Corn used my man-parts as a speedbag.

Sidesteal

* 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.

Sidesteal

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.

jgmarkham1

Bump!

SoozeE512

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.

thenewmrsgant

I love this post! Thanks for posting this!

healthymewannabe

Well said!

Sidesteal

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.

crisanderson27

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.

NorseMaiden

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.

Sidesteal

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.

Sidesteal

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.

My brother unfortunately had the exact same thing happen for the same reason.

crisanderson27

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.

Its so hard sometimes...anything you say on MFP, someone will pull two words out of it and start a seven page argument. Its impossible to qualify every single solitary statement you make, particularly when you're trying to condense things into a simplified list as you did in your original post.

Seriously...a common sense filter should be a mandatory accessory before your computer will log into the internet.

Sidesteal

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.

Its so hard sometimes...anything you say on MFP, someone will pull two words out of it and start a seven page argument. Its impossible to qualify every single solitary statement you make, particularly when you're trying to condense things into a simplified list as you did in your original post.

Seriously...a common sense filter should be a mandatory accessory before your computer will log into the internet.

Such is the internet.

I don't mind some debate. I didn't word things perfectly (I should not have put "lift weights" in that exact wording, for example) but I also didn't spend any time on this post. I just started rambling. The theme (which hopefully isn't lost) of the post was to get people to stop sending their brain in 10,000 different directions about dieting, and stop worrying about micromanagement, and focus on the BIG PICTURE. Get your macros set up. Hit them, use your brain a bit when you're digging in the fridge, and get off your *kitten*.

skullik

Charlayray

i love this.

mfpcopine

I agree with almost everything on the list. But some women do get bigger if they have a certain body type. It may not seem like much to a man, but it's a big deal to a woman.

That they care is not because women are overly vain or stupid; they are held to a more strict physical appearance standard than are men. Even if you want to see a change in the double standard it doesn't mean you can flat-out ignore it.

Sidesteal

I agree with almost everything on the list. But some women do get bigger if they have a certain body type. It may not seem like much to a man, but it's a big deal to a woman.

I'm not sure what you mean. You can get bigger through over-eating. You can get a swollen appearance to the muscles when you initially begin a weight-lifting program. But it's not "muscles being easily built", it's fluid retention.

I'm not sure if this addresses your concerns or not. If it doesn't, I'm curious what you mean with the above post.

AllTehBeers

I agree with almost everything on the list. But some women do get bigger if they have a certain body type. It may not seem like much to a man, but it's a big deal to a woman.

I don't understand this. Please qualify "certain body type."

dad106

I agree with almost everything on the list. But some women do get bigger if they have a certain body type. It may not seem like much to a man, but it's a big deal to a woman.

I don't understand this. Please qualify "certain body type."

Some people claim that if you are a pear shape, that you already have a lot of muscle in the lower half and thus should avoid using weights with your lower half because you will get bigger. So instead use weights on the upper half and cardio only on the lower half.

Well I'm a pear, and I call absolute bull **** on that claim.. I've been weight training my lower half ever since I started this journey, and all I've done is get smaller. So either I'm a special snow flake or I'm doing something wrong..

ironanimal

I agree with almost everything on the list. But some women do get bigger if they have a certain body type. It may not seem like much to a man, but it's a big deal to a woman.

I'm not sure what you mean. You can get bigger through over-eating. You can get a swollen appearance to the muscles when you initially begin a weight-lifting program. But it's not "muscles being easily built", it's fluid retention.

I'm not sure if this addresses your concerns or not. If it doesn't, I'm curious what you mean with the above post.

I would suspect it is the swell the quotee is talking about. A lot of women are put off and/or stop because of it.