1700 cals of Junk vs 1700cals of clean eating....

13

Replies

  • postrockandcats
    postrockandcats Posts: 1,145 Member
    I suspect the junk food eaters (not the ones who go to the extreme) will probably have better results in the long term as it's easier to maintain in the long term.

    For most of my weight loss, I had wine and chocolates throughout (only in the last few days I decided to calm it a bit as I'm upping my calories). It's what GOT me to this point. If I had to have only salads and super healthy food, I doubt that I would have endured...

    That's just it. This is a lifestyle change and I don't want a lifestyle without the "bad" stuff on occasion. If I develop a condition where I can't have something (think an allergy or an intolerance), that's one thing. But life without the occasional bit of chocolate cake makes me sad. And, with an almost 30 pound loss, I can't be totally daft. Because maybe it wasn't that I had cake before, but that I had ALL the cake before :)

    OP- I'd be more scared of the salt and chemicals in an all fast-food diet than anything else.
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    "Clean' or "Dirty" (whatever 'clean' means) does not mean that your diet has appropriate micronutrients or not. A point that seems to be being continually missed.

    The point is you're a lot more likely to get things like micronutrients, anti-oxidants, and fiber from "clean" foods than "dirty" foods. As I mentioned earlier, not many people are going to hit the recommended daily intake of fiber if they build their diets around "dirty" foods.

    That said, there probably isn't anything wrong with some junk food and some fast food (at least I hope not b/c I eat plenty of junk food), but you'll likely be healthier if you primarily eat "clean" foods.

    The colon cancer/ fiber correlation is so weak. Why bother?
  • addict3
    addict3 Posts: 48 Member
    I'm going to reply to this before I read any posts..... Simply because, I HAVE BEEN THERE AND KNOW!
    The answer is probably YES on both accounts... The junkies will probably still lose weight, for a while.... Then, no.... The clean eaters will continue to lose. I did. I FINALLY get it!!!!!!!!!!! I not only lost morte, but felt much better with the cleaner eating. A calorie is not just a calorie.... My 2 cents...
  • ali_b83
    ali_b83 Posts: 324 Member
    I guess I would have thought if you consume more fat, it would be harder to lose fat.....am I wrong?

    Fat doesn't make you fat, or make it harder to lose fat. Crap, and lots of it make you fat.
  • nikilis
    nikilis Posts: 2,305 Member

    cholesterol, potassium, sodium.

    get too much of those and your arteries harden and clog and high potassium can kill you.

    your argument is invalid.
    How exactly do you figure? Get too much of anything is bad in your diet. Too much water can also kill you. I think you need to try a little harder than making generic statements of "too much food can kill you" to invalidate an argument that specifically states "getting the required amount of macro and micronutrients." Reading comprehension lesson, "getting the required amount" means not too little, and not too much. Also, fresh fruits, veggies, and lean meats will have far higher levels of potassium than "junk food," so if anything, you're invalidating the argument for clean eating.

    Also, there is absolutely no scientific evidence of cholesterol and sodium hardening your arteries. You may want to do some actual research before you try and invalidate someone's argument with made up information.

    Seems like I touched a raw nerve there. Do you want to talk a about it, or do u needs minute? It's ok.

    Thanks for the lessons man. Hahaha.

    In the end it's simple, a balanced diet made up of whatever as long as it is in balance.

    This entire thread is invalid. Just like a pound of feathers and a pound of rocks.

    Edit: they both weigh the same - incase you didn't get it.

    But I did enjoy watching you overreact, maybe you can do it again so I can overreact watching you overreact to you overreacting?

    :)

    frabz-The-force-is-dumb-with-this-one-822bd8.jpg

    lol. keep going. you will feel better once you get it all out.

    26609270.jpg

    tumblr_m8inpmPOnC1qdvatvo1_500.gif
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    "Clean' or "Dirty" (whatever 'clean' means) does not mean that your diet has appropriate micronutrients or not. A point that seems to be being continually missed.

    The point is you're a lot more likely to get things like micronutrients, anti-oxidants, and fiber from "clean" foods than "dirty" foods. As I mentioned earlier, not many people are going to hit the recommended daily intake of fiber if they build their diets around "dirty" foods.

    That said, there probably isn't anything wrong with some junk food and some fast food (at least I hope not b/c I eat plenty of junk food), but you'll likely be healthier if you primarily eat "clean" foods.

    Again, the original post in the quotes stated that " As long as you get your required macronutrients and micronutrients, how "clean" your diet is makes no difference to your health"
  • gauchogirl
    gauchogirl Posts: 467 Member
    I don't intend on eating all junk food to lose weight, I realize this would be harmful to my health, whether my weight goes up or down. :tongue:

    I was just curious how someone who eats fast food that is clearly high in fat, can still lose fat at the same rate as someone who eats the same amount of cals, with much lower fat.
    For example, I have a 1700 cal budget, if I ate an angus cheeseburger, large fry, and a snickers bar, I would have eaten apx 1500 cals, and 75 g of fat ( I did the research :happy: ) That would put me way over my fat Macros.

    Just seems a bit confusing to me how someone could consume so much fat, but still lose fat....Just interested in the science behind this.

    Eating fat does NOT make you fat. In fact, you need to eat fat in order to burn it. I have my macros adjusted to get no less than 60% fat and I am losing just fine. For health though, you should have those fats be healthy fats (pastured butter, pastured animal fats, olive oil, coconut oil) and not high PUFA vegetable or seed oils.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    The colon cancer/ fiber correlation is so weak. Why bother?

    Fiber also affects your cholesterol. Also, foods high in fiber are usually more filling than lower fiber foods with similar amounts of calories and macro-nutrients.

    I'm not saying that fiber is a pancea or anything. It's just one of the many benefits of eating clean over eating dirty.
  • Beezil
    Beezil Posts: 1,677 Member
    If you just want to lose weight, don't really need to worry about what kinds of foods you eat. If you are trying to get a specific body composition, you definitely need to pay more attention to macros.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Again, the original post in the quotes stated that " As long as you get your required macronutrients and micronutrients, how "clean" your diet is makes no difference to your health"

    Well then it's a loaded quote because the foods will have different amount of micronutrients. It's like saying twinkies would theoretically be just as healthy as veggies if they had the same amount of macronutrients and micronutrients.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Again, the original post in the quotes stated that " As long as you get your required macronutrients and micronutrients, how "clean" your diet is makes no difference to your health"

    Well then it's a loaded quote because the foods will have different amount of micronutrients. It's like saying twinkies would theoretically be just as healthy as veggies if they had the same amount of macronutrients and micronutrients.

    Why wouldn't they be?

    ETA: I would love to see a twinkie with the macros and micros of veggies btw.
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    The colon cancer/ fiber correlation is so weak. Why bother?

    Fiber also affects your cholesterol. Also, foods high in fiber are usually more filling than lower fiber foods with similar amounts of calories and macro-nutrients.

    I'm not saying that fiber is a pancea or anything. It's just one of the many benefits of eating clean over eating dirty.

    Ohhhhh....what does cholesterol in your diet do?
    http://www.ravnskov.nu/A hypothesis out of date.pdf

    seriously, this is old news....
    "The truth is, however, that there is no direct connection between the amount of cholesterol you eat and the concentration of cholesterol in your blood. In most people, eating cholesterol has little or no effect on this amount. In about 30 percent of the population, eating cholesterol does in fact increase the concentration of cholesterol in the blood — but it increases the "good" cholesterol.

    To put it in more scientific terms, eating cholesterol "results in a less atherogenic lipoprotein profile."
  • wswilliams67
    wswilliams67 Posts: 938 Member
    Okay first lesson: "Eating Clean" means eating foods as close to their natural state as possible (of course meats have to be butchered and cooked because no one is going to eat a live cow or chicken). It basically contends that eating things as close to natural (not processed) is always better for your overall health than eating items full of chemicals and preservatives. If there are not chemicals or preservatives the food is "clean".

    Next, the OP's question... YES you can lose "weight" no mater what you eat as long as you have a calorie deficit. More going out than going in. You can lose "weight" by eating Twinkies, chips, McD's, etc. but are you healthier? Most likely not.

    The problem is most people are over-sugared and over-sodiumed (yeah yeah I know but the word works). The problem with 'junk' food and snack foods is they are mostly simple carbs. Simple carbs spike your sugar and burn off quickly leaving you crashed so your body then craves another fix so you eat more to quell the craving. It's a vicious cycle. Believe me I know about carbs and sugar as I am a Diabetic who must constantly monitor both. If you consume complex carbs (whole grains, oats, etc) with an equal amount of clean protein, the complex carbs do not spike your blood glucose and burn off over a longer period of time. This long burn off results in feeling full longer and no cravings because your blood glucose never spikes. This is the principle Type 2 Diabetics use to keep the disease in check via diet and exercise.

    Sodium makes you retain water. It's that simple. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant. Restaurant foods are notoriously overloaded with sodium as are processed lunch meats (anything in a plastic container or bag in the cooler sections). If you don;t believe me look at the label the next time you pick up some turkey lunch meat and see how much sodium is in it. Lower sodium = less water retention.

    Now the OP asked about "weight" loss. Define "weight" please? Do you mean lose fat or weight? You can lose a lot of "weight" but not necessarily fat. Depending on your activity level you could be losing muscle. But fitness is another deeper topic.

    Bottom line the body is an amazing machine that will use whatever you put into it as fuel to survive. How healthy you are however is directly related to WHAT you put in your body. You have to do what works for you. One man's weight loss is another man's weight gain. However I challenge you to eat clean for just 1 month and then tell us if you don't feel better, have more energy, etc. You will save money eating clean as well. But it does take planning to prepare meals. Hope this helps a bit.
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    Paul Rosin, at the University of Pennsylvania asked people to “Assume you are alone on a desert island for one year and you can have water and one other food. Pick the food that you think would be best for your health.” Choices: “corn, alfalfa sprouts, hot dogs, spinach, peaches, bananas, milk chocolate.” So which food did you choose?

    Hot dogs and milk chocolate win. ;)
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    Okay first lesson: "Eating Clean" means eating foods as close to their natural state as possible (of course meats have to be butchered and cooked because no one is going to eat a live cow or chicken). It basically contends that eating things as close to natural (not processed) is always better for your overall health than eating items full of chemicals and preservatives. If there are not chemicals or preservatives the food is "clean".

    Next, the OP's question... YES you can lose "weight" no mater what you eat as long as you have a calorie deficit. More going out than going in. You can lose "weight" by eating Twinkies, chips, McD's, etc. but are you healthier? Most likely not.

    The problem is most people are over-sugared and over-sodiumed (yeah yeah I know but the word works). The problem with 'junk' food and snack foods is they are mostly simple carbs. Simple carbs spike your sugar and burn off quickly leaving you crashed so your body then craves another fix so you eat more to quell the craving. It's a vicious cycle. Believe me I know about carbs and sugar as I am a Diabetic who must constantly monitor both. If you consume complex carbs (whole grains, oats, etc) with an equal amount of clean protein, the complex carbs do not spike your blood glucose and burn off over a longer period of time. This long burn off results in feeling full longer and no cravings because your blood glucose never spikes. This is the principle Type 2 Diabetics use to keep the disease in check via diet and exercise.

    Sodium makes you retain water. It's that simple. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant. Restaurant foods are notoriously overloaded with sodium as are processed lunch meats (anything in a plastic container or bag in the cooler sections). If you don;t believe me look at the label the next time you pick up some turkey lunch meat and see how much sodium is in it. Lower sodium = less water retention.

    Now the OP asked about "weight" loss. Define "weight" please? Do you mean lose fat or weight? You can lose a lot of "weight" but not necessarily fat. Depending on your activity level you could be losing muscle. But fitness is another deeper topic.

    Bottom line the body is an amazing machine that will use whatever you put into it as fuel to survive. How healthy you are however is directly related to WHAT you put in your body. You have to do what works for you. One man's weight loss is another man's weight gain. However I challenge you to eat clean for just 1 month and then tell us if you don't feel better, have more energy, etc. You will save money eating clean as well. But it does take planning to prepare meals. Hope this helps a bit.

    Okay, but you are diabetic, I am not. I do well with plenty of sugar and sodium in my diet, I try to exceed the limits set here. Clean? Unless I'm a farmer it's not happening....I don't care to raise cows and chickens and am fine eating tuna that comes in a can, I'm not fishing for it. If it's purchased in a grocery store it's most likely processed. So, your 1700 calories of "clean" does not equal my 1700 calories of "junk", I eat as much as I need to until I've hit my micros for the day or week... sometimes it's 1250 calories, often it's 3000. I'd prefer not to take supplements and don't care about calories, my body takes care of itself. :)
  • slywon
    slywon Posts: 85 Member
    I personally find clean eating easier when trying to lose weight. When I first started trying to lose weight, I just dropped my calories thinking that was all I had to do. I failed miserably. I was eating 1500-1700 calories a day but I was starving all the time because 1500-1700 calories of junk is not a lot of food. I would stay within range for a few days but then have a day where I completely binged because I was so hungry. When I eat clean, some days I have trouble eating even 1200 calories because I feel so stuffed. I think those adopting a clean eating lifestyle will have much better success in the long run because they won't feel they are constantly depriving themselves.
  • slywon
    slywon Posts: 85 Member
    I personally find clean eating easier when trying to lose weight. When I first started trying to lose weight, I just dropped my calories thinking that was all I had to do. I failed miserably. I was eating 1500-1700 calories a day but I was starving all the time because 1500-1700 calories of junk is not a lot of food. I would stay within range for a few days but then have a day where I completely binged because I was so hungry. When I eat clean, some days I have trouble eating even 1200 calories because I feel so stuffed. I think those adopting a clean eating lifestyle will have much better success in the long run because they won't feel they are constantly depriving themselves.
    [/

    Couldn't have said it better myself!
  • wswilliams67
    wswilliams67 Posts: 938 Member
    Okay, but you are diabetic, I am not. I do well with plenty of sugar and sodium in my diet, I try to exceed the limits set here. Clean? Unless I'm a farmer it's not happening....I don't care to raise cows and chickens and am fine eating tuna that comes in a can, I'm not fishing for it. If it's purchased in a grocery store it's most likely processed. So, your 1700 calories of "clean" does not equal my 1700 calories of "junk", I eat as much as I need to until I've hit my micros for the day or week... sometimes it's 1250 calories, often it's 3000. I'd prefer not to take supplements and don't care about calories, my body takes care of itself. :)

    Wow you completely missed my point. I never said raise your own animals or grow your own garden. What I said was eat as close to the natural state as POSSIBLE. Butchering my own chicken is not possible for me either, but I don't buy the prepackaged processed lunch meat style stuff either. I get raw chicken breasts and cook them up myself. Takes 7 minutes on a Foreman Grill. That's about as clean as I can get living in a city.

    You can eat what you want, I really don't care. It's your body, do whatever to it. Again I don't really care. But your dismissive tone and attitude just shows how closed off you are to someone else's opinion. In fact it's not only my opinion but the opinion of many others. If you don't care about calories or what you eat then why are you even here? Just to bash others for trying to be helpful?

    You sound like a very angry person. Maybe it's all that sugar. ;-)

    <troll defeated>
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Okay, but you are diabetic, I am not. I do well with plenty of sugar and sodium in my diet, I try to exceed the limits set here. Clean? Unless I'm a farmer it's not happening....I don't care to raise cows and chickens and am fine eating tuna that comes in a can, I'm not fishing for it. If it's purchased in a grocery store it's most likely processed. So, your 1700 calories of "clean" does not equal my 1700 calories of "junk", I eat as much as I need to until I've hit my micros for the day or week... sometimes it's 1250 calories, often it's 3000. I'd prefer not to take supplements and don't care about calories, my body takes care of itself. :)

    Wow you completely missed my point. I never said raise your own animals or grow your own garden. What I said was eat as close to the natural state as POSSIBLE. Butchering my own chicken is not possible for me either, but I don't buy the prepackaged processed lunch meat style stuff either. I get raw chicken breasts and cook them up myself. Takes 7 minutes on a Foreman Grill. That's about as clean as I can get living in a city.

    You can eat what you want, I really don't care. It's your body, do whatever to it. Again I don't really care. But your dismissive tone and attitude just shows how closed off you are to someone else's opinion. In fact it's not only my opinion but the opinion of many others. If you don't care about calories or what you eat then why are you even here? Just to bash others for trying to be helpful?

    You sound like a very angry person. Maybe it's all that sugar. ;-)

    <troll defeated>

    I really think that you need to learn what that word means.

    And she really does not sound angry at all to me - in fact she pretty much eats what she wants - sounds pretty contented to me. Have a lovely day.
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    Okay, but you are diabetic, I am not. I do well with plenty of sugar and sodium in my diet, I try to exceed the limits set here. Clean? Unless I'm a farmer it's not happening....I don't care to raise cows and chickens and am fine eating tuna that comes in a can, I'm not fishing for it. If it's purchased in a grocery store it's most likely processed. So, your 1700 calories of "clean" does not equal my 1700 calories of "junk", I eat as much as I need to until I've hit my micros for the day or week... sometimes it's 1250 calories, often it's 3000. I'd prefer not to take supplements and don't care about calories, my body takes care of itself. :)

    Wow you completely missed my point. I never said raise your own animals or grow your own garden. What I said was eat as close to the natural state as POSSIBLE. Butchering my own chicken is not possible for me either, but I don't buy the prepackaged processed lunch meat style stuff either. I get raw chicken breasts and cook them up myself. Takes 7 minutes on a Foreman Grill. That's about as clean as I can get living in a city.

    You can eat what you want, I really don't care. It's your body, do whatever to it. Again I don't really care. But your dismissive tone and attitude just shows how closed off you are to someone else's opinion. In fact it's not only my opinion but the opinion of many others. If you don't care about calories or what you eat then why are you even here? Just to bash others for trying to be helpful?

    You sound like a very angry person. Maybe it's all that sugar. ;-)

    <troll defeated>

    Not a troll. Not angry at all. I do not care about calories, just micros and being "fit".

    Please read this, I'm interested in your opinions on it. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    the above was on sugar, this on sodium. I'd really like to hear other's opinions and theories so that I can discuss it. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/salt.shtml
  • SherryTeach
    SherryTeach Posts: 2,836 Member
    I suspect the junk food eaters (not the ones who go to the extreme) will probably have better results in the long term as it's easier to maintain in the long term.

    For most of my weight loss, I had wine and chocolates throughout (only in the last few days I decided to calm it a bit as I'm upping my calories). It's what GOT me to this point. If I had to have only salads and super healthy food, I doubt that I would have endured...

    Wine and chocolate are NOT junk food. To me, junk food is all highly processed salty/sugary food with little nutritional value for the calorie content. Really good dark chocolate is full of antioxidants. Wine, in moderation, also has several health benefits. The French have a very long life expectancy. I am not a proponent of "all things in moderation" because, frankly, chips and hotdogs and Big Macs are not good for me. I am not willing to put crap in my body. But I'm sure willing and eager to put some dark chocolate and wine in there.
  • SherryTeach
    SherryTeach Posts: 2,836 Member
    Nutrition =/= weight loss.

    The clean eater will probably have much better overall nutrition- as they are eating macronutrient-dense food. They'll probably feel better, have clearer skin, less illness, better sleep, better performance, etc.

    That said, the clean eater would probably do even better with a treat once in a while. They're more likely to stick with their program long-term if they allow for the things they really like (occasionally) along the way. Deprivation is quite demotivating and tends to lead to eventually quitting altogether.

    Eating clean has nothing to do with treats. To me it has to do with limiting the amount of processed food that is full of chemicals and other crap. I make a very good apple pie, completely from scratch. It is the most delicious treat I can think of. I don't have it very often because it is high in calories, but I know what went in it. It is very clean!
  • SherryTeach
    SherryTeach Posts: 2,836 Member
    Okay first lesson: "Eating Clean" means eating foods as close to their natural state as possible (of course meats have to be butchered and cooked because no one is going to eat a live cow or chicken). It basically contends that eating things as close to natural (not processed) is always better for your overall health than eating items full of chemicals and preservatives. If there are not chemicals or preservatives the food is "clean".

    Next, the OP's question... YES you can lose "weight" no mater what you eat as long as you have a calorie deficit. More going out than going in. You can lose "weight" by eating Twinkies, chips, McD's, etc. but are you healthier? Most likely not.

    The problem is most people are over-sugared and over-sodiumed (yeah yeah I know but the word works). The problem with 'junk' food and snack foods is they are mostly simple carbs. Simple carbs spike your sugar and burn off quickly leaving you crashed so your body then craves another fix so you eat more to quell the craving. It's a vicious cycle. Believe me I know about carbs and sugar as I am a Diabetic who must constantly monitor both. If you consume complex carbs (whole grains, oats, etc) with an equal amount of clean protein, the complex carbs do not spike your blood glucose and burn off over a longer period of time. This long burn off results in feeling full longer and no cravings because your blood glucose never spikes. This is the principle Type 2 Diabetics use to keep the disease in check via diet and exercise.

    Sodium makes you retain water. It's that simple. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant. Restaurant foods are notoriously overloaded with sodium as are processed lunch meats (anything in a plastic container or bag in the cooler sections). If you don;t believe me look at the label the next time you pick up some turkey lunch meat and see how much sodium is in it. Lower sodium = less water retention.

    Now the OP asked about "weight" loss. Define "weight" please? Do you mean lose fat or weight? You can lose a lot of "weight" but not necessarily fat. Depending on your activity level you could be losing muscle. But fitness is another deeper topic.

    Bottom line the body is an amazing machine that will use whatever you put into it as fuel to survive. How healthy you are however is directly related to WHAT you put in your body. You have to do what works for you. One man's weight loss is another man's weight gain. However I challenge you to eat clean for just 1 month and then tell us if you don't feel better, have more energy, etc. You will save money eating clean as well. But it does take planning to prepare meals. Hope this helps a bit.

    Okay, but you are diabetic, I am not. I do well with plenty of sugar and sodium in my diet, I try to exceed the limits set here. Clean? Unless I'm a farmer it's not happening....I don't care to raise cows and chickens and am fine eating tuna that comes in a can, I'm not fishing for it. If it's purchased in a grocery store it's most likely processed. So, your 1700 calories of "clean" does not equal my 1700 calories of "junk", I eat as much as I need to until I've hit my micros for the day or week... sometimes it's 1250 calories, often it's 3000. I'd prefer not to take supplements and don't care about calories, my body takes care of itself. :)

    Maybe you do well with plenty of sugar and sodium now, but check back with us in 20 years.
  • I suspect the junk food eaters (not the ones who go to the extreme) will probably have better results in the long term as it's easier to maintain in the long term.

    For most of my weight loss, I had wine and chocolates throughout (only in the last few days I decided to calm it a bit as I'm upping my calories). It's what GOT me to this point. If I had to have only salads and super healthy food, I doubt that I would have endured...

    THIS
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Nutrition =/= weight loss.

    The clean eater will probably have much better overall nutrition- as they are eating macronutrient-dense food. They'll probably feel better, have clearer skin, less illness, better sleep, better performance, etc.

    That said, the clean eater would probably do even better with a treat once in a while. They're more likely to stick with their program long-term if they allow for the things they really like (occasionally) along the way. Deprivation is quite demotivating and tends to lead to eventually quitting altogether.


    Eating clean has nothing to do with treats. To me it has to do with limiting the amount of processed food that is full of chemicals and other crap. I make a very good apple pie, completely from scratch. It is the most delicious treat I can think of. I don't have it very often because it is high in calories, but I know what went in it. It is very clean!

    You seem to be completely missing my point, and some kind of clean eating fanatic. Good for you that you have the time to bake "clean" apple pie from scratch when you want a treat. Do whatever works for you. Nobody ever said home made apple pie isn't awesome and delicious- of course it is! If you ate a pre-made tastycake apple pie once in a while, or even a McDonalds's hot apple pie, and it fit in to your macros, it wouldn't kill you either.
  • Macrocarpa
    Macrocarpa Posts: 121 Member
    Innumerable studies show that the greatest factor in weight loss is calorie deficit.

    If you were able to accurately determine calorie content between 'junk' and 'regular' food and both diets set at the same calorie deficit, then both would lose the same amount of weight.

    Other factors:

    Volume:
    A 45g bag of chips is going to be in the vicinity of 240 calories. Eating the same quantity of calories (240 cal) in iceberg lettuce will require that you eat about 2.5kg of lettuce. Lettuce is the extreme end of the scale, but you could safely eat a couple of carrots, a lebanese cucumber, several florets of broccoli, some cauliflower, green beans and a few stalks of celery and still be under 240 calories. The latter will take you a good 15 minutes of nibbling to eat and last hours (can attest for this with personal experience) vs the chips which are gone in a few mouthfuls and you're hungry again in an hour.

    Cost:
    I don't know what it's like in the States (where it seems most MFPers hail from) but locally here in Melbourne, it is far, far cheaper to buy fresh and semi-fresh vegetables than to eat out, SO LONG AS YOU KNOW WHERE TO SHOP. A bunch of celery (2.2kg) costs $1.49 at our local Chinese grocer. Beans were $4.99/kg, cauli $2.99 per head, broccoli $1.99 per head, carrots $1.30 for a 1kg bag, cucumbers $2.49 apiece. Total cost for a week's worth of healthy snacks for two people was in the vicinity of $15, or about $1 a day per person. Equivalent cost of chips would be $1.50 to $2.00 per day. So twice the cost (excluding preparation time) for an unhealthy snack.

    Attitude / Ethos:
    Sometimes sh!tty food is what you want and what you crave. It's literally about what's more important to you - losing weight or eating food you crave. There's no 'right' answer, it's what you're comfortable with. I think that should be the core of this thread, you do what gets you to your weight loss goal.
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    Okay first lesson: "Eating Clean" means eating foods as close to their natural state as possible (of course meats have to be butchered and cooked because no one is going to eat a live cow or chicken). It basically contends that eating things as close to natural (not processed) is always better for your overall health than eating items full of chemicals and preservatives. If there are not chemicals or preservatives the food is "clean".

    Next, the OP's question... YES you can lose "weight" no mater what you eat as long as you have a calorie deficit. More going out than going in. You can lose "weight" by eating Twinkies, chips, McD's, etc. but are you healthier? Most likely not.

    The problem is most people are over-sugared and over-sodiumed (yeah yeah I know but the word works). The problem with 'junk' food and snack foods is they are mostly simple carbs. Simple carbs spike your sugar and burn off quickly leaving you crashed so your body then craves another fix so you eat more to quell the craving. It's a vicious cycle. Believe me I know about carbs and sugar as I am a Diabetic who must constantly monitor both. If you consume complex carbs (whole grains, oats, etc) with an equal amount of clean protein, the complex carbs do not spike your blood glucose and burn off over a longer period of time. This long burn off results in feeling full longer and no cravings because your blood glucose never spikes. This is the principle Type 2 Diabetics use to keep the disease in check via diet and exercise.

    Sodium makes you retain water. It's that simple. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant. Restaurant foods are notoriously overloaded with sodium as are processed lunch meats (anything in a plastic container or bag in the cooler sections). If you don;t believe me look at the label the next time you pick up some turkey lunch meat and see how much sodium is in it. Lower sodium = less water retention.

    Now the OP asked about "weight" loss. Define "weight" please? Do you mean lose fat or weight? You can lose a lot of "weight" but not necessarily fat. Depending on your activity level you could be losing muscle. But fitness is another deeper topic.

    Bottom line the body is an amazing machine that will use whatever you put into it as fuel to survive. How healthy you are however is directly related to WHAT you put in your body. You have to do what works for you. One man's weight loss is another man's weight gain. However I challenge you to eat clean for just 1 month and then tell us if you don't feel better, have more energy, etc. You will save money eating clean as well. But it does take planning to prepare meals. Hope this helps a bit.

    Okay, but you are diabetic, I am not. I do well with plenty of sugar and sodium in my diet, I try to exceed the limits set here. Clean? Unless I'm a farmer it's not happening....I don't care to raise cows and chickens and am fine eating tuna that comes in a can, I'm not fishing for it. If it's purchased in a grocery store it's most likely processed. So, your 1700 calories of "clean" does not equal my 1700 calories of "junk", I eat as much as I need to until I've hit my micros for the day or week... sometimes it's 1250 calories, often it's 3000. I'd prefer not to take supplements and don't care about calories, my body takes care of itself. :)

    Maybe you do well with plenty of sugar and sodium now, but check back with us in 20 years.

    Sure.. I'm already 40 years old though... quite healthy. I've never worried or thought about calories. I use this app to ensure I'm getting enough sugar and sodium, etc.. If I had a food scale I'd use the cronometer, but I don't and it's not that important that I need to know every single B vitamin recommendation is being hit daily. I'd rather go by how I look and feel, if I'm off I'll go get my blood done to see if I'm lacking in something. So far, the only time was when I was slightly low in iron but it was right back where it suits me without needing much in the way of supplements. I took for 2/3 weeks and forgot the rest. Might have been too much phytic acid blocking some but that might also have been my body protecting me. ;)
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    Once again... is this thread about health or weight loss?
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Nutrition =/= weight loss.

    The clean eater will probably have much better overall nutrition- as they are eating macronutrient-dense food. They'll probably feel better, have clearer skin, less illness, better sleep, better performance, etc.

    That said, the clean eater would probably do even better with a treat once in a while. They're more likely to stick with their program long-term if they allow for the things they really like (occasionally) along the way. Deprivation is quite demotivating and tends to lead to eventually quitting altogether.

    Eating clean has nothing to do with treats. To me it has to do with limiting the amount of processed food that is full of chemicals and other crap. I make a very good apple pie, completely from scratch. It is the most delicious treat I can think of. I don't have it very often because it is high in calories, but I know what went in it. It is very clean!
    How is an apple pie "clean?" Flour is one of the absolute most processed foods on the planet. Sugar, butter, shortening, cinnamon, all heavily processed foods. The only thing "clean" about an apple pie would be the apples.