Corn used my man-parts as a speedbag.
Replies
-
I'm going to print this out and post it on the break room wall where I work. We have people trying the grapefruit diet, the Adkins diet, paleo, HGC (scary) and every other fad diet imaginable. They're popping weight loss pills, drinking Slim Fast and spending their money on useless junk, They just can't believe that I have lost 59 lbs through healthy eating habits and exercise. Some people just don't get it and everyone wants a quick fix..
I've tried to tell many of them that, yes, you will lose weight on your fad diet, but if you don't make a lifestyle change you will most likely gain every bit of it back! I don't even bother any more. I'll just continue doing what I'm doing and getting fitter and healthier every day. Maybe some of them will wake up some day. My guess is, most won't.0 -
Well said OP0
-
When most of you have cancer, Alzheimers, and heart disease when you are 58 years old, don't say we didn't tell you so.
Yeah, you may weigh a good weight, but that doesn't mean you are healthy on the cellular level.
I don't have cancer, alzheimers or heart disease and I am 58 so what does that make me? a sodding miracle? :laugh:
Oh, oh......I'm 56. Am I screwed in 2 years? :laugh:
So, I'm 61 and healthy as a horse! What does that make me??
I'm 64. I guess I should just cancel my gym membership. Sit on the couch, watch TV, drink beer and eat chips while I wait around to die!
NOT!!!!0 -
I wasn't personally referencing you. And I do believe food allergies and intolerances were listed as exceptional circumstances in the original post.
I don't want to turn this into a huge quote thing, but the other poster's original post quoted my original post relating back to the original post on gluten. That's where that side conversation came from, not the OP's post.0 -
I agree with almost all of this. The only one I don't agree with as much is the "you don't need to eat clean." Assuming clean means eating as close to unprocessed as possible, I think eating whole foods is important to health. I'm not saying you should eliminate processed foods from your diet entirely or not treat yourself, but I think someone who loses weight eating Big Macs and twinkies and a person who eats "clean" will see very different results, even if they're eating at the same deficit.0
-
You have the most common sense of anyone I know on this site!
0 -
When most of you have cancer, Alzheimers, and heart disease when you are 58 years old, don't say we didn't tell you so.
Yeah, you may weigh a good weight, but that doesn't mean you are healthy on the cellular level.
I don't have cancer, alzheimers or heart disease and I am 58 so what does that make me? a sodding miracle? :laugh:
Oh, oh......I'm 56. Am I screwed in 2 years? :laugh:
So, I'm 61 and healthy as a horse! What does that make me??
A ghost! You shoulda been dead mr. !!0 -
About the gluten jab...
I was making a sarcastic comment about how gluten has become the new "evil food." I am fully aware that celiac disease exists. However it effects a small portion of the population. "Gluten sensitivity" cannot be tested for accuracy and and there is no clear path for diagnosis. The latter is not a statement to say that it does not exist just that the likelihood could be compared to... let's say... avocados, as our friend has experienced. Should he feel deceived by those that told him that avocados were good for him? Perhaps he should start an avocado-free diet fad that should apply to everyone? I should hope that no one will take my statement over those of their doctor's thereby making my quip a "dangerous" statement. In the future, I will qualify all of my sarcasm with footnotes.*
*no I won't.
I got that your post was sarcasm. It was unfortunate sarcasm because of how inaccurate it was. And people who have (or believe they have) gluten issues are quite used to sarcasm and derision. It's so unnecessary given that people who cut out gluten already have tons of trouble trying to make this work in day to day life. Maybe rather than using footnotes, you should keep your sarcasm accurate instead of just wrong.0 -
When most of you have cancer, Alzheimers, and heart disease when you are 58 years old, don't say we didn't tell you so.
Yeah, you may weigh a good weight, but that doesn't mean you are healthy on the cellular level.
I don't have cancer, alzheimers or heart disease and I am 58 so what does that make me? a sodding miracle? :laugh:
I turned 59 a few days ago....apparently now I am IMMORTAL! Fat, but immortal. Its a trade off.0 -
Love this topic. Makes so much sense
0 -
Love it. Thanks for the post.0
-
I agree with almost all of this. The only one I don't agree with as much is the "you don't need to eat clean." Assuming clean means eating as close to unprocessed as possible, I think eating whole foods is important to health. I'm not saying you should eliminate processed foods from your diet entirely or not treat yourself, but I think someone who loses weight eating Big Macs and twinkies and a person who eats "clean" will see very different results, even if they're eating at the same deficit.
Do you have any links to studies showing that?
No one says that eating healthy, unprocessed food is bad. It's just not REQUIRED for loss.0 -
You don't need to eat clean.
And you don't need to listen to this guy.
Don't need to eat clean? At all? Ok, let me just load my body up with pure crap so long it's within my allowance of calories for the day because it doesn't matter if my arteries clog up and I have a heart attack so long as I've lost some weight and gained some muscle, right?
You are using a false dilemma.
You might want to read this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
I like how your argument is all or nothing. If I say you don't need to eat clean, you set up your strawman as though I am advocating a 100% processed diet. This is sillyness.
Common sense, as mentioned in the previous post, would hopefully imply that people are making some effort to consume nutrient dense foods with the "majority" of the diet being minimally processed foods. But it would also imply that you don't need to take an all-or-nothing approach where you're sweating bullets worrying about whether or not your protein bar is "clean".0 -
This may well be the most awesomest thread ever on MFP!0
-
I agree with almost all of this. The only one I don't agree with as much is the "you don't need to eat clean." Assuming clean means eating as close to unprocessed as possible, I think eating whole foods is important to health. I'm not saying you should eliminate processed foods from your diet entirely or not treat yourself, but I think someone who loses weight eating Big Macs and twinkies and a person who eats "clean" will see very different results, even if they're eating at the same deficit.
Eating whole foods IS important to health. So is not being obese.
The problem is that clean is ambiguous and loosely defined. The additional problem is that people often confuse "eating mostly whole foods" with "completely eliminating processed foods" and the latter statement is not always a good thing for adherence reasons. The former, I'm absolutely in favor of.
Lastly, I have yet to see any evidence or even reasonable arguments that the presence of "some" processed foods in a nutrient sufficient diet of mostly whole foods, is detrimental.
Dosage is always relevant.1 -
Now that I have your attention -
Every so often I'll make one of these random bits of info. How about now.
You don't need to eat clean.
You don't need to avoid white bread or potatoes or beans or rice or _____________ (insert food here) unless you've got an intolerance/allergy/medical condition.
You don't need to eat breakfast to get your metabolism started.
You probably don't need to pay any attention to GI.
Your metabolism doesn't get kick-started and you don't rev it up.
Eating frequently is fine but it doesn't "boost your metabolism".
Don't waste your money on Raspberry Keytones and you should probably turn off Dr. Oz.
You are not toning.
You will not bulk up, ladies.
You also don't "gain muscle really easily". Yes, YOU.
Low carbing is not dangerous.
Low carbing is not metabolically superior.
You can eat food before bed.
You can eat food IN bed.
There is no specific time at which eating will cause you to gain fat.
The little pink dumbbells do not constitute "lifting weights".
That glass of blended up "juice" that you're replacing your meals with, probably isn't "cleansing" any "toxins".
"Hot Pants" don't make you lose fat, although they may make your wallet lighter.
You don't need to burn off that bowl of cereal or piece of chicken.
You don't need to worry about whether you're burning carbs or fat.
You don't need to worry about how much fat you burned during your workout, or how much muscle you gained during that set of bosu-ball dumbbell flies.
You don't "shock your body"
You don't "confuse your mucles"
Stop switching up your lifting program. How about stick to something and add weight to the bar.
Just because you saw it in a documentary doesn't mean it's a good idea or even remotely research-based.
You don't need to zig-zag or carb cycle or do the 17 day butt wash or the cabbage donkey stew diet.
2 weeks is not a plateau.
.
.
.
.
.
Start here:
1) Eat within a reasonable caloric intake for your goals.
2) Consume adequate protein and fat.
3) Consume at least enough carbs to allow you to train with intensity.
(And can you just use some common sense with food selection?)
4) Lift weights
5) Get rest.
6) Repeat
7) And quit worrying about all the other crap.
Be patient.
BEST POST EVER!!!! 0 -
"I got that your post was sarcasm. It was unfortunate sarcasm because of how inaccurate it was. And people who have (or believe they have) gluten issues are quite used to sarcasm and derision. It's so unnecessary given that people who cut out gluten already have tons of trouble trying to make this work in day to day life. Maybe rather than using footnotes, you should keep your sarcasm accurate instead of just wrong."
I see that I have offended you. I am in error. I should have said "we are not all suddenly allergic to gluten" not "you are not suddenly allergic to gluten." My intention was to criticize the fad diet, not attack your personal health issue. I did not communicate this very well.0 -
* You don't need to eat clean. (me - disagree. While I have a lot of weight to lose, and need to change my emotional eating, I NEED to eat clean - for now. For me, this means preparing meals in a healthy way - no excessive use of butter, or other 'high' unhealthy fats. I think this falls under your statement of use common sense with food choices.)
* You don't need to avoid white bread or potatoes or beans or rice or _____________ (insert food here) unless you've got an intolerance/allergy/medical condition. (me - disagree. You might say it falls under an intolerance, but not necessarily. I have found that certain high glycemic foods, and too much complex carbohydrates makes me crave unhealthy food. Again, for me it could fall under using common sense, but I think it is a bit more than that.)
* You don't need to eat breakfast to get your metabolism started. (Me - again disagree. For those that are fit and their bodies work efficiently, I'd say you are absolutely right. For those of us with a long way to get fit, this is a very real part of getting our bodies to that state. When we are used to not eating but one very large meal a day, or being very inconsistent on the timing of nutrients, our bodies adjust, and will reduce the metabolic rate, in that it doesn't trust it will get nutrition timely. Over time, and eating well, the body becomes much more efficient and again adjust appropriately.)
* You probably don't need to pay any attention to GI. (me - disagree. Always pay attention to your GI tract, especially if you don't feel well or 'right'.)
* Your metabolism doesn't get kick-started and you don't rev it up. (me - disagree. Much science has proven that your metabolism does get a boost after a good workout. As far as getting 'kick-started, not on a daily basis, but again, for those of us with 'metabolic syndrome', we do have to make a conscious effort to eat right and get the exercise so our metabolism will respond.)
* Eating frequently is fine but it doesn't "boost your metabolism". (Me - half agree/ half disagree. Depends on where each person is at in their journey. Out of the obese category, I would agree. For those of us trying to get there, again, too much data and scientific evidence suggest otherwise. My personal success definitely requires the every 3 hours or so.)
* You are not toning. (me - Not sure I follow. Toning our muscles? Oh, yes I am. My weight training has definitely improved my muscle tone.)
* You will not bulk up, ladies. (Definitely AGREE. Ladies can bulk, but it takes a very disciplined and focused effort to do so. Average, consistent cardio and weight resistance training will not add bulk.)
* You also don't "gain muscle really easily". Yes, YOU. (Definitely Agree)
* Low carbing is not dangerous. (Agree, but each person should pay attention to their body. I do think too much of the non-calorie sweeteners, and the sugar alcohols are not good for us. I have personal stories based on my time on Adkins. Yes, I was successful - 80 lbs lost in 4 months, and kept it off for about 10 months. Excessive use of splenda caused my husband to have many symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Sugar Alcohols RIPPED me up. Again - listen to the GI)
* Low carbing is not metabolically superior. (Very true.)
* There is no specific time at which eating will cause you to gain fat. (Agree. But for those of us that were in the habit of making 'poor' choices in the late night, sometimes it is best to forego the habit.)
* The little pink dumbbells do not constitute "lifting weights". (Depends on the weight of the dumbbells, and where the person is at in their journey.)
* You don't need to burn off that bowl of cereal or piece of chicken. (Agree - as long as the cereal is completely sugar laden, or the chicken covered in bacon and cheese.)
* You don't need to worry about how much fat you burned during your workout, or how much muscle you gained during that set of bosu-ball dumbbell flies. (Absolutely agree.)
* 2 weeks is not a plateau. (Absolutely agree.)
.
.
Start here: (Definitely agree with all of these!!! )
1) Eat within a reasonable caloric intake for your goals.
2) Consume adequate protein and fat.
3) Consume at least enough carbs to allow you to train with intensity.
(And can you just use some common sense with food selection?)
4) Lift weights
5) Get rest.
6) Repeat
7) And quit worrying about all the other crap.
Be patient.
I agree that losing weight is about calorie deficiency. But, for those that think it is ONLY that for many people, you are greatly mistaken. For me, and millions like me, it is also about training our bodies to work efficiently again, and making the mental/ behavior changes to sustain a healthy lifestyle. For me, while the actual 'losing of pounds' is the physical of eating right and getting exercise, it is more work on the mental side AND emotional sides. It takes all three!!!!0 -
But it would also imply that you don't need to take an all-or-nothing approach where you're sweating bullets worrying about whether or not your protein bar is "clean".
This brings something else into the equation...that I only am loosely able to define within my OWN body, much less explain to share with others.
That thing being...mental state.
Stress, confidence, assuredness, confusion or frustration...these things ALL have HUGE impacts on my body. The more relaxed and confident my daily mood regarding my fitness goals, the more my body cooperates and plays nicely. The more aggressive confidence I have regarding my body composition, the more 'I've sooooo got this!' I feel...the more quickly and successfully my body changes for me. I've seen this time and again. Add in stress, whether over diet, life, work...whatever, and allow it to impact your mental state regarding your weight loss/fitness goals, and you'll see a negative reaction. It might be small for one person, or huge for another...but I can't believe that with how seriously this impacts my own goals...that it won't affect everyone to some extent.
*shrug*
Something to think about.
~ETA - Keep in mind, I have no proof of this (other than my own experience, and a few links discussing cortisol etc...but this is much bigger than that for me)...and so rarely bring it up, but I thought it was a nice addendum to Mr. Sidesteal's 'sweating bullets' comment. So here it is.0 -
Eating whole foods IS important to health. So is not being obese.
The problem is that clean is ambiguous and loosely defined. The additional problem is that people often confuse "eating mostly whole foods" with "completely eliminating processed foods" and the latter statement is not always a good thing for adherence reasons. The former, I'm absolutely in favor of.
Lastly, I have yet to see any evidence or even reasonable arguments that the presence of "some" processed foods in a nutrient sufficient diet of mostly whole foods, is detrimental.
Dosage is always relevant.
Yes, it absolutely depends on what the individual deems is 'eating clean'. Absolutely some processed food is ok, in an overall healthy diet. For me, my usual pre-training snack is an apple and cheese, or something of the like. There are times if those just aren't readily available when I need it, I will grab a protein bar instead. I know I need certain nutrition, and prefer the whole food, but an occasional substitute is not a problem. For those training to bulk, and need extra protein, the muscle builder protein shakes are ideal.
It is all about the individual, and what their needs are. If you find processed foods make you crave sweets, then those people should avoid them. Again, common sense and pay attention to your body.0 -
* You don't need to eat clean. (me - disagree. While I have a lot of weight to lose, and need to change my emotional eating, I NEED to eat clean - for now. For me, this means preparing meals in a healthy way - no excessive use of butter, or other 'high' unhealthy fats. I think this falls under your statement of use common sense with food choices.)
It does, and moreoever this isn't really a clean/unclean issue as you're describing it.* You don't need to avoid white bread or potatoes or beans or rice or _____________ (insert food here) unless you've got an intolerance/allergy/medical condition. (me - disagree. You might say it falls under an intolerance, but not necessarily. I have found that certain high glycemic foods, and too much complex carbohydrates makes me crave unhealthy food. Again, for me it could fall under using common sense, but I think it is a bit more than that.)
If a food item makes you behave a certain way, you should be attentive to that, as you are.
* You don't need to eat breakfast to get your metabolism started. (Me - again disagree. For those that are fit and their bodies work efficiently, I'd say you are absolutely right. For those of us with a long way to get fit, this is a very real part of getting our bodies to that state. When we are used to not eating but one very large meal a day, or being very inconsistent on the timing of nutrients, our bodies adjust, and will reduce the metabolic rate, in that it doesn't trust it will get nutrition timely. Over time, and eating well, the body becomes much more efficient and again adjust appropriately.)
Do you have anything to support this other than your personal opinion? Here are multiple research sources that indicate diet induced thermogenesis isn't frequency based. Your metabolic rate does not go up or down based on eating 2 meals vs 6 meals, assuming we are comparing the same amount of food.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17483007
http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/critique-of-issn-position-stand-on-meal.html
http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#frequency
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html* You probably don't need to pay any attention to GI. (me - disagree. Always pay attention to your GI tract, especially if you don't feel well or 'right'.)
GI = glycemic index, not GI tract. But for what it's worth, I agree with you on the above. You should pay attention to your GI tract
* Your metabolism doesn't get kick-started and you don't rev it up. (me - disagree. Much science has proven that your metabolism does get a boost after a good workout. As far as getting 'kick-started, not on a daily basis, but again, for those of us with 'metabolic syndrome', we do have to make a conscious effort to eat right and get the exercise so our metabolism will respond.)
Exercise burns calories and you can create additional expenditure through EPOC, I certainly wouldn't call it "revving up your metabolism". Most of the time when people say this they are referring to doing this through food, but I didn't clarify that in the post.* Eating frequently is fine but it doesn't "boost your metabolism". (Me - half agree/ half disagree. Depends on where each person is at in their journey. Out of the obese category, I would agree. For those of us trying to get there, again, too much data and scientific evidence suggest otherwise. My personal success definitely requires the every 3 hours or so.)
It makes no difference. If you have any research suggesting otherwise, please share. I am specifically referring to thermic effect of food/diet induced thermogensis and nothing else.0 -
Eating whole foods IS important to health. So is not being obese.
The problem is that clean is ambiguous and loosely defined. The additional problem is that people often confuse "eating mostly whole foods" with "completely eliminating processed foods" and the latter statement is not always a good thing for adherence reasons. The former, I'm absolutely in favor of.
Lastly, I have yet to see any evidence or even reasonable arguments that the presence of "some" processed foods in a nutrient sufficient diet of mostly whole foods, is detrimental.
Dosage is always relevant.
Yes, it absolutely depends on what the individual deems is 'eating clean'. Absolutely some processed food is ok, in an overall healthy diet. For me, my usual pre-training snack is an apple and cheese, or something of the like. There are times if those just aren't readily available when I need it, I will grab a protein bar instead. I know I need certain nutrition, and prefer the whole food, but an occasional substitute is not a problem. For those training to bulk, and need extra protein, the muscle builder protein shakes are ideal.
It is all about the individual, and what their needs are. If you find processed foods make you crave sweets, then those people should avoid them. Again, common sense and pay attention to your body.
^ And I definitely agree with all of this.0 -
Bump!0
-
You don't need to eat clean.
And you don't need to listen to this guy.
Don't need to eat clean? At all? Ok, let me just load my body up with pure crap so long it's within my allowance of calories for the day because it doesn't matter if my arteries clog up and I have a heart attack so long as I've lost some weight and gained some muscle, right?
You are using a false dilemma.
You might want to read this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
I like how your argument is all or nothing. If I say you don't need to eat clean, you set up your strawman as though I am advocating a 100% processed diet. This is sillyness.
Common sense, as mentioned in the previous post, would hopefully imply that people are making some effort to consume nutrient dense foods with the "majority" of the diet being minimally processed foods. But it would also imply that you don't need to take an all-or-nothing approach where you're sweating bullets worrying about whether or not your protein bar is "clean".
I appreciate you explaining your side more clearly. From my point of you, it sounded like you were saying eating clean is not remotely necessary, but to see that you do believe the majority of the diet should be clean is much better.
I can't tell you how many diaries I've come across where people are purely eating processed food diets, so to see your statement infuriated me a bit because I can just imagine all of those people going, "Great! I can keep going with my fast food diet" and I hate for others to be getting the wrong impression and continuing down an unhealthy path.
So thank you again for clarifying.0 -
I love this post! Thanks for posting this!0
-
Well said! 0
-
You don't need to eat clean.
And you don't need to listen to this guy.
Don't need to eat clean? At all? Ok, let me just load my body up with pure crap so long it's within my allowance of calories for the day because it doesn't matter if my arteries clog up and I have a heart attack so long as I've lost some weight and gained some muscle, right?
You are using a false dilemma.
You might want to read this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
I like how your argument is all or nothing. If I say you don't need to eat clean, you set up your strawman as though I am advocating a 100% processed diet. This is sillyness.
Common sense, as mentioned in the previous post, would hopefully imply that people are making some effort to consume nutrient dense foods with the "majority" of the diet being minimally processed foods. But it would also imply that you don't need to take an all-or-nothing approach where you're sweating bullets worrying about whether or not your protein bar is "clean".
I appreciate you explaining your side more clearly. From my point of you, it sounded like you were saying eating clean is not remotely necessary, but to see that you do believe the majority of the diet should be clean is much better.
I can't tell you how many diaries I've come across where people are purely eating processed food diets, so to see your statement infuriated me a bit because I can just imagine all of those people going, "Great! I can keep going with my fast food diet" and I hate for others to be getting the wrong impression and continuing down an unhealthy path.
So thank you again for clarifying.
Absolutely. Even though I'm an advocate of thermodynamics, anyone claiming that a diet composed of 100% processed foods will be as beneficial (I'm speaking for health in this sentence, not weight loss) as one with "mostly" (<-- key word) nutritious and whole foods, is probably talking out of their *kitten*. It's important to be mindful of your food intake.
I think Pu did a good job explaining it in a previous reply, it has to do with adherence reasons. Losing weight on nothing but Burger King is probably not going to be as healthy as losing it on a diet of mostly whole foods. But it's still better than being obese. If someone wants to have a bag of skittles or a greasy burger in an otherwise healthy and nutrient dense diet, no harm done given proper total intake of calories and macronutrients. And if that occasional burger is one more item that allows that person to stay on their plan, that's a big, big win.
I hope this further explains it.0 -
You don't need to eat clean.
And you don't need to listen to this guy.
Don't need to eat clean? At all? Ok, let me just load my body up with pure crap so long it's within my allowance of calories for the day because it doesn't matter if my arteries clog up and I have a heart attack so long as I've lost some weight and gained some muscle, right?
You are using a false dilemma.
You might want to read this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
I like how your argument is all or nothing. If I say you don't need to eat clean, you set up your strawman as though I am advocating a 100% processed diet. This is sillyness.
Common sense, as mentioned in the previous post, would hopefully imply that people are making some effort to consume nutrient dense foods with the "majority" of the diet being minimally processed foods. But it would also imply that you don't need to take an all-or-nothing approach where you're sweating bullets worrying about whether or not your protein bar is "clean".
I appreciate you explaining your side more clearly. From my point of you, it sounded like you were saying eating clean is not remotely necessary, but to see that you do believe the majority of the diet should be clean is much better.
I can't tell you how many diaries I've come across where people are purely eating processed food diets, so to see your statement infuriated me a bit because I can just imagine all of those people going, "Great! I can keep going with my fast food diet" and I hate for others to be getting the wrong impression and continuing down an unhealthy path.
So thank you again for clarifying.
His point still stands...for weight loss, it isn't necessary. For overall health, it may have an impact long term...but even then, not necessarily. Is it 'better' to eat a more whole food based diet? Surely! But again...when it comes to basics...in regards to fat loss, it simply isn't necessary.1 -
Especially the fats...I wasn't eating enough and my gallbladder stopped working properly. I just had it yanked out on Thursday. Fats are not the enemy.0
-
You don't need to eat clean.
And you don't need to listen to this guy.
Don't need to eat clean? At all? Ok, let me just load my body up with pure crap so long it's within my allowance of calories for the day because it doesn't matter if my arteries clog up and I have a heart attack so long as I've lost some weight and gained some muscle, right?
You are using a false dilemma.
You might want to read this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html
I like how your argument is all or nothing. If I say you don't need to eat clean, you set up your strawman as though I am advocating a 100% processed diet. This is sillyness.
Common sense, as mentioned in the previous post, would hopefully imply that people are making some effort to consume nutrient dense foods with the "majority" of the diet being minimally processed foods. But it would also imply that you don't need to take an all-or-nothing approach where you're sweating bullets worrying about whether or not your protein bar is "clean".
I appreciate you explaining your side more clearly. From my point of you, it sounded like you were saying eating clean is not remotely necessary, but to see that you do believe the majority of the diet should be clean is much better.
I can't tell you how many diaries I've come across where people are purely eating processed food diets, so to see your statement infuriated me a bit because I can just imagine all of those people going, "Great! I can keep going with my fast food diet" and I hate for others to be getting the wrong impression and continuing down an unhealthy path.
So thank you again for clarifying.
His point still stands...for weight loss, it isn't necessary. For overall health, it may have an impact long term...but even then, not necessarily. Is it 'better' to eat a more whole food based diet? Surely! But again...when it comes to basics...in regards to fat loss, it simply isn't necessary.
^ I agree with this. I attempted to elaborate a bit in my previous post.0
This discussion has been closed.
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