts to say "Hey... those carbs that I was converting to glucose aren't present... but I've got fats and proteins that I can access, I'll now process those through gluconeogenesis and ketone production and attempt to give you glucose, or in absence, ketones so you can continue to function"
Going back to butter, there are a ton of really good benefits of butter; the right type of saturated fats, a bunch of fat soluble vitamins (as well as helping your system to absorb other vitamins ingeested), a bunch of good fatty acids) - the negative is that a small amount is still a lot of calories and therefore on a piece of bread, or a cheese scone, or slathered over potatos, or included in a sugary sauce - you're putting calories ontop of calories and a small portion becomes a massive, also like anything, you're wanting a balance of the fats that you're ingesting as they each play a different purpose.
0 -
I think a major issue actually in restaurants is that they over-feed you protein, i.e 250-350g sizes of steak producing 60-90g of protein, your body just doesn't need that much and unlike broscience weightlift myths where "Oh its cool bro, your body uses the protein later" - it gets converted into glucose just the same as carbohydrates do.1
-
SymbolismNZ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »a small example "Yeah, they use lots of butter to make it taste good" - yet ingesting butter (so long as you're not also pounding a ton of carbs at the same time) and being within your calorie limit is absolutely fine.
Well, you ARE ingesting carbs at the same time in this example, or in a standard restaurant meal.
You are distorting what I said, though, because I did not say butter was bad. It is high cal, which is one reason why eating the same foods you'd eat at home in a restaurant are likely to result in much higher calories.
I know for a fact that if I ate indulgently at restaurants all the time (even lower carb, no dessert), I'd gain weight.
Of course, it's also true that sat fat still is recommended to be limited and the same correlation studies used against added sugar bear that out. Doesn't mean butter should be avoided, IMO. The butter in question was part of a meal I said I thought could be included in a healthful diet, after all. (Then again, I'd say the same thing of ice cream.)
It depends on the restaurant, a lot of top quality bistros and steak houses these days separate out the protein portion from the vegetable/side selection portions to allow you to choose a meal that fits the structure you're looking for.
LOL.
Yeah, there are restaurants that allow you to do this, and you could order in a way that allowed for it, but lots of even really fine dining restaurants (more fine dining than your average bistro or steak house) will have dinners that you have less control over. Especially if you do the tasting menu.
I get that dining culture might be different where you are and where I am, but it's pretty funny that you would assume one would only order carbs at "Joe's Pasta House." (Trust me, there are better pasta places than that sounds in Chicago, and I had carbs when I ate out in Italy too, most of the time.)
Anyway, we were talking about my definition of someone eating extras, including restaurant meals, in the context of a particular diet, so why you would assume this person would avoid carbs is beyond me.Most of the "saturated fat is evil" research papers are starting to be questioned and discredited by a consistent range of research indicating that it was a scapegoat for other aspects in the diet and also an abundance of calories.
Nope, that claim has been grossly exaggerated. Not that sat fat is "evil" -- it's not and never was. But the research is well established and has not been retracted. (I do think that it is biased somewhat by the fact that there are other factors in diets high in sat fat.) What has been retracted is the claim that total fat is an issue.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/05/15/saturated-or-not-does-type-of-fat-matter/
Also, here's a good analysis of a series of studies:
http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2016/12/19/A-Fake-Nutrition-Controversy-in-Four-Bullet-Points
http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2016/12/21/Behind-the-News-saying-Saturated-Fat-could-be-Good-for-You
This is interesting too, although not directly on topic: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351
I know the paleo and low carb communities WANT the sat fat warnings to be retracted and so claim prematurely that they have been, and I've noticed a certain slant to your POV, so I'm not terribly surprised that you say this.
I do think overall diet is what matters. I REALLY don't think that keto or low carb is inherently healthier than other ways of eating, although I think they can be healthy if you make sensible choices within the restrictions.5 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »I think a major issue actually in restaurants is that they over-feed you protein, i.e 250-350g sizes of steak producing 60-90g of protein
Steakhouses do, yeah, often crazy amounts. Some others with large portions in general too. Lots of more fine dining ones will actually have reasonable portions (but still higher cal than you would assume).
I always think of steakhouses when people say you can't overeat steak/protein. I see people do it, and restaurants certainly think huge sizes are an attraction.0 -
Just a thing to mention; the next time you see a research paper (published after say 2005) say that saturated fats aren't good for you and the research history of those involved doesn't include any background in cardiovascular research, or even biomedical nutrition, it's to be taken with a grain of salt (and a lump of butter)
Dr Krauss is one of the few that has studied cardiovascular risk and nutritional science and made his entire research career about those two things; time and time again, like I mention above, his research and many other research papers indicate that saturated fat isn't as evil as it's made out to be by the health community.
http://profiles.ucsf.edu/ronald.krauss
Counter to that, and contrary to Krauss' findings, there is a good line of research done by John Hopkins medicine, in particular the health benefits of a low carb, higher fat, moderate protein diet as it relates to cardiovascular diseases, they however continue the caution on saturated fats, although their reasons is that other fat sources have much better nutritional value than saturated fats.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2005/11_15c_05.html
I lie somewhere in the middle, if you're on a high fat diet, I think you're reasonable safe to consume 25% of those fats as saturated, butter itself is about 60% saturated fat, 25% monounsaturated (i.e the wonder fat that most nutritionists now suggest you include more of in your diet)
I'd still like to see more research in the middle, looking solely at how the body consumes fat in abundance/moderation/absence of different macronutrients as that's what interests me.
The other thing to keep in mind is that research scientists once reported the benefits of smoking cigarettes, in particular for throat issues and to build healthy lungs; we know for a fact that the conglomerate food companies have a massive amount of production tied up in various formats of refined sugar (syrups, cane, corn, etc) and a massive amount of food that is high in sugar out on market... we also know for a fact now due to recent information releases that these companies actively paid off research scientists during the formation of the recommended daily intakes.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do wonder if the entirely contrasting views you see in the research has something to do with particular agendas being pushed by billion dollar entities who would stand to lose billions in revenue.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »I think a major issue actually in restaurants is that they over-feed you protein, i.e 250-350g sizes of steak producing 60-90g of protein
Steakhouses do, yeah, often crazy amounts. Some others with large portions in general too. Lots of more fine dining ones will actually have reasonable portions (but still higher cal than you would assume).
I always think of steakhouses when people say you can't overeat steak/protein. I see people do it, and restaurants certainly think huge sizes are an attraction.
Yeah; that's the ridiculous thing I even see in people adapting keto diets to help them lean out as part of their body building, they start eating ridiculous amounts of protein in ridiculous servings and wonder why their piss test never has them in ketosis.0 -
natashab61 wrote: »Hi all,
I am no perfect clean eater but as I enter my mid 20s I would really like to make my diet to be predominantly healthy. I have a HUGE sweet tooth and I am aware sugar is an addiction. So any help or suggestions as to how to do this?
You don't need to eat clean and sugar is not addictive...
If you want to be healthy eat within your calorie goal , hit your macros, and micros and don't worry about bs good /bad foods2 -
galgenstrick wrote: »"Everything in moderation" is just as vague as "clean eating"... OP, for overall health just make sure the majority of your food comes from nutrient dense sources such as fruits, vegetables, and unprocessed meats. The occasional treat is fine to keep your cravings away.
So consume calories moderately, got ya2 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »I'd go through and collect all of the "Yeah, eat that ice cream, as long as you're under your calories" but I really can't be bothered.
The reality is most of you are working off of opinions and insights that were formed in the 50s and 60s around RDI, micro nutrient level and the impact of certain foods on your diet; a small example "Yeah, they use lots of butter to make it taste good" - yet ingesting butter (so long as you're not also pounding a ton of carbs at the same time) and being within your calorie limit is absolutely fine.
I'll leave you guys in the 50s and 60s, I'll continue to work off of the realities of the 00s and 10s.
I'll just leave this here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p15 -
Hi newbie alert - well new to this forum, not new to dieting (50 years of effort) and looking for support.
Think fitness pal will help me, but can someone tell me what IIFYM means? Thanks0 -
suzesvelte wrote: »Hi newbie alert - well new to this forum, not new to dieting (50 years of effort) and looking for support.
Think fitness pal will help me, but can someone tell me what IIFYM means? Thanks
IIFYM = If It Fits Your Macros. Some people misinterpret it to mean eat whatever you want. It's basically a balanced approach to eating. Choose a macro balance that promotes satiety and meets your goals for fitness and dietary compliance.
Eat mostly nutrient dense foods. If it helps with dietary adherence and you like them, go ahead and don't feel bad about including foods you like such as pizza, hamburgers, or things like cookies and ice cream. Just make sure to get plenty of things on balance like lean protein, vegetables, whole grains, beans, legumes, and healthy fats.3 -
suzesvelte wrote: »Hi newbie alert - well new to this forum, not new to dieting (50 years of effort) and looking for support.
Think fitness pal will help me, but can someone tell me what IIFYM means? Thanks
Welcome. It means "If It Fits Your Macros"
0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »suzesvelte wrote: »Hi newbie alert - well new to this forum, not new to dieting (50 years of effort) and looking for support.
Think fitness pal will help me, but can someone tell me what IIFYM means? Thanks
Welcome. It means "If It Fits Your Macros"
Thanks -- looking at macros is the "new" thing I want to try this time ... so Fitness Pal should be useful for that
onward and upward1 -
Don't sweat it, clean eating is a myth...natashab61 wrote: »Hi all,
I am no perfect clean eater
What do you eat now?natashab61 wrote: »but as I enter my mid 20s I would really like to make my diet to be predominantly healthy.
It's not...natashab61 wrote: »I have a HUGE sweet tooth and I am aware sugar is an addiction. So any help or suggestions as to how to do this?
3 -
Clean eating is a myth??0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Clean eating is a myth??
Yes. It does not exist...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Clean eating is a myth??
Yes. It does not exist...
You mean because there are multiple definitions for the term? That doesn't really make it a myth. It makes it a diet related term because almost all have multiple definition, including things like plant-based, low carb, healthy food. If clean eating is a myth, what isn't?1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Clean eating is a myth??
Yes. It does not exist...
You mean because there are multiple definitions for the term? That doesn't really make it a myth. It makes it a diet related term because almost all have multiple definition, including things like plant-based, low carb, healthy food. If clean eating is a myth, what isn't?
IMO it does. Agree to disagree.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