Do I have to eat 100% clean to lose weight?
Options
Replies
-
I think you rather missed my point, but whatever.I keep wondering if these arguments are simply a matter of viewpoint. If some are arguing in support of how they eat 80% of the time while others are arguing defending what they eat 20% of the time and if in reality, most folks eat pretty similarly, big picture.
It doesn't matter how you eat 80% of the time or 20% of the time.
What matters is what it all adds up to at the end of the day.
Count up the nutrients you've taken in at the end of the day, and if they add up to the right stuff then you're good. If they don't add up to the right stuff you're not good.
It doesn't matter if you eat 80% clean or 80% "junk" or 80% whatever if your overall total nutrient intake is inappropriate.0 -
I think you rather missed my point, but whatever.I keep wondering if these arguments are simply a matter of viewpoint. If some are arguing in support of how they eat 80% of the time while others are arguing defending what they eat 20% of the time and if in reality, most folks eat pretty similarly, big picture.
It doesn't matter how you eat 80% of the time or 20% of the time.
What matters is what it all adds up to at the end of the day.
Count up the nutrients you've taken in at the end of the day, and if they add up to the right stuff then you're good. If they don't add up to the right stuff you're not good.
It doesn't matter if you eat 80% clean or 80% "junk" or 80% whatever if your overall total nutrient intake is inappropriate.
I'm quite certain I did not.
You and others are so intensely focused on food labels that you miss the overall picture and fail to understand what actually matters.0 -
I might be able to if you could define "clean" and "junk" for me.
I find it amusing that those that claim not to think food is junk or know what 'junk food' is, are often those that immediately start defending fast food, baked goods and sweets when someone mentions junk food.
I find it amusing people label foods as "junk" but then cannot define what it is about it that makes it that way. I am perfectly aware of what they consider to be junk though.0 -
And here comes the broscience.You do not have to eat 100% clean however just creating a calorie deficit will not help your goal. The timing of when you eat bad food can be helpful to your cause. Look into carb backloading. It is a fun way to lose get lean and eat what you want
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Nope. But again, whatever.
I think you rather missed my point, but whatever.I keep wondering if these arguments are simply a matter of viewpoint. If some are arguing in support of how they eat 80% of the time while others are arguing defending what they eat 20% of the time and if in reality, most folks eat pretty similarly, big picture.
It doesn't matter how you eat 80% of the time or 20% of the time.
What matters is what it all adds up to at the end of the day.
Count up the nutrients you've taken in at the end of the day, and if they add up to the right stuff then you're good. If they don't add up to the right stuff you're not good.
It doesn't matter if you eat 80% clean or 80% "junk" or 80% whatever if your overall total nutrient intake is inappropriate.
I'm quite certain I did not.
You and others are so intensely focused on food labels that you miss the overall picture and fail to understand what actually matters.0 -
I might be able to if you could define "clean" and "junk" for me.
I find it amusing that those that claim not to think food is junk or know what 'junk food' is, are often those that immediately start defending fast food, baked goods and sweets when someone mentions junk food.
I find it amusing people label foods as "junk" but then cannot define what it is about it that makes it that way. I am perfectly aware of what they consider to be junk though.
It's the label on the wrapper.0 -
Disagree. Loss of body fat comes down to calorie deficit regardless whether one eats clean or not.Calorie deficits work for weight loss, but if you really want to tone then eating clean is mandatory.
WUT? Broscience on a roll here.However you don't have to eat clean 100% of time, it will just take longer to tone if you don't eat clean all the time.
Actually unless someone has a digestive issue or health issue, we process foods the same way from human to human.Also everyone processes food in different ways so you need to find that middle ground of eating clean and eating anything else.
More broscience. The amount of meals don't matter. Total calories at that end of the day do regardless of how it's achieved.But the main thing is that weight loss will happen with just having a calorie deficit and eating more meals over the course of a day rather than 3 large meals.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Nope. But again, whatever.
I think you rather missed my point, but whatever.I keep wondering if these arguments are simply a matter of viewpoint. If some are arguing in support of how they eat 80% of the time while others are arguing defending what they eat 20% of the time and if in reality, most folks eat pretty similarly, big picture.
It doesn't matter how you eat 80% of the time or 20% of the time.
What matters is what it all adds up to at the end of the day.
Count up the nutrients you've taken in at the end of the day, and if they add up to the right stuff then you're good. If they don't add up to the right stuff you're not good.
It doesn't matter if you eat 80% clean or 80% "junk" or 80% whatever if your overall total nutrient intake is inappropriate.
I'm quite certain I did not.
You and others are so intensely focused on food labels that you miss the overall picture and fail to understand what actually matters.
This might be the worst comeback argument I have ever seen on MFP.0 -
Yep. You'll probably lose lean muscle and feel like crap because of lack of macros and micros, but the deficit will cause you to be smaller. Not sexy, but smaller.Soo... If I am to believe everybody in this thread, I should be able to eat 1500 calories of butter every day and still fit into my sexy pants. Why has nobody told me this sooner?!?! Thank you folks of MFP for this genius insight!!!
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I might be able to if you could define "clean" and "junk" for me.
I find it amusing that those that claim not to think food is junk or know what 'junk food' is, are often those that immediately start defending fast food, baked goods and sweets when someone mentions junk food.
It's because the labels like "clean" or "junk" have no real meaning.
It's the labels we attack.
Nutrients matter. Labels do not.
Labels have no meaning, yet we all know what they mean. Got it.0 -
I might be able to if you could define "clean" and "junk" for me.
I find it amusing that those that claim not to think food is junk or know what 'junk food' is, are often those that immediately start defending fast food, baked goods and sweets when someone mentions junk food.
It's because the labels like "clean" or "junk" have no real meaning.
It's the labels we attack.
Nutrients matter. Labels do not.
Labels have no meaning, yet we all know what they mean. Got it.
We actually don't know what they mean. Their meanings are highly amorphous. They mean different things to different people.
And on top of that, they don't matter.
Nutrients matter. Labels do not matter.0 -
I might be able to if you could define "clean" and "junk" for me.
I find it amusing that those that claim not to think food is junk or know what 'junk food' is, are often those that immediately start defending fast food, baked goods and sweets when someone mentions junk food.
It's because the labels like "clean" or "junk" have no real meaning.
It's the labels we attack.
Nutrients matter. Labels do not.
Labels have no meaning, yet we all know what they mean. Got it.
We actually don't know what they mean. Their meanings are highly amorphous. They mean different things to different people.
And on top of that, they don't matter.
Nutrients matter. Labels do not matter.
Matter to whom?0 -
Nutrients matter. Labels do not matter.
Matter to whom?
The human body. Turns out the body doesn't really care what you think about certain foods or nutrients, unless perhaps you have some crazy psychological hangup and can't eat a certain something without a severe psychological reaction that screws with your body chemistry.
Which I guess is possible. Or probable, for some people.0 -
No...only on odd numbered days...odd number days you must be 100% clean...do whatevs on even numbered days.
But in all seriousness OP, weight loss isn't linear...you don't lose exactly X Lbs per week every week. You will have weeks with no loss and weeks with bigger losses and weeks with smaller losses and even weeks where your scale may show a gain due to some excess water retention...weight control in general is a general trend over a much longer period of time...whether you're talking about losing, maintaining, or gaining.0 -
Nope. But again, whatever.
I think you rather missed my point, but whatever.I keep wondering if these arguments are simply a matter of viewpoint. If some are arguing in support of how they eat 80% of the time while others are arguing defending what they eat 20% of the time and if in reality, most folks eat pretty similarly, big picture.
It doesn't matter how you eat 80% of the time or 20% of the time.
What matters is what it all adds up to at the end of the day.
Count up the nutrients you've taken in at the end of the day, and if they add up to the right stuff then you're good. If they don't add up to the right stuff you're not good.
It doesn't matter if you eat 80% clean or 80% "junk" or 80% whatever if your overall total nutrient intake is inappropriate.
I'm quite certain I did not.
You and others are so intensely focused on food labels that you miss the overall picture and fail to understand what actually matters.
This might be the worst comeback argument I have ever seen on MFP.
She wasn't wrong. And he's not wrong about his (different) point either.0 -
I might be able to if you could define "clean" and "junk" for me.
I find it amusing that those that claim not to think food is junk or know what 'junk food' is, are often those that immediately start defending fast food, baked goods and sweets when someone mentions junk food.
It's because the labels like "clean" or "junk" have no real meaning.
It's the labels we attack.
Nutrients matter. Labels do not.
Labels have no meaning, yet we all know what they mean. Got it.
We actually don't know what they mean. Their meanings are highly amorphous. They mean different things to different people.
And on top of that, they don't matter.
Nutrients matter. Labels do not matter.
Matter to whom?
The human body. Turns out the body doesn't really care what you think about certain foods or nutrients, unless perhaps you have some crazy psychological hangup and can't eat a certain something without a severe psychological reaction that screws with your body chemistry.
The digestive system doesn't care about words. I agree. But that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that everyone knows what is meant by "junk food".0 -
No...only on odd numbered days...odd number days you must be 100% clean...do whatevs on even numbered days.
Don't forget to carry the 1 :laugh:0 -
It may not be the food that has you stalled. Try revamping your exercise routine. If your only form of exercise is running, then your body expects that and then doesn't have to work as hard anymore. Try adding some strength training to your routine. Or adding some HIIT to your running routine to switch things up a little.
Keeping your body out of an exercise routine will keep it guessing and always result in a great calorie burn!
^^^this was my thought as well. Also calorie counting isn't exact when you are just going by smal med lg size fry etc. and not weighing food.
Funny that you mention fries. The handful of times I've weighed fries, it's been almost dead on. But you are right.
The big chains measure their portions pretty well. They've got their expenses calculated down to a nat's as_ and you have to be consistent to do that.
5-Guys, on the other hand, likes to overfill to the point that you've basically got a second serving in the brown bag. I should weigh theirs once, for the heck of it.
ROFL yes Five guys was the one I was thinking of lol0 -
I might be able to if you could define "clean" and "junk" for me.
I find it amusing that those that claim not to think food is junk or know what 'junk food' is, are often those that immediately start defending fast food, baked goods and sweets when someone mentions junk food.
It's because the labels like "clean" or "junk" have no real meaning.
It's the labels we attack.
Nutrients matter. Labels do not.
Labels have no meaning, yet we all know what they mean. Got it.
its pretty much when people say a burger is unhealthy.
lets put 2 burgers right next to eachotehr
1 whole wheat 9 grain. lettuce, tomatoes, cheese, grass fed beef, avocado
The other is white bread, cheese, fried onions, bbq sauce, cheese, 80/20 normal ground beef.
Now the first burger is loaded with fiber, phytochemicals, antioxidants, balanced fats, omega 3 fatty acids. micronutrients, etc, most likely less heavy metals than the 2nd
the 2nd burger is low residual, little to no fiber, calorie dense for the satiation, has little to nothing else.
We could play the same game with pizza with changing general ingredients.
Dont get me wrong, I will eat a regular burger with friend onions and what not, there are better choices out there.
There is a point where we have to balance caloric density with satiation and micronutrients. However, people keep demonizing food and believe that if they cannot do it fully "clean", then they might as well give up. Moderation is the key to full sustainability0 -
It wasn't meant to be a "comeback".
Nope. But again, whatever.
I think you rather missed my point, but whatever.I keep wondering if these arguments are simply a matter of viewpoint. If some are arguing in support of how they eat 80% of the time while others are arguing defending what they eat 20% of the time and if in reality, most folks eat pretty similarly, big picture.
It doesn't matter how you eat 80% of the time or 20% of the time.
What matters is what it all adds up to at the end of the day.
Count up the nutrients you've taken in at the end of the day, and if they add up to the right stuff then you're good. If they don't add up to the right stuff you're not good.
It doesn't matter if you eat 80% clean or 80% "junk" or 80% whatever if your overall total nutrient intake is inappropriate.
I'm quite certain I did not.
You and others are so intensely focused on food labels that you miss the overall picture and fail to understand what actually matters.
This might be the worst comeback argument I have ever seen on MFP.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 945 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions