Has anyone lost body fat not eating clean?

Jkn921

Lol. I know McDonald's is bad for you. Everyone knows McDonald's is bad for. It just makes me happy and I find it delicious

I'm just saying that it isn't a good idea to do that. I personally don't like McDonalds the calories in a single item puts me off more than anything. What you can do is have it once per week and have healthier/more nutritional foods for the remaining week - stuff you like obviously but not fried foods all the time.

A grilled chicken sandwich, plus side salad with dressing, for about 375 calories is pretty crazy calories.

Never have those - I'm talking more about Big Macs. I haven't had McDonalds for ages and don't plan to.

You should try em. Pretty good. Quality macros too.

Also, a Big Mac only has 550 calories. Not that much. 460 if you get it without the sauce.

That's still a lot for me lol add the fries and drink...

jonnythan

That before/after health graph and pictures are misleading.

Ahh ninja edit.

How are they misleading?

jonnythan

Lol. I know McDonald's is bad for you. Everyone knows McDonald's is bad for. It just makes me happy and I find it delicious

I'm just saying that it isn't a good idea to do that. I personally don't like McDonalds the calories in a single item puts me off more than anything. What you can do is have it once per week and have healthier/more nutritional foods for the remaining week - stuff you like obviously but not fried foods all the time.

A grilled chicken sandwich, plus side salad with dressing, for about 375 calories is pretty crazy calories.

Never have those - I'm talking more about Big Macs. I haven't had McDonalds for ages and don't plan to.

You should try em. Pretty good. Quality macros too.

Also, a Big Mac only has 550 calories. Not that much. 460 if you get it without the sauce.

That's still a lot for me lol add the fries and drink...

No one is forcing you to eat fries or get a Coke. Drink water, diet soda, or unsweetened tea. They have all of those. Get a side salad instead of fries.

No one is forcing you to order a double quarter pounder with large fries and coke when you go to McDonald's. It's easy to eat a reasonable amount of food there in a perfectly healthy manner. One of my favorite meals is a grilled chicken classic with no mayo, a plain McDouble with no bun, and a side salad with half a packet of italian dressing. That's a huge meal with a ton of protein for about 570 calories.

RllyGudTweetr

That before/after health graph and pictures are misleading.

What's misleading?

Figured out how to quote! The good point it makes is that it shows you can lose weight with a calorie deficit. The bad point it makes is that McDonalds will improve your health. I realize you weren't being serious, which is why I say it is misleading instead of bogus.

He ate McDonald's - practicing moderation, while exercising - and his health improved in all the ways indicated in the graph and photos. What, exactly, is misleading about it?

jonnythan

That before/after health graph and pictures are misleading.

What's misleading?

Figured out how to quote! The good point it makes is that it shows you can lose weight with a calorie deficit. The bad point it makes is that McDonalds will improve your health. I realize you weren't being serious, which is why I say it is misleading instead of bogus.

The claim being made isn't that McDonald's improves your health.

The claim being made is that McDonald's is detrimental to your health. People in this thread are literally saying that McDonald's is unhealthy and eating there will worsen your health.

I am using my personal example to disprove that claim. I am not saying that McDonald's made my health better. What made my health better was losing weight, exercising, and eating a diet that meets my nutritional goals. McDonald's is part of that (as is Taco Bell, Boston Market, Burger King, ice cream, pizza, etc).

The point is that I have lost weight and improved all my health markers by eating food that is (in this very thread) being said will cause your health to get worse.

jkregers

That before/after health graph and pictures are misleading.

What's misleading?

Figured out how to quote! The good point it makes is that it shows you can lose weight with a calorie deficit. The bad point it makes is that McDonalds will improve your health. I realize you weren't being serious, which is why I say it is misleading instead of bogus.

He ate McDonald's - practicing moderation, while exercising - and his health improved in all the ways indicated in the graph and photos. What, exactly, is misleading about it?

The post is worded to draw a correlation between McDonalds and improvement in health. It is a correlation, and not a causation.

Simply....
He says the way he improved his health was by eating McDonalds 5 times a week.
The way he probably improved his health was by weight loss and exercise.

This is, exactly, the definition of misleading. Again, I realize that his post was for entertainment purposes only, and to show that the most important aspect of weight loss is a calorie deficit.

Ninja edit, I see the point you are trying to make, it is a good one.

jonnythan

He says the way he improved his health was by eating McDonalds 5 times a week.
The way he probably improved his health was by weight loss and exercise.

This is, exactly, the definition of misleading. Again, I realize that his post was for entertainment purposes only, and to show that the most important aspect of weight loss is a calorie deficit.

I never claimed that McDonald's caused my health improvements. See the post above yours. My experience disproves the claim that McDonald's worsens your health. It does not prove that McDonald's improves your health.

Disproving a claim is inherently different than proving the converse. We are doing the former, not the latter.

kgeyser

Does eating my yogurt whilst looking at a pic of jonnythan in a towel count as clean eating? Because I could actually get on board with that diet plan. *off to google images for guys in towels*

SKME2013

I am trying to eat healthy as often as possible. I have cut out junk food as much as possible, stopped drinking soda and coffee and I am trying to cut out sugar as often as I can. This does not mean that I don't have an ice cream from time to time.

I know I am opening a can of worms, by saying "calories are not calories" and there are "good" ones and "bad" ones, but frankly it does not make any sense to me to say, 500cal of white rice have the same nutritional benefits than 500cal of i.e. veggies.

Yes, you can certainly lose weight if you create a calorie deficit, but your body will do "better" if you spend your daily calorie intake on "proper" food, instead of pizza, pasta, rice and burgers.

Stef.

jkregers

He says the way he improved his health was by eating McDonalds 5 times a week.
The way he probably improved his health was by weight loss and exercise.

This is, exactly, the definition of misleading. Again, I realize that his post was for entertainment purposes only, and to show that the most important aspect of weight loss is a calorie deficit.

I never claimed that McDonald's caused my health improvements. See the post above yours. My experience disproves the claim that McDonald's worsens your health. It does not prove that McDonald's improves your health.

Disproving a claim is inherently different than proving the converse. We are doing the former, not the latter.

Whoa whoa, it does not disprove anything. To disprove that Mcdonalds makes your health worse, you would have to give Mcdonalds to a group of healthy people, with a caloric amount equivalent to their current diets, without any other change to their lifestyles, and then you could go on the prove or disprove claims from there.

You prove that weight loss and exercise trumps the negative health effects (if there are any) of McDonalds

xxghost

Yesterday I had both KFC and Taco Bell. Sunday I had pizza for breakfast, Chinese food for lunch, and McDonald's for dinner (with a giant Little Debbie Oatmeal Cream Pie for dessert).

I'm actually bulking instead of losing weight right now, but a typical losing weight day looked like this: oatmeal and protein powder for breakfast, Subway for lunch, McDonald's or Taco Bell for dinner, and a small bowl of ice cream for dessert.

You're my inspiration.

jonnythan

He says the way he improved his health was by eating McDonalds 5 times a week.
The way he probably improved his health was by weight loss and exercise.

This is, exactly, the definition of misleading. Again, I realize that his post was for entertainment purposes only, and to show that the most important aspect of weight loss is a calorie deficit.

I never claimed that McDonald's caused my health improvements. See the post above yours. My experience disproves the claim that McDonald's worsens your health. It does not prove that McDonald's improves your health.

Disproving a claim is inherently different than proving the converse. We are doing the former, not the latter.

Whoa whoa, it does not disprove anything. To disprove that Mcdonalds makes your health worse, you would have to give Mcdonalds to a group of healthy people, with a caloric amount equivalent to their current diets, without any other change to their lifestyles, and then you could go on the prove or disprove claims from there.

If the claim is that McDonald's causes your health to get worse, it takes a single counterexample to disprove the claim.

If you want to say that McDonald's consumption is associated with some poor health outcome or another, that's a different story. I'm more than willing to discuss issues of experimental design, Hill's criteria, etc.

But the idea that "McDonald's makes your health worse" is, indeed, disproven.

bluetuesday5

Yeah but I was obese and just started weightlifting. Stayed the same weight while losing around 4 inches off my waist in about 3 months.

Mr_Bad_Example

I've always tried to not eat any food that hit the floor. Does that qualify as eating clean while losing body fat/dropping weight?

obrientp

Now I have a fierce craving for McDonald's!!

jkregers

He says the way he improved his health was by eating McDonalds 5 times a week.
The way he probably improved his health was by weight loss and exercise.

This is, exactly, the definition of misleading. Again, I realize that his post was for entertainment purposes only, and to show that the most important aspect of weight loss is a calorie deficit.

I never claimed that McDonald's caused my health improvements. See the post above yours. My experience disproves the claim that McDonald's worsens your health. It does not prove that McDonald's improves your health.

Disproving a claim is inherently different than proving the converse. We are doing the former, not the latter.

Whoa whoa, it does not disprove anything. To disprove that Mcdonalds makes your health worse, you would have to give Mcdonalds to a group of healthy people, with a caloric amount equivalent to their current diets, without any other change to their lifestyles, and then you could go on the prove or disprove claims from there.

If the claim is that McDonald's causes your health to get worse, it takes a single counterexample to disprove the claim.

If you want to say that McDonald's consumption is associated with some poor health outcome or another, that's a different story. I'm more than willing to discuss issues of experimental design, Hill's criteria, etc.

But the idea that "McDonald's makes your health worse" is, indeed, disproven.

That is a logical fallacy.

This explains it pretty well.

The fallacy has two specific types: ‘after this, therefore because of this’ and ‘with this, therefore because of this.’ With the former, because an event precedes another, it is said to have caused it. With the latter, because an event happens at the same time as another, it is said to have caused it. In various disciplines, this is referred to as confusing correlation with causation.

It would take one counterexample with ample evidence.

Note that I'm not saying McDonalds is healthy or unhealthy, simply that you cannot claim proof from the evidence that you have given.

jonnythan

He says the way he improved his health was by eating McDonalds 5 times a week.
The way he probably improved his health was by weight loss and exercise.

This is, exactly, the definition of misleading. Again, I realize that his post was for entertainment purposes only, and to show that the most important aspect of weight loss is a calorie deficit.

I never claimed that McDonald's caused my health improvements. See the post above yours. My experience disproves the claim that McDonald's worsens your health. It does not prove that McDonald's improves your health.

Disproving a claim is inherently different than proving the converse. We are doing the former, not the latter.

Whoa whoa, it does not disprove anything. To disprove that Mcdonalds makes your health worse, you would have to give Mcdonalds to a group of healthy people, with a caloric amount equivalent to their current diets, without any other change to their lifestyles, and then you could go on the prove or disprove claims from there.

If the claim is that McDonald's causes your health to get worse, it takes a single counterexample to disprove the claim.

If you want to say that McDonald's consumption is associated with some poor health outcome or another, that's a different story. I'm more than willing to discuss issues of experimental design, Hill's criteria, etc.

But the idea that "McDonald's makes your health worse" is, indeed, disproven.

That is a logical fallacy.

This explains it pretty well.

The fallacy has two specific types: ‘after this, therefore because of this’ and ‘with this, therefore because of this.’ With the former, because an event precedes another, it is said to have caused it. With the latter, because an event happens at the same time as another, it is said to have caused it. In various disciplines, this is referred to as confusing correlation with causation.

It would take one counterexample with ample evidence.

You're still misunderstanding. The claim I am attacking is that x causes y.

I have provided an example of x not followed by y, thus disproving the claim that x causes y.

This is all semantics anyway. The point is that fast food does not magically cause ill health.

BrettWithPKU

I have. For a while.

Problem is that from lack of nutrition I was hungry CONSTANTLY.

You've been warned.

Francl27

I've lost all my weight (and only 3 lbs of that was muscle mass) eating cookies, ice cream, pizza, chocolate... well, obviously not all at the same time. The key is to make good decisions, so you won't be starving one hour later.

jkregers

He says the way he improved his health was by eating McDonalds 5 times a week.
The way he probably improved his health was by weight loss and exercise.

This is, exactly, the definition of misleading. Again, I realize that his post was for entertainment purposes only, and to show that the most important aspect of weight loss is a calorie deficit.

I never claimed that McDonald's caused my health improvements. See the post above yours. My experience disproves the claim that McDonald's worsens your health. It does not prove that McDonald's improves your health.

Disproving a claim is inherently different than proving the converse. We are doing the former, not the latter.

Whoa whoa, it does not disprove anything. To disprove that Mcdonalds makes your health worse, you would have to give Mcdonalds to a group of healthy people, with a caloric amount equivalent to their current diets, without any other change to their lifestyles, and then you could go on the prove or disprove claims from there.

If the claim is that McDonald's causes your health to get worse, it takes a single counterexample to disprove the claim.

If you want to say that McDonald's consumption is associated with some poor health outcome or another, that's a different story. I'm more than willing to discuss issues of experimental design, Hill's criteria, etc.

But the idea that "McDonald's makes your health worse" is, indeed, disproven.

That is a logical fallacy.

This explains it pretty well.

The fallacy has two specific types: ‘after this, therefore because of this’ and ‘with this, therefore because of this.’ With the former, because an event precedes another, it is said to have caused it. With the latter, because an event happens at the same time as another, it is said to have caused it. In various disciplines, this is referred to as confusing correlation with causation.

It would take one counterexample with ample evidence.

You're still misunderstanding. The claim I am attacking is that x causes y.

I have provided an example of x not followed by y, thus disproving the claim that x causes y.

This is all semantics anyway. The point is that fast food does not magically cause ill health.

That is like saying ice cream is good for your health because it increases HDL, and ignoring that it increases LDL as well. You aren't using every health parameter, you are using the ones that fit your argument.