Clean eating- does it matter?
Replies
-
Overall just for losing weight it does not matter as long as your body can properly digest what you eat (meaning you have no Intolerance against something)
Basically you could eat Pizza and Burger and still lose weight as long as you are in a caloric deficit.
And quite honestly i did some times.. I ate whatever i wanted within my Calorie Goal. And i lost weight.
I learned from this that for me tracking my Calories is so vital for me. I can keep loosing weight even if i have a bad day.. and/or have no time to cook a proper Meal.
But most of the time i try to reach my Macros. Right now i am trying to cut the carbs a bit(not Low Carb or anything) and add more Protein.
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.
"Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.
Some of these pathways are more “efficient” than others.
The more “efficient” a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.
The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.
Protein contains 4 calories per gram, but a large part of the protein calories are lost as heat when it is metabolized by the body.
The thermic effect of food is a measure of how much different foods increase energy expenditure, due to the energy required to digest, absorb and metabolize the nutrients.
This is the thermic effect of different macronutrients (7):
Fat: 2-3%.
Carbs: 6-8%.
Protein: 25-30%.
Sources vary on the exact numbers, but it is clear that protein requires much more energy to metabolize than fat and carbs (8).
If we go with a thermic effect of 25% for protein and 2% for fat, this would mean that a 100 calories of protein would end up as 75 calories, while a 100 calories of fat would end up as 98 calories.
Studies show that high protein diets boost metabolism by 80 to 100 calories per day, compared to lower protein diets (9, 10)
Put simply, high protein diets have a “metabolic advantage.”
There is also one study that compared two sandwich meals that had the same number of calories and macronutrients.
However, one sandwich was made with whole grains and cheddar cheese, while the other was made with refined grains and processed cheese (11).
Those who ate the whole grain sandwich burned twice as many calories digesting the meal."1 -
Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
You are the one saying this difference is important (and to the average person losing weight and not wanting to be "skinny fat"). Care to explain how?
As a starting point, let's establish what is not being disagreed about:
(1) Foods are different (of course they are).
(2) It's good for health and energy to eat a good diet (IMO a good diet doesn't mean one can't sometimes eat ice cream or even post deadlifts and donuts photos -- in other words, if you think "a good diet" means "not eating bad food" I'd argue that you are not properly understanding nutrition).
(3) Eating enough protein is important (I like .8 g/lb of goal weight if on a deficit).
(4) Mild deficit + exercise including strength exercise if losing weight helps avoid fat loss (along with adequate protein). What a mild deficit is and how important it is depends on current body fat.
I'd also say that for ideal athletic performance if one is aiming for certain goals OR similarly certain bodybuilding goals timing and specific food choices might be more significant, but this has nothing to do with fat loss in the average person.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.
"Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.
Some of these pathways are more “efficient” than others.
The more “efficient” a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.
The question is, so what? For example, for most people it doesn't matter. For others (like someone about to go on a long run or to run a race), it may actually be important that the energy be used for work. That same thing might not be what someone in another circumstance wants -- less efficient means it takes longer to digest and you might not get as many calories from it, after all. Like broccoli.The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.
Didn't this get covered with stevencloser? Most people here KNOW about the TEF of protein being higher. Who cares? I get no prizes for eating the most (on paper) calories, and eating a super high protein diet just so I can claim to eat, I dunno, 2000 calories instead of 1800 is useless to me and a silly thing to think about. The question is what amount of protein is protective and helps create the most satisfying and satiating diet given OTHER concrns too (like healthy fats, the importance of vegetables, that I need to fuel activity, that I have certain preferences). For me around 100-110 g usually works well and makes sense. To double that because of TEF would be ridiculous and NOT give me a healthier diet.There is also one study that compared two sandwich meals that had the same number of calories and macronutrients.
However, one sandwich was made with whole grains and cheddar cheese, while the other was made with refined grains and processed cheese (11).
Those who ate the whole grain sandwich burned twice as many calories digesting the meal."
As I recall the variables were not adequately controlled. I do believe that higher fiber is in reality lower cal since we don't digest most fiber, and anyway for me it's more filling. But to exaggerate the importance of that or claim that makes a meal with white rice, shrimp, and lots of veg unhealthy (because white rice is too easily digested and you can use most of the calories) seems silly to me. And absolutely unhelpful for the vast majority of people.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
You are the one saying this difference is important (and to the average person losing weight and not wanting to be "skinny fat"). Care to explain how?
As a starting point, let's establish what is not being disagreed about:
(1) Foods are different (of course they are).
(2) It's good for health and energy to eat a good diet (IMO a good diet doesn't mean one can't sometimes eat ice cream or even post deadlifts and donuts photos -- in other words, if you think "a good diet" means "not eating bad food" I'd argue that you are not properly understanding nutrition).
(3) Eating enough protein is important (I like .8 g/lb of goal weight if on a deficit).
(4) Mild deficit + exercise including strength exercise if losing weight helps avoid fat loss (along with adequate protein). What a mild deficit is and how important it is depends on current body fat.
I'd also say that for ideal athletic performance if one is aiming for certain goals OR similarly certain bodybuilding goals timing and specific food choices might be more significant, but this has nothing to do with fat loss in the average person.
It has everything to do with fat loss and the average person, bodybuilders don't cut this way because they aren't average people they do it because it is the most effecient and effevtive way to cut fat while being able to maintain or build muscle, i said having a cheat is ok in moderation but for people who have bad eating habits i don't think its wise to say yeah eat whatever as long as you count calories and hit your macros, if it works then cool but its not the most effecient or effective method nor is it the most healthy choice.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Sigh.
Nobody has said nutrients are not important.
But for weight loss, if you eat in a calorie deficit you lose weight, regardless of source of calories.
True in the APPROPRIATE deficit you will lose weight, but if you don't manage the minute details you cannot be in control of what type of weight you're losing, are you losing only fat? Is it mostly water? Are you losing muscle? .... losing weight is great and I'm not going to knock anyone for their goals but until people fully grasp how weight loss works they'll always struggle with their weight, calories in vs calories out is a great starting point but it goes so much deeper than that, what happens when someone gets to their goal weight and isn't happy because they are just skinny fat now? Now what? Whats the next step? So to see someone telling another person its ok to eat garbage food as long as it fits your macros and calorie goals is kind of unsettling because its not good advice, yeah you'll lose some weight but its not healthy and is only going to set you up for issues down the road, depending on your goals
I don't care what I lost 50lbs of, having whatever it was gone improved all my blood tests/health markers-including normalizing a high glucose number. As for grasping how weight loss actually works-I'm 4 years into successful maintenance, which means I'm a statistical outlier and special freak snowflake. Pretty sure I've got this figured out, and no I don't eat 'clean'
Almost like as long as you create a calorie deficit you're bound to lose mostly fat because your body isn't stupid but a highly evolved machine that enabled us to be the successful species we are. Imagine if our ancestors had to take care of those "minute details", we'd have died out 5 mass famines ago.
Cmon man thats survival and not health and fitness, thats such an unfair example.... the minute details are what gets someone to a fairly small body fat percentage and aesthetic that most strive for ... everyone's goals are different but losing weight doesn't always mean getting healthy or looking good.
But nobody said losing weight always means getting healthy or looking good
What they said is for purely for losing weight it doesnt matter what you eat - it is the calorie deficit in that matters FOR WEIGHT LOSS.
Not for nutrition or health or aesthetics.
Purely FOR WEIGHT LOSS.
4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
You are the one saying this difference is important (and to the average person losing weight and not wanting to be "skinny fat"). Care to explain how?
As a starting point, let's establish what is not being disagreed about:
(1) Foods are different (of course they are).
(2) It's good for health and energy to eat a good diet (IMO a good diet doesn't mean one can't sometimes eat ice cream or even post deadlifts and donuts photos -- in other words, if you think "a good diet" means "not eating bad food" I'd argue that you are not properly understanding nutrition).
(3) Eating enough protein is important (I like .8 g/lb of goal weight if on a deficit).
(4) Mild deficit + exercise including strength exercise if losing weight helps avoid fat loss (along with adequate protein). What a mild deficit is and how important it is depends on current body fat.
I'd also say that for ideal athletic performance if one is aiming for certain goals OR similarly certain bodybuilding goals timing and specific food choices might be more significant, but this has nothing to do with fat loss in the average person.
It has everything to do with fat loss and the average person, bodybuilders don't cut this way because they aren't average people they do it because it is the most effecient and effevtive way to cut fat while being able to maintain or build muscle, i said having a cheat is ok in moderation but for people who have bad eating habits i don't think its wise to say yeah eat whatever as long as you count calories and hit your macros, if it works then cool but its not the most effecient or effective method nor is it the most healthy choice.
But nobody recomended eating whatever you want with no regard to health or nutrition.
Nobody said that would be a healthy choice.
What they said is that purely for WEIGHT LOSS one would lose weight the same regardless of the source of the calories.
This simple statement somehow seems to be going over your head.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.
"Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.
Some of these pathways are more “efficient” than others.
The more “efficient” a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.
The question is, so what? For example, for most people it doesn't matter. For others (like someone about to go on a long run or to run a race), it may actually be important that the energy be used for work. That same thing might not be what someone in another circumstance wants -- less efficient means it takes longer to digest and you might not get as many calories from it, after all. Like broccoli.The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.
Didn't this get covered with stevencloser? Most people here KNOW about the TEF of protein being higher. Who cares? I get no prizes for eating the most (on paper) calories, and eating a super high protein diet just so I can claim to eat, I dunno, 2000 calories instead of 1800 is useless to me and a silly thing to think about. The question is what amount of protein is protective and helps create the most satisfying and satiating diet given OTHER concrns too (like healthy fats, the importance of vegetables, that I need to fuel activity, that I have certain preferences). For me around 100-110 g usually works well and makes sense. To double that because of TEF would be ridiculous and NOT give me a healthier diet.There is also one study that compared two sandwich meals that had the same number of calories and macronutrients.
However, one sandwich was made with whole grains and cheddar cheese, while the other was made with refined grains and processed cheese (11).
Those who ate the whole grain sandwich burned twice as many calories digesting the meal."
As I recall the variables were not adequately controlled. I do believe that higher fiber is in reality lower cal since we don't digest most fiber, and anyway for me it's more filling. But to exaggerate the importance of that or claim that makes a meal with white rice, shrimp, and lots of veg unhealthy (because white rice is too easily digested and you can use most of the calories) seems silly to me. And absolutely unhelpful for the vast majority of people.
More like 2000 instead of 1980...3 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TEF accounts for 7 calories per 10% of protein of total calories eaten instead of carbs or fat per 1000 calories ingested. Or as an example, if you're eating at maintenance 2500 calories and eat 30% protein (188 grams, more than enough even for a bodybuilder) instead of 10% (63 grams, bare minimum recommendation for a normal weight adult) you burn an extra 7 * 2 * 2.5 = 35 calories. That's the extent to which the food you eat influences your energy expenditure. It's background noise, completely irrelevant.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Not at all irrelevant, and thats all dependant on how fast the food you eat is digested and metabolized, how quickly that energy is readily available for the body to use. Quality of food determines this. You know as well as I that the body will use the most effecient and readily available source of energy, the energy that is not being used is being stored. Quality of food again, determines this. Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
TEF is "how many calories are needed to digest this". This is an irrelevantly small number as evidenced above. How fast you digest it is completely irrelevant to your energy usage. It is entirely irrelevant to your overall gain or loss just as much as me depositiing 1000 dollars into my bank account all at once or in single 1 dollar transactions.
I understand that, what I'm talking about is the bioavailability of the nutrients we eat, if it takes more energy to make one source bioavailable than it does another than the body will choose the easier source, this can mean not everything you're eating is being utilized the way some might think it is and may be getting stored. Of course there will always be an "easier" source but that's when the quality of food comes into play, if you're primarily eating "dirty" regardless of caloric deficit or macros there's a higher chance that food being stored.. I'm not talking about in a day but over time . I read the article you posted but there have been studies since then that show that all calories are not created equally, I'll need to find one again and I'll share with you ... I'm more concerned with losing weight im the most effecient way possible, weight loss that is sustained and not temporary.
Think about it this way: If you're new to MFP, you have a lot of weight to lose, you still think you have to be overly restrictive and essentially miserable. You will likely give up for the millionth time, because it seems like it's impossible. But before you make that decision to quit, again... you decide to dive into the MFP forums. You muster up enough courage to make a post and a poster says, "listen, it's CICO - burn more than you eat, eat whatever you want, fitting it in your calorie goals". It's like a little light goes off in their head. Overtime, they start to realize that calorie dense foods aren't worth it as much as the nutrient dense foods, because of volume.
Now, say you had responded to that person about: TEF, bioavailability, etc (that has little affect on weightloss, save for your opinion of it). Do you think that person would stick with it if they have to worry about, timing and everything else your saying. Why over complicate it for them, when it's not complicated. That's a reason why people get so frustrated when someone comes riding in on their white horse to save all of us CICOers from our failing nutrition.
Keep it simple, unless you are starting your own thread and would like to discuss this - it's simple science. Leave it at that. Let people see how easy the equation is.
15 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TEF accounts for 7 calories per 10% of protein of total calories eaten instead of carbs or fat per 1000 calories ingested. Or as an example, if you're eating at maintenance 2500 calories and eat 30% protein (188 grams, more than enough even for a bodybuilder) instead of 10% (63 grams, bare minimum recommendation for a normal weight adult) you burn an extra 7 * 2 * 2.5 = 35 calories. That's the extent to which the food you eat influences your energy expenditure. It's background noise, completely irrelevant.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Not at all irrelevant, and thats all dependant on how fast the food you eat is digested and metabolized, how quickly that energy is readily available for the body to use. Quality of food determines this. You know as well as I that the body will use the most effecient and readily available source of energy, the energy that is not being used is being stored. Quality of food again, determines this. Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
TEF is "how many calories are needed to digest this". This is an irrelevantly small number as evidenced above. How fast you digest it is completely irrelevant to your energy usage. It is entirely irrelevant to your overall gain or loss just as much as me depositiing 1000 dollars into my bank account all at once or in single 1 dollar transactions.
I understand that, what I'm talking about is the bioavailability of the nutrients we eat, if it takes more energy to make one source bioavailable than it does another than the body will choose the easier source, this can mean not everything you're eating is being utilized the way some might think it is and may be getting stored. Of course there will always be an "easier" source but that's when the quality of food comes into play, if you're primarily eating "dirty" regardless of caloric deficit or macros there's a higher chance that food being stored.. I'm not talking about in a day but over time . I read the article you posted but there have been studies since then that show that all calories are not created equally, I'll need to find one again and I'll share with you ... I'm more concerned with losing weight im the most effecient way possible, weight loss that is sustained and not temporary.
Think about it this way: If you're new to MFP, you have a lot of weight to lose, you still think you have to be overly restrictive and essentially miserable. You will likely give up for the millionth time, because it seems like it's impossible. But before you make that decision to quit, again... you decide to dive into the MFP forums. You muster up enough courage to make a post and a poster says, "listen, it's CICO - burn more than you eat, eat whatever you want, fitting it in your calorie goals". It's like a little light goes off in their head. Overtime, they start to realize that calorie dense foods aren't worth it as much as the nutrient dense foods, because of volume.
Now, say you had responded to that person about: TEF, bioavailability, etc (that has little affect on weightloss, save for your opinion of it). Do you think that person would stick with it if they have to worry about, timing and everything else your saying. Why over complicate it for them, when it's not complicated. That's a reason why people get so frustrated when someone comes riding in on their white horse to save all of us CICOers from our failing nutrition.
Keep it simple, unless you are starting your own thread and would like to discuss this - it's simple science. Leave it at that. Let people see how easy the equation is.
awesome post5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
You are the one saying this difference is important (and to the average person losing weight and not wanting to be "skinny fat"). Care to explain how?
As a starting point, let's establish what is not being disagreed about:
(1) Foods are different (of course they are).
(2) It's good for health and energy to eat a good diet (IMO a good diet doesn't mean one can't sometimes eat ice cream or even post deadlifts and donuts photos -- in other words, if you think "a good diet" means "not eating bad food" I'd argue that you are not properly understanding nutrition).
(3) Eating enough protein is important (I like .8 g/lb of goal weight if on a deficit).
(4) Mild deficit + exercise including strength exercise if losing weight helps avoid fat loss (along with adequate protein). What a mild deficit is and how important it is depends on current body fat.
I'd also say that for ideal athletic performance if one is aiming for certain goals OR similarly certain bodybuilding goals timing and specific food choices might be more significant, but this has nothing to do with fat loss in the average person.
It has everything to do with fat loss and the average person, bodybuilders don't cut this way because they aren't average people they do it because it is the most effecient and effevtive way to cut fat while being able to maintain or build muscle, i said having a cheat is ok in moderation but for people who have bad eating habits i don't think its wise to say yeah eat whatever as long as you count calories and hit your macros, if it works then cool but its not the most effecient or effective method nor is it the most healthy choice.
(1) You didn't answer the question. Explain to me why I should avoid steak and eat only white fish for fat loss purposes. (Personally I sometimes have steak, sometimes have white fish, sometimes have fattier fish, like salmon, which IMO has additional benefits, sometimes have chicken, etc. -- and sometimes go without meat for a while.)
(2) Bodybuilders cut a bunch of different ways, so don't pretend like there's one way that works.
(3) I don't see why I should consider steak (or anything else) "a cheat" if consumed in the context of a healthful diet. Sure, sometimes I don't eat as I think is best, and am not saying otherwise, although I think calling that "cheating" is odd. But whatever works for you.
(4) I haven't said eat whatever if you count calories and hit your macros. Did you not read the thread? I said for health and nutrition eat a good diet, and a calorie appropriate one. But that has zero to do with "eating clean" or never eating "bad foods" or whatever, and also has nothing to do with this new focus on TEF that you have added into the thread or whatever the reason is for always preferring white fish over steak.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.
"Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.
Some of these pathways are more “efficient” than others.
The more “efficient” a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.
The question is, so what? For example, for most people it doesn't matter. For others (like someone about to go on a long run or to run a race), it may actually be important that the energy be used for work. That same thing might not be what someone in another circumstance wants -- less efficient means it takes longer to digest and you might not get as many calories from it, after all. Like broccoli.The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.
Didn't this get covered with stevencloser? Most people here KNOW about the TEF of protein being higher. Who cares? I get no prizes for eating the most (on paper) calories, and eating a super high protein diet just so I can claim to eat, I dunno, 2000 calories instead of 1800 is useless to me and a silly thing to think about. The question is what amount of protein is protective and helps create the most satisfying and satiating diet given OTHER concrns too (like healthy fats, the importance of vegetables, that I need to fuel activity, that I have certain preferences). For me around 100-110 g usually works well and makes sense. To double that because of TEF would be ridiculous and NOT give me a healthier diet.There is also one study that compared two sandwich meals that had the same number of calories and macronutrients.
However, one sandwich was made with whole grains and cheddar cheese, while the other was made with refined grains and processed cheese (11).
Those who ate the whole grain sandwich burned twice as many calories digesting the meal."
As I recall the variables were not adequately controlled. I do believe that higher fiber is in reality lower cal since we don't digest most fiber, and anyway for me it's more filling. But to exaggerate the importance of that or claim that makes a meal with white rice, shrimp, and lots of veg unhealthy (because white rice is too easily digested and you can use most of the calories) seems silly to me. And absolutely unhelpful for the vast majority of people.
More like 2000 instead of 1980...
I'm being exceptionally generous for the purpose of argument.
I suppose if you looked at the difference between 20% protein and 100% it might be quite a large difference. Of course, the latter diet would be horribly awful and unhealthy but hey! More calories.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.
"Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.
Some of these pathways are more “efficient” than others.
The more “efficient” a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.
The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.
Protein contains 4 calories per gram, but a large part of the protein calories are lost as heat when it is metabolized by the body.
The thermic effect of food is a measure of how much different foods increase energy expenditure, due to the energy required to digest, absorb and metabolize the nutrients.
This is the thermic effect of different macronutrients (7):
Fat: 2-3%.
Carbs: 6-8%.
Protein: 25-30%.
Sources vary on the exact numbers, but it is clear that protein requires much more energy to metabolize than fat and carbs (8).
If we go with a thermic effect of 25% for protein and 2% for fat, this would mean that a 100 calories of protein would end up as 75 calories, while a 100 calories of fat would end up as 98 calories.
Studies show that high protein diets boost metabolism by 80 to 100 calories per day, compared to lower protein diets (9, 10)
Put simply, high protein diets have a “metabolic advantage.”
There is also one study that compared two sandwich meals that had the same number of calories and macronutrients.
However, one sandwich was made with whole grains and cheddar cheese, while the other was made with refined grains and processed cheese (11).
Those who ate the whole grain sandwich burned twice as many calories digesting the meal."
Are you going to credit Authority Nutrition for this?9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.
"Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.
Some of these pathways are more “efficient” than others.
The more “efficient” a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.
The question is, so what? For example, for most people it doesn't matter. For others (like someone about to go on a long run or to run a race), it may actually be important that the energy be used for work. That same thing might not be what someone in another circumstance wants -- less efficient means it takes longer to digest and you might not get as many calories from it, after all. Like broccoli.The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.
Didn't this get covered with stevencloser? Most people here KNOW about the TEF of protein being higher. Who cares? I get no prizes for eating the most (on paper) calories, and eating a super high protein diet just so I can claim to eat, I dunno, 2000 calories instead of 1800 is useless to me and a silly thing to think about. The question is what amount of protein is protective and helps create the most satisfying and satiating diet given OTHER concrns too (like healthy fats, the importance of vegetables, that I need to fuel activity, that I have certain preferences). For me around 100-110 g usually works well and makes sense. To double that because of TEF would be ridiculous and NOT give me a healthier diet.There is also one study that compared two sandwich meals that had the same number of calories and macronutrients.
However, one sandwich was made with whole grains and cheddar cheese, while the other was made with refined grains and processed cheese (11).
Those who ate the whole grain sandwich burned twice as many calories digesting the meal."
As I recall the variables were not adequately controlled. I do believe that higher fiber is in reality lower cal since we don't digest most fiber, and anyway for me it's more filling. But to exaggerate the importance of that or claim that makes a meal with white rice, shrimp, and lots of veg unhealthy (because white rice is too easily digested and you can use most of the calories) seems silly to me. And absolutely unhelpful for the vast majority of people.
And it's stuff like this that leads so many to fail at weight loss because they focus more on some ideal combination of foods or arbitrary exclusion of foods because they think it's required to actually lose weight.7 -
To put the assertion that clean eating is in any way shape or form required for good results to the ad absurdum it is, I'd like to bring up @ninerbuff 's favorite example of people in jail. Spending years upon years in a cell with portioned out lowest-of-the-low quality meals, they are neither sick nor obese and in fact many of them get jacked as hell because if there's only so much you're allowed to do all day long they tend to work out a lot and that plus protein is absolutely sufficient. No specific kinds at specific times or whatever required.5
-
Ways to look good after a cut:
1. Eat enough protein
2. Lift heavy things
3. Do both consistently
How to confuse the ever loving crap out of yourself and everyone else when talking about cutting:
Waffle on about completely arbitrary and irrelevant things like bioavailability of nutrients and fuel sources.
Who knew my body wouldn't use the carbs from that McMuffin before the carbs from the egg roll I made at home!?
I honestly wish people would understand what the body uses primarily for fuel isn't anything for anyone but long distance athletes to worry about. That what the body uses for fuel makes no difference to what the body stores exclusive of calories and perhaps your way of eating (keto for example).
It seems there's some sort of competition to make it so overly and unnecessarily complicated so bros can feel super superior about their finely tuned lean mean muscle machine. When really they're no more special than any of the rest of us, with the exception that I can have an ice cream on a hot day and not call it cheating.
Oh and, please name these evil preservatives and what they are doing to me that makes them so evil. Please and thank you.11 -
Clean eating threads always make me want an ice cream.5
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TEF accounts for 7 calories per 10% of protein of total calories eaten instead of carbs or fat per 1000 calories ingested. Or as an example, if you're eating at maintenance 2500 calories and eat 30% protein (188 grams, more than enough even for a bodybuilder) instead of 10% (63 grams, bare minimum recommendation for a normal weight adult) you burn an extra 7 * 2 * 2.5 = 35 calories. That's the extent to which the food you eat influences your energy expenditure. It's background noise, completely irrelevant.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Not at all irrelevant, and thats all dependant on how fast the food you eat is digested and metabolized, how quickly that energy is readily available for the body to use. Quality of food determines this. You know as well as I that the body will use the most effecient and readily available source of energy, the energy that is not being used is being stored. Quality of food again, determines this. Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
TEF is "how many calories are needed to digest this". This is an irrelevantly small number as evidenced above. How fast you digest it is completely irrelevant to your energy usage. It is entirely irrelevant to your overall gain or loss just as much as me depositiing 1000 dollars into my bank account all at once or in single 1 dollar transactions.
I understand that, what I'm talking about is the bioavailability of the nutrients we eat, if it takes more energy to make one source bioavailable than it does another than the body will choose the easier source, this can mean not everything you're eating is being utilized the way some might think it is and may be getting stored. Of course there will always be an "easier" source but that's when the quality of food comes into play, if you're primarily eating "dirty" regardless of caloric deficit or macros there's a higher chance that food being stored.. I'm not talking about in a day but over time . I read the article you posted but there have been studies since then that show that all calories are not created equally, I'll need to find one again and I'll share with you ... I'm more concerned with losing weight im the most effecient way possible, weight loss that is sustained and not temporary.
Think about it this way: If you're new to MFP, you have a lot of weight to lose, you still think you have to be overly restrictive and essentially miserable. You will likely give up for the millionth time, because it seems like it's impossible. But before you make that decision to quit, again... you decide to dive into the MFP forums. You muster up enough courage to make a post and a poster says, "listen, it's CICO - burn more than you eat, eat whatever you want, fitting it in your calorie goals". It's like a little light goes off in their head. Overtime, they start to realize that calorie dense foods aren't worth it as much as the nutrient dense foods, because of volume.
Now, say you had responded to that person about: TEF, bioavailability, etc (that has little affect on weightloss, save for your opinion of it). Do you think that person would stick with it if they have to worry about, timing and everything else your saying. Why over complicate it for them, when it's not complicated. That's a reason why people get so frustrated when someone comes riding in on their white horse to save all of us CICOers from our failing nutrition.
Keep it simple, unless you are starting your own thread and would like to discuss this - it's simple science. Leave it at that. Let people see how easy the equation is.
Fantastic post. The fact remains that the majority of people using this site and lurking these forums are not bodybuilders and not elite athletes. They are average people trying to lose weight and get healthier. Many of them have tried and failed repeatedly. Making the process overly complex in order to get optimal results is likely to result in yet another failure.
I've often said this on these boards. There is always something more each of us could be doing in our lives which would be "better", since none of us are perfect. Whether that be eating more nutrients and less treats, working out for an hour instead of a half hour, saving more money rather than spending more money, working around the house instead of taking kids to the park, volunteering more instead of taking time for ourselves... if we always strive for optimal results, most people in various aspects of our lives would fail. It's all about balance and prioritization. Weight loss and overall health and wellness is no different. It's also about context, and for most of the community members, the advice that calories are all that matter for weight loss and that nutrition is important too - is the right context. Is there different advice that would be better for a body boulder looking to get to single digit body fat and training for a competition? Of course. But there are other threads, other boards, even other sites that might be better suited to that discussion.
We've had an influx of people lately coming in and saying that the advice that is given on these boards isn't good enough, or complete enough... I wonder how many of these people making these comments will be around 4 years from now still trying to help people like I and others are.9 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Clean eating threads always make me want an ice cream.
Just finished eating one, unseasonably and gloriously warm in London today!3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.
"Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.
Some of these pathways are more “efficient” than others.
The more “efficient” a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.
The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.
Protein contains 4 calories per gram, but a large part of the protein calories are lost as heat when it is metabolized by the body.
The thermic effect of food is a measure of how much different foods increase energy expenditure, due to the energy required to digest, absorb and metabolize the nutrients.
This is the thermic effect of different macronutrients (7):
Fat: 2-3%.
Carbs: 6-8%.
Protein: 25-30%.
Sources vary on the exact numbers, but it is clear that protein requires much more energy to metabolize than fat and carbs (8).
If we go with a thermic effect of 25% for protein and 2% for fat, this would mean that a 100 calories of protein would end up as 75 calories, while a 100 calories of fat would end up as 98 calories.
Studies show that high protein diets boost metabolism by 80 to 100 calories per day, compared to lower protein diets (9, 10)
Put simply, high protein diets have a “metabolic advantage.”
There is also one study that compared two sandwich meals that had the same number of calories and macronutrients.
However, one sandwich was made with whole grains and cheddar cheese, while the other was made with refined grains and processed cheese (11).
Those who ate the whole grain sandwich burned twice as many calories digesting the meal."
Plagiarism is not cool: https://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TEF accounts for 7 calories per 10% of protein of total calories eaten instead of carbs or fat per 1000 calories ingested. Or as an example, if you're eating at maintenance 2500 calories and eat 30% protein (188 grams, more than enough even for a bodybuilder) instead of 10% (63 grams, bare minimum recommendation for a normal weight adult) you burn an extra 7 * 2 * 2.5 = 35 calories. That's the extent to which the food you eat influences your energy expenditure. It's background noise, completely irrelevant.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Not at all irrelevant, and thats all dependant on how fast the food you eat is digested and metabolized, how quickly that energy is readily available for the body to use. Quality of food determines this. You know as well as I that the body will use the most effecient and readily available source of energy, the energy that is not being used is being stored. Quality of food again, determines this. Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
TEF is "how many calories are needed to digest this". This is an irrelevantly small number as evidenced above. How fast you digest it is completely irrelevant to your energy usage. It is entirely irrelevant to your overall gain or loss just as much as me depositiing 1000 dollars into my bank account all at once or in single 1 dollar transactions.
I understand that, what I'm talking about is the bioavailability of the nutrients we eat, if it takes more energy to make one source bioavailable than it does another than the body will choose the easier source, this can mean not everything you're eating is being utilized the way some might think it is and may be getting stored. Of course there will always be an "easier" source but that's when the quality of food comes into play, if you're primarily eating "dirty" regardless of caloric deficit or macros there's a higher chance that food being stored.. I'm not talking about in a day but over time . I read the article you posted but there have been studies since then that show that all calories are not created equally, I'll need to find one again and I'll share with you ... I'm more concerned with losing weight im the most effecient way possible, weight loss that is sustained and not temporary.
Think about it this way: If you're new to MFP, you have a lot of weight to lose, you still think you have to be overly restrictive and essentially miserable. You will likely give up for the millionth time, because it seems like it's impossible. But before you make that decision to quit, again... you decide to dive into the MFP forums. You muster up enough courage to make a post and a poster says, "listen, it's CICO - burn more than you eat, eat whatever you want, fitting it in your calorie goals". It's like a little light goes off in their head. Overtime, they start to realize that calorie dense foods aren't worth it as much as the nutrient dense foods, because of volume.
Now, say you had responded to that person about: TEF, bioavailability, etc (that has little affect on weightloss, save for your opinion of it). Do you think that person would stick with it if they have to worry about, timing and everything else your saying. Why over complicate it for them, when it's not complicated. That's a reason why people get so frustrated when someone comes riding in on their white horse to save all of us CICOers from our failing nutrition.
Keep it simple, unless you are starting your own thread and would like to discuss this - it's simple science. Leave it at that. Let people see how easy the equation is.
Fantastic post. The fact remains that the majority of people using this site and lurking these forums are not bodybuilders and not elite athletes. They are average people trying to lose weight and get healthier. Many of them have tried and failed repeatedly. Making the process overly complex in order to get optimal results is likely to result in yet another failure.
I've often said this on these boards. There is always something more each of us could be doing in our lives which would be "better", since none of us are perfect. Whether that be eating more nutrients and less treats, working out for an hour instead of a half hour, saving more money rather than spending more money, working around the house instead of taking kids to the park, volunteering more instead of taking time for ourselves... if we always strive for optimal results, most people in various aspects of our lives would fail. It's all about balance and prioritization. Weight loss and overall health and wellness is no different. It's also about context, and for most of the community members, the advice that calories are all that matter for weight loss and that nutrition is important too - is the right context. Is there different advice that would be better for a body boulder looking to get to single digit body fat and training for a competition? Of course. But there are other threads, other boards, even other sites that might be better suited to that discussion.
We've had an influx of people lately coming in and saying that the advice that is given on these boards isn't good enough, or complete enough... I wonder how many of these people making these comments will be around 4 years from now still trying to help people like I and others are.
This is so insightful. We'd never tell someone there is no point in making a budget if they aren't going to save the maximum amount of money and never splurge on a latte or a manicure. We intuitively understand that there is a point in doing things even if one isn't going to be perfect and squeeze the maximum benefit out of everything. In fact, most of us understand that's the *only* way to get through life without anxiety and constant second-guessing.
It's only because our cultural relationship to eating and maintaining a healthy weight is so broken that we're prone to this all-or-nothing thinking on this issue where we'd automatically see it as absurd in other areas of life. If you called a local food bank to volunteer and they said they'd only accept you if you volunteered the maximum amount of hours that you aren't sleeping and working, you'd immediately assume you were being pranked.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TEF accounts for 7 calories per 10% of protein of total calories eaten instead of carbs or fat per 1000 calories ingested. Or as an example, if you're eating at maintenance 2500 calories and eat 30% protein (188 grams, more than enough even for a bodybuilder) instead of 10% (63 grams, bare minimum recommendation for a normal weight adult) you burn an extra 7 * 2 * 2.5 = 35 calories. That's the extent to which the food you eat influences your energy expenditure. It's background noise, completely irrelevant.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Not at all irrelevant, and thats all dependant on how fast the food you eat is digested and metabolized, how quickly that energy is readily available for the body to use. Quality of food determines this. You know as well as I that the body will use the most effecient and readily available source of energy, the energy that is not being used is being stored. Quality of food again, determines this. Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
TEF is "how many calories are needed to digest this". This is an irrelevantly small number as evidenced above. How fast you digest it is completely irrelevant to your energy usage. It is entirely irrelevant to your overall gain or loss just as much as me depositiing 1000 dollars into my bank account all at once or in single 1 dollar transactions.
I understand that, what I'm talking about is the bioavailability of the nutrients we eat, if it takes more energy to make one source bioavailable than it does another than the body will choose the easier source, this can mean not everything you're eating is being utilized the way some might think it is and may be getting stored. Of course there will always be an "easier" source but that's when the quality of food comes into play, if you're primarily eating "dirty" regardless of caloric deficit or macros there's a higher chance that food being stored.. I'm not talking about in a day but over time . I read the article you posted but there have been studies since then that show that all calories are not created equally, I'll need to find one again and I'll share with you ... I'm more concerned with losing weight im the most effecient way possible, weight loss that is sustained and not temporary.
Think about it this way: If you're new to MFP, you have a lot of weight to lose, you still think you have to be overly restrictive and essentially miserable. You will likely give up for the millionth time, because it seems like it's impossible. But before you make that decision to quit, again... you decide to dive into the MFP forums. You muster up enough courage to make a post and a poster says, "listen, it's CICO - burn more than you eat, eat whatever you want, fitting it in your calorie goals". It's like a little light goes off in their head. Overtime, they start to realize that calorie dense foods aren't worth it as much as the nutrient dense foods, because of volume.
Now, say you had responded to that person about: TEF, bioavailability, etc (that has little affect on weightloss, save for your opinion of it). Do you think that person would stick with it if they have to worry about, timing and everything else your saying. Why over complicate it for them, when it's not complicated. That's a reason why people get so frustrated when someone comes riding in on their white horse to save all of us CICOers from our failing nutrition.
Keep it simple, unless you are starting your own thread and would like to discuss this - it's simple science. Leave it at that. Let people see how easy the equation is.
Fantastic post. The fact remains that the majority of people using this site and lurking these forums are not bodybuilders and not elite athletes. They are average people trying to lose weight and get healthier. Many of them have tried and failed repeatedly. Making the process overly complex in order to get optimal results is likely to result in yet another failure.
I've often said this on these boards. There is always something more each of us could be doing in our lives which would be "better", since none of us are perfect. Whether that be eating more nutrients and less treats, working out for an hour instead of a half hour, saving more money rather than spending more money, working around the house instead of taking kids to the park, volunteering more instead of taking time for ourselves... if we always strive for optimal results, most people in various aspects of our lives would fail. It's all about balance and prioritization. Weight loss and overall health and wellness is no different. It's also about context, and for most of the community members, the advice that calories are all that matter for weight loss and that nutrition is important too - is the right context. Is there different advice that would be better for a body boulder looking to get to single digit body fat and training for a competition? Of course. But there are other threads, other boards, even other sites that might be better suited to that discussion.
We've had an influx of people lately coming in and saying that the advice that is given on these boards isn't good enough, or complete enough... I wonder how many of these people making these comments will be around 4 years from now still trying to help people like I and others are.
This is so insightful. We'd never tell someone there is no point in making a budget if they aren't going to save the maximum amount of money and never splurge on a latte or a manicure. We intuitively understand that there is a point in doing things even if one isn't going to be perfect and squeeze the maximum benefit out of everything. In fact, most of us understand that's the *only* way to get through life without anxiety and constant second-guessing.
It's only because our cultural relationship to eating and maintaining a healthy weight is so broken that we're prone to this all-or-nothing thinking on this issue where we'd automatically see it as absurd in other areas of life. If you called a local food bank to volunteer and they said they'd only accept you if you volunteered the maximum amount of hours that you aren't sleeping and working, you'd immediately assume you were being pranked.
To put into another context pertinent to my career: when someone wins a lottery or inherits money we advise them to take a small amount and have fun with it. Take the trip you have always wanted or buy something normally outside your budget BUT put the rest of it away in a manner where it goes to work for you.3 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Clean eating threads always make me want an ice cream.
Me too. Ice cream for breakfast?
Anyone have the link to MityMax's fast food for a month thread?2 -
My friend illustrated it to me this way- How nutrient rich is your intake?
Health related sites all over are advocating eating foods which have avoided excessive chemical additives, and that is great if you can reach that goal for peace of mind. Being in healthcare I know (as do many who visit here) how the body processes and eliminates the things it does not recognize as useful to its function. I prefer to limit the amount of additives I intake simply to preserve longevity of my internal organs, so I often opt for items with minimal added ingredients, but I am not legalistic about it.
I just keep the thought in my food selection choices-how much benefit are my cells going to get by taking in this food?0 -
I'm still waiting for a list of specific additives and preservatives that are abd and what they do that makes them bad.5
-
VintageFeline wrote: »I'm still waiting for a list of specific additives and preservatives that are abd and what they do that makes them bad.
I hear you! I actually like my foods to have preservatives, without them food goes bad in a hurry or will make me ill! Been there, done that. Hello porcelain god. Lol
4 -
Whats overly complicated about eating whole healthy foods? Whats complicated about learning simple nutritional timing?
Its more complicated to continue to eat garbage and try to sort out why you're still struggling with weight issues quite honestly
I didn't post that article with the intention of plagiarism is was 5 in the morning i used quotations and just simply forgot to add the reference, sheesh
Look do what you guys want, if it works for you great, I've never seen more people in my life who claim to be healthy but are so quick to jump down someones neck for saying to eat healthy and clean.
Steak is a great source of protein but in context to my example white fish is digested faster and the nutrients are bioavailable much faster than what a steak would be ...
Not sure what other ridiculous questions have been thrown out here as there are sooo many people who took this opportunity to make am excuse as to why its ok for them to continue to not eat a cleam diet ...
Adherence is very important i get that, consistency is key but having discipline and will power to say no to foods you know aren't going to be the best option are part of this journey, its not about making this easy and all about doing it the right way. I prefer to do things the most efficient and productive way for the most optimal results if thats not your thing then disregard but don't jump down my throat for telling people to eat clean when we all know its the better option, if you have issues being disciplined and sticking with a clean diet thats your issue, but don't make it seem like its impossible to avoid garbage and is soooo hard to do, that defeatist attitude from the beginning is why people fail, I'd rather someone know its possible and can be done and for doing it they will achieve much better results in a shorter period of time. Not one person in here can tell me that a clean diet isn't a better choice its absolutely ridiculous to think otherwise, and taking advice on this subject from some of you is like taking financial advice from a homeless person, consider the source. How many of you who oppose what I'm saying are still struggling and how many of you can truly and honestly say you have the body you dream of .... you may be happy with your results but lets be honest with ourselves I'm sure there's some room for approvement0 -
Whats overly complicated about eating whole healthy foods? Whats complicated about learning simple nutritional timing?
Its more complicated to continue to eat garbage and try to sort out why you're still struggling with weight issues quite honestly
I didn't post that article with the intention of plagiarism is was 5 in the morning i used quotations and just simply forgot to add the reference, sheesh
Look do what you guys want, if it works for you great, I've never seen more people in my life who claim to be healthy but are so quick to jump down someones neck for saying to eat healthy and clean.
Steak is a great source of protein but in context to my example white fish is digested faster and the nutrients are bioavailable much faster than what a steak would be ...
Not sure what other ridiculous questions have been thrown out here as there are sooo many people who took this opportunity to make am excuse as to why its ok for them to continue to not eat a cleam diet ...
Adherence is very important i get that, consistency is key but having discipline and will power to say no to foods you know aren't going to be the best option are part of this journey, its not about making this easy and all about doing it the right way. I prefer to do things the most efficient and productive way for the most optimal results if thats not your thing then disregard but don't jump down my throat for telling people to eat clean when we all know its the better option, if you have issues being disciplined and sticking with a clean diet thats your issue, but don't make it seem like its impossible to avoid garbage and is soooo hard to do, that defeatist attitude from the beginning is why people fail, I'd rather someone know its possible and can be done and for doing it they will achieve much better results in a shorter period of time. Not one person in here can tell me that a clean diet isn't a better choice its absolutely ridiculous to think otherwise, and taking advice on this subject from some of you is like taking financial advice from a homeless person, consider the source. How many of you who oppose what I'm saying are still struggling and how many of you can truly and honestly say you have the body you dream of .... you may be happy with your results but lets be honest with ourselves I'm sure there's some room for approvement
Given my appearance, my running performance, how I feel, and the results of my annual physicals, I don't think I'm making excuses when I say it's okay for me to not eat "clean."
In fact, I don't see anybody making "excuses" for how they eat. You failing to make a case for "clean eating" doesn't mean that those who accordingly reject your opinion are making excuses.6 -
What benefit does the nutrients in the fish being bioavailable more quickly than the steak make? Seriously? If my body gets all of its vitamin C at 9am instead of a bit at 10am, a bit at 4pm and a bit at 10pm what difference is that making?
Why does challenging your assertion that when you eat certain foods is better or worse mean we're all eating "garbage"?
What, specifically, is in the "garbage" that is terrible for me? I've asked this twice now.
Why do you assume we are all eating "garbage" just because we don't demonise any foods and can see the merits of fitting lots of them into our lives?
Authority nutrition aren't an authority on anything, much less nutrition.
I don't think bioavailable means what you think it means.12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions