Clean Eating

miqisha

I think clean eating is staying away from processed, prepackaged food as well as restaurant foods. Now, not everyone can stay away from these cold turkey, me included. However, your diet should at least be 80-90% clean

Goodluck

MonicaT1972

If your goal is weight loss, eating "clean" wont necessarily help. To lose weight you have to eat at a caloric deficit. You can eat too much "clean" food just as easy as, dare I say, unclean food. Eat less, move more. Don't over think it.

I completely disagree with you. When you eat clean you don't have to calorie count at all, it's all about balance and eating smaller meals more often. I eat way more now than I did counting calories or points, I am satisfied for longer and don't crave anything as long as I stay on plan.

The best book that is very well written on the subject and easy to follow is Tosca Reno's The Eat Clean Diet.

That is total nonsense that you can "eat clean" and not count calories. Energy in and energy out is what weight loss is all about. This has been repeated proven. Google The Twinkie Diet.

Can you be healthier eating whole foods? Yes. Can it improve your macro and micronutrient composition? Yes. Can you do away with measuring your intake? Not at all.

Additionally, meal frequency has been proven to have zero effect on weight loss. If it helps an individual with compliance, great. But there is no metabolic advantage to 8 meals per day vs. one or 2. The proof just doesn't exist and in fact the body of data proves the opposite.

You don't have to count because you wont overeat if you eat 5-6 smaller meals in correct portions and combinations. Have you tried it it works

mmapags

If your goal is weight loss, eating "clean" wont necessarily help. To lose weight you have to eat at a caloric deficit. You can eat too much "clean" food just as easy as, dare I say, unclean food. Eat less, move more. Don't over think it.

I completely disagree with you. When you eat clean you don't have to calorie count at all, it's all about balance and eating smaller meals more often. I eat way more now than I did counting calories or points, I am satisfied for longer and don't crave anything as long as I stay on plan.

The best book that is very well written on the subject and easy to follow is Tosca Reno's The Eat Clean Diet.

That is total nonsense that you can "eat clean" and not count calories. Energy in and energy out is what weight loss is all about. This has been repeated proven. Google The Twinkie Diet.

Can you be healthier eating whole foods? Yes. Can it improve your macro and micronutrient composition? Yes. Can you do away with measuring your intake? Not at all.

Additionally, meal frequency has been proven to have zero effect on weight loss. If it helps an individual with compliance, great. But there is no metabolic advantage to 8 meals per day vs. one or 2. The proof just doesn't exist and in fact the body of data proves the opposite.

You don't have to count because you wont overeat if you eat 5-6 smaller meals in correct portions and combinations. Have you tried it it works

I have tried it. Eating more frequently actually leads to overeating for me. There are many others like me judging by the posts on this forum. For some people, higher meal frequency helps with compliance. Connecting meal frequency to not calorie counting is a stretch of the imagination akin to believing in Unicorns or the Easter Bunny. I don't believe you'll find any but feel free to support any study data that supports your theory. I have many that support mine.

eta: This may work and work well for you. It may work well for some. But I don't believe is has any value as a universal strategy.

CoachReddy

If your goal is weight loss, eating "clean" wont necessarily help. To lose weight you have to eat at a caloric deficit. You can eat too much "clean" food just as easy as, dare I say, unclean food. Eat less, move more. Don't over think it.

I completely disagree with you. When you eat clean you don't have to calorie count at all, it's all about balance and eating smaller meals more often. I eat way more now than I did counting calories or points, I am satisfied for longer and don't crave anything as long as I stay on plan.

The best book that is very well written on the subject and easy to follow is Tosca Reno's The Eat Clean Diet.

Not really... it depends on your goal. If you don't count you can end up having too much of a deficit. I can eat 4200 calories of Chicken, Broccoli, and Brown Rice (considered clean by most people) and I'll get fat. Your understanding of energy is not on point. Also, as pointed out meal timing is irrelevant.

starchy grainy carbs are up for debate in terms of their "cleanliness"

take out the brown rice and it's near impossible to eat 4200 cal of chicken and veggies. stomachs just don't expand that much! lol

I hear you. The whole grain thing becomes another complicator in defining "clean" eating. The paleo and primals would say they are not yet some will argue that whole grains are the bomb!! This is one of the reasons trying to define "clean" is like trying to grab smoke.

eta: as evidenced by the post above mine and the quote with whole grains right there!! lol

absolutely right

mmapags

If your goal is weight loss, eating "clean" wont necessarily help. To lose weight you have to eat at a caloric deficit. You can eat too much "clean" food just as easy as, dare I say, unclean food. Eat less, move more. Don't over think it.

I completely disagree with you. When you eat clean you don't have to calorie count at all, it's all about balance and eating smaller meals more often. I eat way more now than I did counting calories or points, I am satisfied for longer and don't crave anything as long as I stay on plan.

The best book that is very well written on the subject and easy to follow is Tosca Reno's The Eat Clean Diet.

Not really... it depends on your goal. If you don't count you can end up having too much of a deficit. I can eat 4200 calories of Chicken, Broccoli, and Brown Rice (considered clean by most people) and I'll get fat. Your understanding of energy is not on point. Also, as pointed out meal timing is irrelevant.

starchy grainy carbs are up for debate in terms of their "cleanliness"

take out the brown rice and it's near impossible to eat 4200 cal of chicken and veggies. stomachs just don't expand that much! lol

I hear you. The whole grain thing becomes another complicator in defining "clean" eating. The paleo and primals would say they are not yet some will argue that whole grains are the bomb!! This is one of the reasons trying to define "clean" is like trying to grab smoke.

eta: as evidenced by the post above mine and the quote with whole grains right there!! lol

absolutely right

Lol! And then we could start on legumes next. Clean, not clean? Meh, I'll just stick to mostly whole foods.

CoachReddy

If your goal is weight loss, eating "clean" wont necessarily help. To lose weight you have to eat at a caloric deficit. You can eat too much "clean" food just as easy as, dare I say, unclean food. Eat less, move more. Don't over think it.

I completely disagree with you. When you eat clean you don't have to calorie count at all, it's all about balance and eating smaller meals more often. I eat way more now than I did counting calories or points, I am satisfied for longer and don't crave anything as long as I stay on plan.

The best book that is very well written on the subject and easy to follow is Tosca Reno's The Eat Clean Diet.

Not really... it depends on your goal. If you don't count you can end up having too much of a deficit. I can eat 4200 calories of Chicken, Broccoli, and Brown Rice (considered clean by most people) and I'll get fat. Your understanding of energy is not on point. Also, as pointed out meal timing is irrelevant.

starchy grainy carbs are up for debate in terms of their "cleanliness"

take out the brown rice and it's near impossible to eat 4200 cal of chicken and veggies. stomachs just don't expand that much! lol

I hear you. The whole grain thing becomes another complicator in defining "clean" eating. The paleo and primals would say they are not yet some will argue that whole grains are the bomb!! This is one of the reasons trying to define "clean" is like trying to grab smoke.

eta: as evidenced by the post above mine and the quote with whole grains right there!! lol

absolutely right

Lol! And then we could start on legumes next. Clean, not clean? Meh, I'll just stick to mostly whole foods.

yeah fair enough. beans really aren't my favorite food in the world anyway. yeah i'll throw 'em in at chipotle, but if i'm cooking at home they're not tough for me to avoid. :P

also, i eat peanut butter. the paleo gods are going to smite me.

SanteMulberry

Nothing refined, processed or pre-packaged.

Protein, whole grain carbs, fruits and vegetables.

Just google clean eating and you will find a ton of information on it.

It makes a huge difference in losing weight and re-shaping your body. I personally cannot succeed at both without it.

So nothing like milk, or yogurt? I eat a yogurt every day, as it's one of the only snacks that keeps me full enough to tide me over until lunch.

I also have waffles every day for breakfast. XD

Yogurt is a good food if you don't have a problem with dairy but plain is "cleaner" than yogurt that is jazzed up with starch and a lot of sugar. Some here will disagree, but white flour waffles really don't belong on a calorie-restricted diet as there is very little there other than starch (and if you put syrup on it, sugar). You'd be far better off having some kind of protein and veggie breakfast like a western omelet or something. Simple carbohydrates are especially problematic for women--for a lot of reasons. Ideally we would be getting most or all of our food straight from the garden, tree or barn to our table--but, since the food processors "manufacture" our food, the end-product tends to be a pale reflection of ideal, nutrient-dense food.

I specifically eat Dannon Oikos greek yogurt, not plain though - I can't stomach plain yogurt, but love the flavored greek yogurts.

I also go for the multi-grain eggo waffles instead of plain white waffles - while I realize they are still waffles and probably not the GREATEST choice, I figured I would do something a little better than plain. I also use light maple syrup, not completely sugar free though. That breakfast is under 300 calories.

It's honestly a matter of convenience to me - when I wake up in the morning, I take my shower, get ready, pack my lunch and I'm already 5 minutes late getting out the door! I suppose I would benefit from getting up earlier and making a real breakfast. I love egg beaters and just bought some great lean turkey sausage as well.

I make breakfast every morning and it takes 5 minutes. I pre boil eggs cut it up with avocado and eat on toast or lettuce or tortilla maybe with tomatoes and mushrooms or salsa... or make steel cut oats and mix in a banana and strawberry jam (usually my home-made version). or mix those 2 things with plain greek yogurt. or have last nights dinner heated up.. those are my staples. all 5 minutes or less. the time it takes to toast a waffle.

^^^THIS^^^ Calories are important but "eating clean" means that we try to avoid chemical additives as much as possible and "convenience foods" like toaster waffles are often a repository for chemicals that Grandma never heard of, let alone included in the food that she prepared. Just because a chemical additive may carry the GRAS ("Generally Recognized As Safe) designation, doesn't mean that it actually IS, long-term. How many times have additives been judged to be GRAS and then further research reveals that it is not as harmless as we once thought? I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be a guinea pig.

auddii

^^^THIS^^^ Calories are important but "eating clean" means that we try to avoid chemical additives as much as possible and "convenience foods" like toaster waffles are often a repository for chemicals that Grandma never heard of, let alone included in the food that she prepared. Just because a chemical additive may carry the GRAS ("Generally Recognized As Safe) designation, doesn't mean that it actually IS, long-term. How many times have additives been judged to be GRAS and then further research reveals that it is not as harmless as we once thought? I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be a guinea pig.

Just read an article in I think it was the NYTimes about an additive used to make liquids thicker for people who have problems swallowing. It was generally regarded as safe (xanthan gum and in a ton of things) and so it was never tested in different instances, like pre-mature babies. Then, premies started dying after their digestive systems essentially died (necrotizing enterocolitis). FDA has finally stepped in and stated that it should not be used to thicken formula or breast milk for all infants (originally said premies and then upped their restriction after continued deaths).

CoachReddy

^^^THIS^^^ Calories are important but "eating clean" means that we try to avoid chemical additives as much as possible and "convenience foods" like toaster waffles are often a repository for chemicals that Grandma never heard of, let alone included in the food that she prepared. Just because a chemical additive may carry the GRAS ("Generally Recognized As Safe) designation, doesn't mean that it actually IS, long-term. How many times have additives been judged to be GRAS and then further research reveals that it is not as harmless as we once thought? I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be a guinea pig.

Just read an article in I think it was the NYTimes about an additive used to make liquids thicker for people who have problems swallowing. It was generally regarded as safe (xanthan gum and in a ton of things) and so it was never tested in different instances, like pre-mature babies. Then, premies started dying after their digestive systems essentially died (necrotizing enterocolitis). FDA has finally stepped in and stated that it should not be used to thicken formula or breast milk for all infants (originally said premies and then upped their restriction after continued deaths).

the biggest test most food additives and pharmaceutical drugs go through is on the open market and the general populace. it's a shame.

auddii

^^^THIS^^^ Calories are important but "eating clean" means that we try to avoid chemical additives as much as possible and "convenience foods" like toaster waffles are often a repository for chemicals that Grandma never heard of, let alone included in the food that she prepared. Just because a chemical additive may carry the GRAS ("Generally Recognized As Safe) designation, doesn't mean that it actually IS, long-term. How many times have additives been judged to be GRAS and then further research reveals that it is not as harmless as we once thought? I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be a guinea pig.

Just read an article in I think it was the NYTimes about an additive used to make liquids thicker for people who have problems swallowing. It was generally regarded as safe (xanthan gum and in a ton of things) and so it was never tested in different instances, like pre-mature babies. Then, premies started dying after their digestive systems essentially died (necrotizing enterocolitis). FDA has finally stepped in and stated that it should not be used to thicken formula or breast milk for all infants (originally said premies and then upped their restriction after continued deaths).

the biggest test most food additives and pharmaceutical drugs go through is on the open market and the general populace. it's a shame.

Trust me, I know. I work for a committee that reviews human subjects research at our institution and affiliated hospital. Even the "big" pharma trials are a very small percentage. You just don't see some of the more rare (and possibly devastating) side effects until hundreds of thousands of people start taking it.

iclaudia_g

Watch Vegucated on Netflix. That one is pretty good too.