Eating "junk" and losing weight?

No. Being healthy and losing weight are two different things. Eating a healthy diet does not necessarily mean that a person will lose more weight than if they ate less healthy. We exercise and eat healthy so that we can look good and feel good. We eat less calories than our bodies need so that we can force our body to use up our excess fat storage.

I think they are there because they are sicker than they would otherwise be, primarily because of our unhealthy diets and the "medicalizing" of "mature" people--filling them full of toxic chemicals when it would be far better to feed them good food and help them to exercise. Did the ill-health come about because of a lack of exercise, or did it come about as a consequence of a lifetime of eating foods that failed to provide adequate nutrition? I say the latter. Our soils are depleted, we are heavily doused with toxic chemicals and all processed "foods" contain junk in the place that could be held by nourishing food. It has been carefully engineered to appeal (and addict) but it is diminishing the quality of life in the long run. Should we wonder that fertility rates are falling? Reproductive problems are the "canary in the mine". This issue is much broader than whether someone eats a slurpee or not (although, for the life of me, I cannot understand how someone would want to put a stew of frozen water, sugar syrup and artificial color into his/her body). How many more generations will be able to sustain our present lifestyle? As you can tell, I feel very passionate about this. Don't mean to offend anyone.

There is absolutely no way to know that. There are cultural differences also involved. In some societies elder members of the family are taken care of by the younger ones. The number of people being admitted to nursing homes may have nothing to do with deterioration of health standards but a change in social behavior.

I think they are there because they are sicker than they would otherwise be, primarily because of our unhealthy diets and the "medicalizing" of "mature" people--filling them full of toxic chemicals when it would be far better to feed them good food and help them to exercise. Did the ill-health come about because of a lack of exercise, or did it come about as a consequence of a lifetime of eating foods that failed to provide adequate nutrition? I say the latter. Our soils are depleted, we are heavily doused with toxic chemicals and all processed "foods" contain junk in the place that could be held by nourishing food. It has been carefully engineered to appeal (and addict) but it is diminishing the quality of life in the long run. Should we wonder that fertility rates are falling? Reproductive problems are the "canary in the mine". This issue is much broader than whether someone eats a slurpee or not (although, for the life of me, I cannot understand how someone would want to put a stew of frozen water, sugar syrup and artificial color into his/her body). How many more generations will be able to sustain our present lifestyle? As you can tell, I feel very passionate about this. Don't mean to offend anyone.

There is absolutely no way to know that. There are cultural differences also involved. In some societies elder members of the family are taken care of by the younger ones. The number of people being admitted to nursing homes may have nothing to do with deterioration of health standards but a change in social behavior.

Well, I agree that there is no way to know for sure---but I have made a bit of a study of the "terminal time" in life. It used to be that older people stayed active until they "took to their bed and started doctoring" (that's the way it was described several generations ago). And then they died. And I also agree that people cared for their own in times past. But even public health people are known to observe that we are living longer but are spending a vastly increased time being debilitated. The quality of that life tomorrow depends a lot on the choices we make now.

I think they are there because they are sicker than they would otherwise be, primarily because of our unhealthy diets and the "medicalizing" of "mature" people--filling them full of toxic chemicals when it would be far better to feed them good food and help them to exercise. Did the ill-health come about because of a lack of exercise, or did it come about as a consequence of a lifetime of eating foods that failed to provide adequate nutrition? I say the latter. Our soils are depleted, we are heavily doused with toxic chemicals and all processed "foods" contain junk in the place that could be held by nourishing food. It has been carefully engineered to appeal (and addict) but it is diminishing the quality of life in the long run. Should we wonder that fertility rates are falling? Reproductive problems are the "canary in the mine". This issue is much broader than whether someone eats a slurpee or not (although, for the life of me, I cannot understand how someone would want to put a stew of frozen water, sugar syrup and artificial color into his/her body). How many more generations will be able to sustain our present lifestyle? As you can tell, I feel very passionate about this. Don't mean to offend anyone.

There is absolutely no way to know that. There are cultural differences also involved. In some societies elder members of the family are taken care of by the younger ones. The number of people being admitted to nursing homes may have nothing to do with deterioration of health standards but a change in social behavior.

Well, I agree that there is no way to know for sure---but I have made a bit of a study of the "terminal time" in life. It used to be that older people stayed active until they "took to their bed and started doctoring" (that's the way it was described several generations ago). And then they died. And I also agree that people cared for their own in times past. But even public health people are known to observe that we are living longer but are spending a vastly increased time being debilitated. The quality of that life tomorrow depends a lot on the choices we make now.

I would bet the amount of time that people are living longer is directly related to the amount of time they spend debilitated. So instead of dying they are kept alive but at a lesser than healthy state. You also mentioned that past generations were more active than modern society. That alone could be a bigger factor than the boogie man of "bad " food.

I think it depends on the person and their goals. I can tell a huge difference in how my body looks and feels when I eat a bunch of junk vs "healthy" food. At the same time though, I am not going to completely drop all junk food from my diet. Some days I have chips, crackers, a cookie, sucker, or go get myself some fast food, if it wasn't for that I would go crazy, but at the same time it is not EVERYDAY lol. But like I said it depends on the person and their goals. Whether one is doing it for a physical thing, health thing, or both it all depends. I think moderation is super important though.

I feel as though the majority of us start out trying to 'lose weight' and become skinnier and that's okay because we've only just begun and are still in the learning stage. After a while however, I think it's important to realise this shouldn't be about trying to lose weight but to become healthy! Therefore we shouldn't actually want to eat junk food regularly but instead find healthier alternatives or consider these foods a 'once in a while' treat.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/822501-halp-my-sandwich-isn-t-clean

For anyone those foods are working differently. For me- not so good, thats why I am not using any of those "junk" foods at all, the I'm trying to archieve my weight goals. I don't see why it should be done, because every calories u save will add up and at the end of the month it will be like lost 2kg more, so good job. Yeah, I know that lots of people are saying that it's unhealthy - taking less alories than reccommeded, but hay-really? Why it is that? I did it in the past and believe me-din't felt bad at all, but hay - anyone got his/her own weaknesses

I see so many people going on about not getting nutrients - do they not sell multivitamins everywhere?

That is not how it works.

That's not how *what* works? You seem to be implying that vitamins don't contain nutrients.

Eating a diet based on 'junk' food while limiting my calories just didn't work for me. 'Junk' food is too high in calories, fat, carbs, salt and lack nutrition. I would lose weight but oh so slowly. Eating more 'natural' food words a lot better for me. The pounds have been melting off since I eat better. I do, however, fall off the wagon occasionally. And...the key words in the post are 'for me'. This is what works for me, doesn't mean everyone has to do it this way.

Also, multivitamins are supposed to be supplements...not the main source of nutrition.

Let's take yesterday as an example. I ate pancakes, sausage and bacon for breakfast. I drank copious amounts of coffee. For first lunch I ate lentil, vegetable and pork stew, and some ice cream. For second lunch, I ate a pork chop and some chicken. At dinner I had more stew and 3 oz of whiskey. I also mixed in an orange and an apple. It was a pretty typical day for me except that I usually eat a couple more cups of vegetables and usually get more vitamin A through sweet potatoes or other sources. I often add pizza, real pizza, not the fake stuff I see on here all the time. Oh, and beer, I like beer. I weight train 4 days a week and run 2 to 3 times a week.

I'm 40 years old. I'm fit. I'm healthy. My doctor has told me he rarely sees anyone with an echocardiogram as solid as mine. My diagnostics are all solid. I am on a cut right now and the weight is absolutely falling off, as usual. This is so easy that I am incredibly amused at those arguing that it won't work, or that I'm somehow damaging myself long-term in some undefinable way.

If you have another approach that works for you, then by all means do it. But I'm not out of shape, unhealthy and struggling, or hiding behind a fake picture and locked profile, and telling everyone else that what they are doing won't work.

if it makes u sick, why eat it?

I think this sometimes, but obviously everyone if different and who are we to judge. I prefer to have plenty of fresh fruit and veg as i know if i eat processed foods i will not shift the weight or get me to my ultimate goal of being healthy all round. But of course everyone has different goals so if you find something else that works for losing weight, hats off to you and I hope you all get where you want to be

As long at most of what you eat is healthy then it shouldnt matter, but keeping to your calories on a diet of junk food will work to a certain level, but I cant see who would be happy with feeling hungry all the time and eating so much salt and fat

when you have health problems due to said eating of crappy food, then you will take back these words.

What health problems are caused solely by eating of "crappy" food (whatever that means) and not a result of lack of exercise and poor body composition?

but having lots of whole foods and getting the correct minerals is important too.

Are you saying you can't get the "correct minerals" by eating a lot of "crappy" food?