Clean Eating and Counting Calories?
Replies
-
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?0 -
Do you have any actual evidence for this? or is this just an opinion? Also saying that clean foods are naturally lower in calories is a bit too much of a blanket statement. There are many so called' clean foods' whose calories are well very high and higher than a lot of processed foods. The advocado comes to mind off the top of my head.Most people will naturally create a calorie deficit when they "clean" up their diets.0 -
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?
The term you've got to eat less calories than you burn is technically not true for weight loss!0 -
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?
The term you've got to eat less calories than you burn is technically not true for weight loss!
That's true, nor is a calorie surplus needed for weight gain.0 -
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?
The term you've got to eat less calories than you burn is technically not true for weight loss!
and you complain that other people do not make sense....0 -
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?
The term you've got to eat less calories than you burn is technically not true for weight loss!
and you complain that other people do not make sense....
Okay - hypothetically if I consumes 10% fat 30% protein and 60% carbs (mainly from resistant starches) and I did resistance training every other day and cardio on the days in between and I consistently ate 300 calories more each day than I burned would I lose weight?
I would be interested in a scientific response - I have no shame if I am wrong or not.0 -
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?
The term you've got to eat less calories than you burn is technically not true for weight loss!
and you complain that other people do not make sense....
Okay - hypothetically if I consumes 10% fat 30% protein and 60% carbs (mainly from resistant starches) and I did resistance training every other day and cardio on the days in between and I consistently ate 300 calories more each day than I burned would I lose weight?
I would be interested in a scientific response - I have no shame if I am wrong or not.
So you're saying the statement should be eat less than you burn for fat loss because water retention plays a factor?
Genuinely lost at the point you're trying to make here...0 -
If you at all veg and fruit and organic and whatever else is considered "clean" and the calories are over your maintenance, YOU WILL GAIN WEIGHT. Not debatable. Its SCIENCE.
At the same time, if your maintenance is 2500 calories and you eat 2000 calories of twinkies, you will lose weight. Guaranteed. You'd feel like hell but you would lose weight. Eating clean (whatever that is) is mostly pointless IMO and most people who brag about it don't eat as "clean" as they think0 -
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?
The term you've got to eat less calories than you burn is technically not true for weight loss!
and you complain that other people do not make sense....
Okay - hypothetically if I consumes 10% fat 30% protein and 60% carbs (mainly from resistant starches) and I did resistance training every other day and cardio on the days in between and I consistently ate 300 calories more each day than I burned would I lose weight?
I would be interested in a scientific response - I have no shame if I am wrong or not.
So you're saying the statement should be eat less than you burn for fat loss because water retention plays a factor?
Genuinely lost at the point you're trying to make here...
He's looking for a long debate about TEF, and capabilities of one's body to make use of (rather than pass) some of the energy consumed, particularly involving resistant starches. I for one, will prepare the gifs in eager anticipation.0 -
I have been reading more about the benefits of clean eating and gathering recipes. One thing I have read though is that when clean eating you don't really have to keep track of calories? I know I will still keep track of my calorie intake so I know what I am consuming, but I want to know what others do or have done that eat clean?
Also, if you have any suggestions on recipes, websites, or books that would be great!
If you are going to eat clean, to start with maybe you should cover your bases and log the food for a while until you get a feel for what the approx. calorie cost is for the food you're eating.
^^ This is good advice.0 -
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?
The term you've got to eat less calories than you burn is technically not true for weight loss!
and you complain that other people do not make sense....
Okay - hypothetically if I consumes 10% fat 30% protein and 60% carbs (mainly from resistant starches) and I did resistance training every other day and cardio on the days in between and I consistently ate 300 calories more each day than I burned would I lose weight?
I would be interested in a scientific response - I have no shame if I am wrong or not.
I believe it is incorrect. If you are counting the calories in the resistant starch as "consumed calories" then yes, you could say that, but since resistant starch passes through the body unabsorbed, which means you didn't really consume them, so they are not part of the "calories in" side of the equation.0 -
I'm having trouble figuring things out. I've been on MFP for almost a year and I've been scared to ask this... I workout a lot and burn anywhere between 800-100 calories a workout (says my HRM) and by the end of the week my weekly calorie goal is under 3-4 thousand calories. Should I be hitting my weekly calorie goal each week? I think with all of the working out and not eating back my calories I'm essentially starving myself but it's not my intention. I'm just horrible with anything that has to do with numbers and I can't figure this out. I keep changing my goals since I'm not sure of what a good balance is for me.
i can tell you that I will hit my daily goal then I will workout, burn the 800-100 calls and then go to sleep. i have to eat BEFORE my workouts since I have GERD and I can't eat before bed. I am a teacher so I wake up at 4:30 am everyday and I'm not home until 3 pm. I come home, eat, help my grandma out and then I workout at night. I do T-25 and I have my activity level set to "active." I will do T-25 plus some weight training at home. Nothing major. I do have a lot of muscle on me which is great. I just have some stubborn slight love handles that won't do away.
My stats are:
5'7''
139 lbs
Active
BMR is 1434
Anyone care to help me set my new goals up?
Set MFP to lose half a pound a week. Eat back half of your exercise calories. Get adequate protein, set macros to 40% protein, 30% carbs, 30% fat.0 -
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?
The term you've got to eat less calories than you burn is technically not true for weight loss!
and you complain that other people do not make sense....
Okay - hypothetically if I consumes 10% fat 30% protein and 60% carbs (mainly from resistant starches) and I did resistance training every other day and cardio on the days in between and I consistently ate 300 calories more each day than I burned would I lose weight?
I would be interested in a scientific response - I have no shame if I am wrong or not.
So you're saying the statement should be eat less than you burn for fat loss because water retention plays a factor?
Genuinely lost at the point you're trying to make here...
300 calorie surplus - this may be a totally wrong assumption of me, but I'm keen to hear if there's anything to it.0 -
If you at all veg and fruit and organic and whatever else is considered "clean" and the calories are over your maintenance, YOU WILL GAIN WEIGHT. Not debatable. Its SCIENCE.
At the same time, if your maintenance is 2500 calories and you eat 2000 calories of twinkies, you will lose weight. Guaranteed. You'd feel like hell but you would lose weight. Eating clean (whatever that is) is mostly pointless IMO and most people who brag about it don't eat as "clean" as they think
Sorry this has nothing to do with clean food. I'm talking eating mainly resistant starches for the carbs.0 -
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?
The term you've got to eat less calories than you burn is technically not true for weight loss!
and you complain that other people do not make sense....
Okay - hypothetically if I consumes 10% fat 30% protein and 60% carbs (mainly from resistant starches) and I did resistance training every other day and cardio on the days in between and I consistently ate 300 calories more each day than I burned would I lose weight?
I would be interested in a scientific response - I have no shame if I am wrong or not.
I believe it is incorrect. If you are counting the calories in the resistant starch as "consumed calories" then yes, you could say that, but since resistant starch passes through the body unabsorbed, which means you didn't really consume them, so they are not part of the "calories in" side of the equation.
I checked on the MFP diary and I might be wrong but I think they count the calories from resistant starches.0 -
If you at all veg and fruit and organic and whatever else is considered "clean" and the calories are over your maintenance, YOU WILL GAIN WEIGHT. Not debatable. Its SCIENCE.
At the same time, if your maintenance is 2500 calories and you eat 2000 calories of twinkies, you will lose weight. Guaranteed. You'd feel like hell but you would lose weight. Eating clean (whatever that is) is mostly pointless IMO and most people who brag about it don't eat as "clean" as they think
Sorry this has nothing to do with clean food. I'm talking eating mainly resistant starches for the carbs.
Are you counting the calories in the starches as calories "eaten"?0 -
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?
The term you've got to eat less calories than you burn is technically not true for weight loss!
and you complain that other people do not make sense....
Okay - hypothetically if I consumes 10% fat 30% protein and 60% carbs (mainly from resistant starches) and I did resistance training every other day and cardio on the days in between and I consistently ate 300 calories more each day than I burned would I lose weight?
I would be interested in a scientific response - I have no shame if I am wrong or not.
I believe it is incorrect. If you are counting the calories in the resistant starch as "consumed calories" then yes, you could say that, but since resistant starch passes through the body unabsorbed, which means you didn't really consume them, so they are not part of the "calories in" side of the equation.
I checked on the MFP diary and I might be wrong but I think they count the calories from resistant starches.
MFP doesn't determine what your body absorbs.
ETA: http://digestivehealthinstitute.org/2013/05/10/resistant-starch-friend-or-foe/Starch that isn’t absorbed, known by scientists as “resistant starch,” is estimated to represent at least 10% of the total starch in a typical Western diet. Undercooked, or cooked, then cooled foods contain more resistant starch than fully cooked or hot foods. In many ways, resistant starch is similar to and behaves like fermentable fiber in the digestive tract.0 -
Is eating a nutrient dense diet "pointless" as well?If you at all veg and fruit and organic and whatever else is considered "clean" and the calories are over your maintenance, YOU WILL GAIN WEIGHT. Not debatable. Its SCIENCE.
At the same time, if your maintenance is 2500 calories and you eat 2000 calories of twinkies, you will lose weight. Guaranteed. You'd feel like hell but you would lose weight. Eating clean (whatever that is) is mostly pointless IMO and most people who brag about it don't eat as "clean" as they think0 -
You have to have a calorie deficit no matter what you eat.
Not necessarily, technically you can eat more calories than you burn in energy and still loose weight.
What do you mean by "burn in energy"?
The term you've got to eat less calories than you burn is technically not true for weight loss!
and you complain that other people do not make sense....
Okay - hypothetically if I consumes 10% fat 30% protein and 60% carbs (mainly from resistant starches) and I did resistance training every other day and cardio on the days in between and I consistently ate 300 calories more each day than I burned would I lose weight?
I would be interested in a scientific response - I have no shame if I am wrong or not.
I believe it is incorrect. If you are counting the calories in the resistant starch as "consumed calories" then yes, you could say that, but since resistant starch passes through the body unabsorbed, which means you didn't really consume them, so they are not part of the "calories in" side of the equation.
I checked on the MFP diary and I might be wrong but I think they count the calories from resistant starches.
MFP doesn't determine what your body absorbs.
ETA: http://digestivehealthinstitute.org/2013/05/10/resistant-starch-friend-or-foe/Starch that isn’t absorbed, known by scientists as “resistant starch,” is estimated to represent at least 10% of the total starch in a typical Western diet. Undercooked, or cooked, then cooled foods contain more resistant starch than fully cooked or hot foods. In many ways, resistant starch is similar to and behaves like fermentable fiber in the digestive tract.
So if resistant starch has a calorific content then it should be 'you've got to absorb less calories than you burn'.
Anyway this is going off topic so I will drop it and maybe start a thread.0 -
Do you have any actual evidence for this? or is this just an opinion? Also saying that clean foods are naturally lower in calories is a bit too much of a blanket statement. There are many so called' clean foods' whose calories are well very high and higher than a lot of processed foods. The advocado comes to mind off the top of my head.Most people will naturally create a calorie deficit when they "clean" up their diets.
Ummm...I believe I covered all of that in the entirety of my post. Somehow you missed the part where I talk about eating handful of almonds and avocados and cooking oils, etc....and the part where I said I had to start counting calories because just cutting back on sodas and what not was enough initially but I ultimately stalled out....I never said "clean" foods were naturally lower in calories...maybe layoff the doob, doob...or are you smokin' crack?0 -
If you at all veg and fruit and organic and whatever else is considered "clean" and the calories are over your maintenance, YOU WILL GAIN WEIGHT. Not debatable. Its SCIENCE.
At the same time, if your maintenance is 2500 calories and you eat 2000 calories of twinkies, you will lose weight. Guaranteed. You'd feel like hell but you would lose weight. Eating clean (whatever that is) is mostly pointless IMO and most people who brag about it don't eat as "clean" as they think
The science of weight gain and weight loss is not that cut and dry; there will be cases of people who eat over maintenance and lose weight, and cases of people who eat under maintenance and gain weight (I for instance know at least a few of each category).
Eating clean also isn't just about weight loss; it's often about health. Most people try to eat clean in order to eat more nutritiously and to avoid consuming products that may be harmful to their health such as added chemicals, hormones, etc. Twinkies I'm sure you'll agree are low in nutrients - that's why you'd feel like hell eating just them. But by eating clean you're almost guaranteeing you'll be eating more nutritiously because clean foods are generally more nutritious than processed foods because that's where nutrients come from (unless the processed food is fortified in some way, and there's debate about how we process man-made or added nutrients vs. naturally occurring ones). So I disagree with you that eating clean is pointless0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions