Eating "junk" and losing weight?

jofjltncb6

OK, so bad fat cells was not the correct way to say it. But I have seen arteries partially clogged or totally clogged with atherosclotic plaques, caused by fat build up. Please excuse me when I can't accurately say what I want. I have MS and it's part of it. but I was a cardiac nurse for many years and fat can clog arteries

I agree, arteries clog, and when they do, it's a Really Bad Thing™...but our understanding of what leads to that problem has improved in recent decades. I believe it is fairly well-accepted that eating an occasional (or even frequent) fast food meal in conjunction with an overall nutritionally adequate diet coupled with regular exercise is *not* a cause.

myofibril

It also does not help imo that everyone has different ideas as to what 'junk' actually is.

Yes, I think that is exactly right or "clean" for that matter.

People tend to argue subtly different points given what they are perceiving / projecting they see on a thread so things go round...and round...and round.

I would wager there is more agreement between people then actual disagreement in reality.

TrishLG

People can loose weight without exercise as well, but their body will flabby and not be toned.

There is a difference between people who lose weight on plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables and quality foods, and people who lose weight eating primarily junk food like soda, french fries, greasy burgers, onion rings and ice cream sundaes.
That is not to say that we can not have a treat now and then.

The body needs nutrients to battle disease, keep the mind sharp, and to live long and well.
Consider just folic acid that comes from greens. Pregnant women are given folic acid in their prenatal vitamins to insure healthy brain development of the infant. Recently they found that seniors with dementia have a lack of folic acid in their brains. So I always figured that the inbetween age groups also need folic acid to keep the mind sharp for school and on the job. Junk food will fill you with empty calories devoid of nutrients. Ultimately it is an individual's choice.

jonnythan

There is a difference between people who lose weight on plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables and quality foods, and people who lose weight eating primarily junk food like soda, french fries, greasy burgers, onion rings and ice cream sundaes.
That is not to say that we can not have a treat now and then.

What *is* the difference? Assuming macros are the same.

stumblinthrulife

There is a difference between people who lose weight on plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables and quality foods, and people who lose weight eating primarily junk food like soda, french fries, greasy burgers, onion rings and ice cream sundaes.
That is not to say that we can not have a treat now and then.

What *is* the difference? Assuming macros are the same.

One group is happy, and the other group is jealous that they are happy?

KenosFeoh

There is a difference between people who lose weight on plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables and quality foods, and people who lose weight eating primarily junk food like soda, french fries, greasy burgers, onion rings and ice cream sundaes.
That is not to say that we can not have a treat now and then.

What *is* the difference? Assuming macros are the same.

Adequate vitamins and minerals, like folic acid, for one.

stumblinthrulife

Adequate vitamins and minerals, like folic acid, for one.

Sooo, this couldn't come from say a multi-vitamin, perhaps?

Personally , I love fresh food and prepare 90% of what I eat myself. But I do so mostly because that's just how I enjoy eating. I also enjoy fast food and candy on occasion.

If someone can be shown to be very healthy, very active, and not deficient in any important micro- or macro-nutrients, what does anyone care how they got there? Just let people eat how they want to eat. If they are prepared to take on the slight additional burden of working these foods into their calorie allowance, then surely as grown adults it's their choice.

jonnythan

There is a difference between people who lose weight on plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables and quality foods, and people who lose weight eating primarily junk food like soda, french fries, greasy burgers, onion rings and ice cream sundaes.
That is not to say that we can not have a treat now and then.

What *is* the difference? Assuming macros are the same.

Adequate vitamins and minerals, like folic acid, for one.

So it's impossible to get adequate vitamins and minerals if there's a lot of fast food in your diet?

geebusuk

Adequate vitamins and minerals, like folic acid, for one.

Or from a McDonald's burger bun?

TheVimFuego

For me, I want to be healthy and energetic. Not just thinner.

I'm angling for looking the part then hoping I feel great.

torymichaels

I've only been doing this (seriously focusing, tracking weight & calories) since early February. In that time I've lost 15 pounds as of this morning (18 if you look all the way back to where I was when I first created my MFP account). I've had some spectacularly bad days (last Friday comes to mind). I've also had some really good days.

The biggest thing I've taken away from the past month plus is that eating this way 'is' sustainable. I'm learning about portion control, making calorie-wise choices, and NOT DEPRIVING MYSELF. All the other plans I've tried (Atkins, which I lost 70 pounds on and kept it off until I had children and got distracted, etc.), had me depriving myself and a screw-up was a seriously bad thing (on Atkins, it would bump me out of ketosis and it would suck for a week).

Just doing the calorie counting (and exercise as I get to it) works fabulously. It made me very aware of what I eat, and the calories involved. But I also know that I can have the delicious food I want as well. In moderation. Moderation in all things. No, I can't really go out and have a Dairy Queen Blizzard (800 cals for a medium), but I can have ice cream or low-fat frozen yogurt which tastes pretty close to as good. I can have a York Peppermint Patty.

And because I do have those little treats (and now they are treats, rather than the every day thing they were before I got serious), I'm not daydreaming about all the stuff I "can have" once I finish losing the weight. This isn't just about losing weight. It's about making a dramatic shift to my lifestyle, and shifts like this aren't going to be perfect the first time out.

So anyway, that's all. :smokin:

neandermagnon

There is a difference between people who lose weight on plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables and quality foods, and people who lose weight eating primarily junk food like soda, french fries, greasy burgers, onion rings and ice cream sundaes.
That is not to say that we can not have a treat now and then.

What *is* the difference? Assuming macros are the same.

Is it possible for the macros to be the same in both those cases though?

i.e. one person eating fruit, veg, meat, fish, healthy carbs.... versus someone eating soda, french fries, greasy burgers, onion rings, ice cream sundaes... can anyone honestly eat nothing but those foods and still fit their macros (note that it specifies greasy burgers, not grilled burgers made from lean meat....)

The issue I have with people who try to claim that IIFYM is just an excuse to eat junk (and that it'll backfire because of it), is that it's actually extremely difficult, or maybe impossible to fit your macros in the first place if you only eat junk. You'll go over on fat and carbs long before you get enough protein. I suppose it's possible if you eat (say) take away pizza until you hit your fat and carbs targets then drink protein powder made up in water (i..e. 100% protein 0% fat 0% carbs) until you meet your protein target. but that doesn't sound very appetising to me.... neither does the twinkie diet (which required protein and vitamin supplements to prevent malnutrition when eating nothing but twinkies)..... I mean really, who can eat nothing but junk, protein powder and vitamin pills for more than a couple of days without feeling sick from it....? (not even tried, can only imagine how sick I'd feel and how much I'd crave some fruit and veg!!)

Fact is, if someone is fitting their macros without having to take a ridiculous amount of supplements, they must be eating at least 70-80% healthy. Otherwise it's impossible to fit it in your macros.

Junk food in moderation has always worked for me, and being conscious of macronutrient ratios has made me choose, for example, a burger (and eat the meat and salad and leave the bun), chicken nuggets and water at fast food restaurants, rather than a burger, fries and soda. The former has much better macros, i.e. protein and fat, as opposed to protein, fat and a ton of carbs. I'm not even a carb hater, but IMO soda, french fries and burger buns are a waste of carbs and calories. I'd rather "save" my carb allowance and calories and have some fruit later. The fat on the other hand is worth it because burger meat and chicken nuggets taste great and I'll totally enjoy them, and they're full of protein. I'm sure other IIFYM people have different taste priorities and may consider the fast food carbs to be worth it. It's up to them, but eating junk food or not IIFYM makes people a lot more conscious of nutrition. And no, I don't eat at junk food restaurants very often, but when I do, I ditch the bun, fries and soda because they're a waste of carb allowance.

boboff

I don't understand this at all.

It appears really child like to say things like

"Why can't I see your Diary"

" Why do people diet and eat naughty snacks"

"It's not fair, I ate a small pony and I didn't loose 400lb in a day" ( ok that one was a joke)

Help, advice, Support, encouragement, it's all here, why would you want to discuss a strangers eating habits when it got absolutely F all to do with you?

jonnythan

Fact is, if someone is fitting their macros without having to take a ridiculous amount of supplements, they must be eating at least 70-80% healthy. Otherwise it's impossible to fit it in your macros.

Well that depends on how you define healthy doesn't it? Most people seem to mean "whole foods" or "organic food" or whatever. But it's easy to fit within your macros eating 50%+ fast food. Or much more than that, even. That's what I consider healthy: eating to hit appropriate goals for macronutrients and getting a couple of servings of veggies a day.

SanteMulberry

Adequate vitamins and minerals, like folic acid, for one.

Or from a McDonald's burger bun?

There are thirty-two different nutrients that have been excluded from white flour (the kind of flour used to make McDonald's hamburger buns) and they are REQUIRED to put back some because without those, people suffer obvious deficiency diseases. But that does NOT mean that white flour is as nourishing as whole wheat. In an accurate analogy, would you consider your mouth "enriched" if a dentist pulled out all of your teeth and put back 6 or 7 false ones?

All nutrients work together synergistically in the body. Optimum nutrition means optimum performance. Does it mean that you are going to suffer and die next month if you have nothing but McDonald's hamburgers this month? No, but no one can know if they are or aren't the kind of person who needs to be very careful about nutrition to avoid a disease that they are genetically programed to acquire under less than desirable circumstances (and poor nutrition is one of those circumstances). Most people acquire high blood pressure and osteoarthritis as they age. As soon as I changed my diet, my blood pressure went to normal (in spite of removing myself from two medications for it) and my weight is normalizing and that is helping my arthritis while I use nutritional supplements to help build back the damaged cartilage. Will I live forever? No, but the time I do have here may be spent in better health and reduced disability because I have done what I can to help my body instead of working against it with what I put in my mouth.

Lesa_Sass

More evidence that junk food is BAD FOR YOU:

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/030713_Scientists-Officially-Link-Processed-Foods-To-Autoimmune-Disease.shtml


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkBB2Z6914

aloranger7708

I think it's possible to still eat treats and be healthy. I am someone who, before partaking in this healthy lifestyle, could survive off chocolate and candy. Now that I've made a commitment to be healthier and eat better, I still eat sweets, but I make my own! Instead of buying the Little Debbie packaged brownies with 500 chemicals packed in it, I make black bean brownies which taste BETTER! Or instead of Mrs. Fields cookies with (again) 500 chemicals, I make chickpea cookies which are tasty! Therefore, I can still eat sweets and satisfy my craving but am also getting good ingredients into my body rather than processed junk. Like an above poster said, I'm not solely concerned with losing weight but I want to feel healthier and better about my choices. But to each his own, I won't judge!:flowerforyou:

WendyTerry420

There is a difference between people who lose weight on plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables and quality foods, and people who lose weight eating primarily junk food like soda, french fries, greasy burgers, onion rings and ice cream sundaes.
That is not to say that we can not have a treat now and then.

What *is* the difference? Assuming macros are the same.

Adequate vitamins and minerals, like folic acid, for one.

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/folic-acid-foods/

The idea that fast food negates the spinach you had a different meal is utterly absurd.

366to266

Isn't this argument a bit like the one that goes.... My grandad smoked and lived till he was 90, and never got lung cancer, and therefore smoking can't be all that bad for you?

My personal opinion on this is that I have a certain number of calories and carbs that I am allowed per day, and I'm damned if I am going to waste any of them on anything that does not contribute to the nourishment of my body and my satiety.

geebusuk

Isn't this argument a bit like the one that goes.... My grandad smoked and lived till he was 90, and never got lung cancer, and therefore smoking can't be all that bad for you?

No.
Because then there would be large and solid evidence against the situation we are talking about.
In this case there's related evidence; but not really any research into people that exercise lots but 'eat junk', nor people that eat a diet that's partly 'junk'.
The very definition that seems to be used for 'junk' to my mind tends to be pretty unscientific.

WendyTerry420

Isn't this argument a bit like the one that goes.... My grandad smoked and lived till he was 90, and never got lung cancer, and therefore smoking can't be all that bad for you?

No.
Because then there would be large and solid evidence against the situation we are talking about.
In this case there's related evidence; but not really any research into people that exercise lots but 'eat junk', nor people that eat a diet that's partly 'junk'.
The very definition that seems to be used for 'junk' to my mind tends to be pretty unscientific.

^^^ True


My personal definition of "junk" is food that tastes gross. This would include cauliflower, beets, and pecan pie, among others.

SanteMulberry

Isn't this argument a bit like the one that goes.... My grandad smoked and lived till he was 90, and never got lung cancer, and therefore smoking can't be all that bad for you?

No.
Because then there would be large and solid evidence against the situation we are talking about.
In this case there's related evidence; but not really any research into people that exercise lots but 'eat junk', nor people that eat a diet that's partly 'junk'.
The very definition that seems to be used for 'junk' to my mind tends to be pretty unscientific.

Oh, come on. We all know what is meant by the term "junk food"--do we have to spell it out each time? "Junk food" is food that is low in micronutrients, high in sugar, simple starch, additives, salt, "bad" fats and generally a bad buy because it yields such poor benefit for the amount of money spent on it. And now, it is even made from GMO, so who knows what havoc is being wreaked on our bodies or ecosystems?

Lesa_Sass

More evidence that junk food is BAD FOR YOU:

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/030713_Scientists-Officially-Link-Processed-Foods-To-Autoimmune-Disease.shtml


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkBB2Z6914

It is funny that people keep talking about the evidence but keep ignoring the evidence I post. LOL Oh well, if people insist on polluting their bodies that is their right.

EmmaKarney

Junk food.

Isn't the clue in the name? :laugh:

SanteMulberry

"Sooo, this couldn't come from say a multi-vitamin, perhaps?"

Yes, folic acid could, but what of all the anti-oxidants and co-factors that come from real food? Eating nutrient-deficient "food" and popping a vitamin pill is simply not a very good substitute. Study after study has shown disappointing results from supplying one vitamin or another and allowing the test subjects to eat whatever they want. There are substances in nourishing food that we are just beginning to understand. And those nutrients work synergistically in the body. People were designed to eat real food not some ersatz version that has been engineered to appeal only to the palate.

SanteMulberry

Junk food.

Isn't the clue in the name? :laugh:

LOL---I LOVE your sig block!

ninerbuff

More evidence that junk food is BAD FOR YOU:

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/030713_Scientists-Officially-Link-Processed-Foods-To-Autoimmune-Disease.shtml


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkBB2Z6914

And driving is linked to car accidents.

If you happen to have read the article:

Dr Hendel believes too few minerals, rather than too much salt, may be to blame for health problems. It's a view that is echoed by other academics such as David McCarron, of Oregon Health Sciences University in the US.

He says salt has always been part of the human diet, but what has changed is the mineral content of our food. Instead of eating food high in minerals, such as nuts, fruit and vegetables, people are filling themselves up with "mineral empty" processed food and fizzy drinks.

Myself and other on here have been echoing "get in your correct macro/micro nutrients", eat 80/20 and you should be fine.
Maybe that's why us "junk food eaters" who include junk in our diet BUT get in the correct macro/micro nutrients aren't suffering from health issues. Or we're just special snowflakes.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

SanteMulberry

"...Myself and other on here have been echoing "get in your correct macro/micro nutrients", eat 80/20 and you should be fine.
Maybe that's why us "junk food eaters" who include junk in our diet BUT get in the correct macro/micro nutrients aren't suffering from health issues. Or we're just special snowflakes..."

But those are a lot of qualifications. I do think it is somewhat misdirected that some of the people here post threads like, "I eat junk every day and I'm still losing weight..." While that may be true, it is being somewhat insensitive toward others who simply cannot afford to eat junk (while remaining healthy) and lose weight at the same time. Young body builders (because of their high calorie consumption) can afford to eat some percentage of their diet in junk. There are others of us who simply cannot afford to crowd out nourishing food with less than optimal nutrition.

JewelSmith

I'm not willing to cut out anything that I won't cut out for the rest of my life. It's not sustainable. I eat my fair share of fruit & veg and other healthy foods, but I eat junk too.

This is me also..I am losing 1.2 - 1.4 pounds a week. I have been on 20 days faithfully and have lost 5 pounds. I do eat sweets, but most I bake myself so I control what goes in.

greyoutside

It probably won't make any difference to their weight loss... but it makes an enormous difference in overall and, especially, long-term health. A little bit isn't going to hurt you, but you can definitely pick out who just wants to lose weight and who actually wants to be healthy by looking at what they're putting into their bodies instead of how much they're putting in.