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

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...

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

Twinkies don't have the same macro's and micro's as veggies, and they never will. My point is that it's a loaded question to ask if dirty food would be just as healthy as clean foods if they had the same macros and micros because they don't have BOTH the same macros and micros.

I think women in their 20s can do this. After 30 (closer to 40) not so much. Haven't followed any guy's diets. I was able to lose weight pretty easily eating like that as long as I kept in my calorie goal. I lost very well eating 100 calorie snacks, and lean cuisines. I also didn't have to workout and the weight came off. Today, I HAVE to eat clean to maintain my weight loss, and have to work out to improve my shape.

You still may be okay @28, but ask yourself - do you really like eating that crap? Now that I eat clean, I still love to eat out, but only at nice restaurants. I eat fast food very sparingly just because I find it kind of gross most of the time and not worth the calories.

Why wouldn't they be?

ETA: I would love to see a twinkie with the macros and micros of veggies btw.

Twinkies don't have the same macro's and micro's as veggies, and they never will. My point is that it's a loaded question to ask if dirty food would be just as healthy as clean foods if they had the same macros and micros because they don't have BOTH the same macros and micros.