"Clean" eating vs. Moderation- what works for you?
Options
Replies
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
That's the problem with looking at things from just the CICO perspective. I do agree (and often get mislabeled on here) that CICO matters, but it matters within the perspective of your macros, the kinds of foods you are eating, the processing (or lack thereof) of that food, and your body's metabolic resistance (or lack thereof) to certain macros and foods.
I often tell people that CICO is the only way to determine HOW MUCH to eat. IIFYM, paleo, "clean", high carb, low carb, etc. are just tools to help you determine WHAT to eat and it depends solely on the person, what their lifestyle is and any medical issues they may have. They are the two sides of every coin needed to get healthy, whatever your personal health goal is.
0 -
I suppose moderation is what works best for me.
I pre-log my meals and snacks so I can see what fits my calories for the day. It is really helpful for comparing choices.
I eat food I like. I don't do cheat meals/days, binging, or guilt over eating.
I cook fairly often from scratch but eat some processed or restaurant foods.
I eat real sugar or stuff that is naturally low sugar. I try to avoid artificial sweeteners because I've noticed I get headaches when I consume stuff with them. I don't worry about how much sugar I eat but I also do not have a huge sweet tooth.
I haven't cut any foods out of my diet really. I eat smaller amounts of higher calorie foods.
I eat bread, rice, pasta and potatoes.
Portioning out food instead of eating from a container is helpful.
I prefer eating full fat foods or naturally low fat foods. I eat things like butter, chicken thighs, steak, and regular fat cheese. I'm not eating bacon at every meal but not really eating a super low fat diet.
I've been more aware of my sodium intake lately and trying to eat a bit lower sodium. I'm paying more attention to getting enough protein and fiber.
I'm trying to eat more fruits and vegetables but I'm not in a panic about it.
I drink mostly water or unsweetened tea and save my calories for food. I drink to my thirst mostly and don't log my water.
0 -
In the past 5 years or so, I have really noticed what seems to be an enormous shift in what is considered the "ideal" diet. So much emphasis is now placed on eating only whole, unprocessed foods, no added sugar, nothing artificial, ditch "white" carbs, etc. Paleo this, Whole 30 that, don't eat gluten, don't eat bread, etc. I totally get that nutrition and weight loss are two totally different things. What I am curious about is how are "real" people who are currently *successfully* losing weight actually eating? Do you have the occasional bowl of sugar cereal if it fits into your calorie allowance, or are your 1200 calories (or whatever your number is) strictly filled with vegetables, nuts, and organic chicken breasts? I want to know what REALLY works for you, not just what is "ideal".
about 80% of my diet is meat and veg, coffee and red wine (that's my happy place).
The rest is whatever takes my fancy at the time (sometimes its more meat and veg)!
Most of the diets you mentioned above will work for some and not for others, they are all someones ideal diet.
For me personally I avoid cereal - not for any other reason than it just not inspire me.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »DebHutton55 wrote: »Eat the right carbs, proteins and fats. Watch the quantity. Move! There's the key to healthy living and an outcome in your later years that has you with your memory and the ability to move around with ease. If you are just eating for your weight, wise up. It's taken me most of my life to figure that out.
Someone said, sugar is nothing unless you have a medical condition. So wrong! Read, read, read. What all this stuff is doing to your brain, is more important than what it is doing to your butt.
Of course, eat an occasional bad but if you start eating correctly, you don't have that desire anymore.
This is awesome. I love this statement: "What all this stuff is doing to your brain, is more important than what it is doing to your butt." Very well put. ♥
Some people tolerate a high carb diet better than others, certainly I am not in the lot of that kind of tolerance. I was borderline Type II and have an auto-immune disorder and had to change my diet completely - I lost the weight, gained muscle and strength, lost many of the symptoms of the auto-immune disorder (not all), and now awaiting my physical this week to check my blood work one year after I made this change.
I can say I have cheated maybe 5 times in one year - and during that time, it was morsels - I still eat chocolate but it has to be pure dark chocolate. I know what is good because I was a chocolatier at one time - successfully owned a business and sold it 5 years ago. I know what goes into confections and there's no way I would eat any of them now unless its pure dark chocolate. Chocolate has fiber - that makes it palatable to eat.
There's a real difference calorie for calorie between different foods - meat <> broccoli, for example. Both provide specific nutrients (or densities of nutrients) the other doesn't have. Further, to achieve the caloric equivalent of meat, it takes a hellalot of broccoli. Say an 8oz hamburger or salmon or tenderloin - take those three calorically and you would need to eat ALOT of broccoli - in fact, all three meats contain differences in nutrition unto themselves.
I do believe CICO matters but it matters within the context of your macros. For instance, not all fiber is digestible (insoluble v. soluble). Not all soluble fiber is digestible - those calories can essentially be thrown out - fiber is used by the body in a much different way than the "net" carb of that food. You can't store fiber (or most of it) because it's not made to be stored. It's made to be moved through the body and aids in the elimination process.
Protein requires protein calories to process it - then some protein is used for muscle synthesis and hypertrophy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11255140
"Resistance exercise improves muscle protein balance, but, in the absence of food intake, the balance remains negative (i.e., catabolic)."
So one can "move around" but if one doesn't eat the required macro, one creates a catabolic state that in essence wipes out the whole concept of "moving around"!
The remaining protein is then "storable." So figure 33% of your protein calories are convertible to fat.
I don't think there's a magic number when it comes to weight loss - for instance, many purport that eating 1500 calories would garner weight loss - but 1500 calories of what - does that figure exercise into it, and is that enough to sustain muscles over the long-term? Does that raise the metabolic set point to where you need to eat even less once your metabolism slows to 1500?
That's the problem with looking at things from just the CICO perspective. I do agree (and often get mislabeled on here) that CICO matters, but it matters within the perspective of your macros, the kinds of foods you are eating, the processing (or lack thereof) of that food, and your body's metabolic resistance (or lack thereof) to certain macros and foods.
Thanks Ted! So many haters when it comes to "food talk". I stay informed and read everything I can. Looks like you do, also. Stress is another factor and I think I will walk away from this forum and instead, walk in the beautiful sunshiny eighteen below morning.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Aren't moderation and clean eating (depending on your definition) essentially the same thing? Eating the majority of your calories in nutrient rich foods with some room for less nutritionally dense foods? That's exactly what I do and what has been working for me. Call it "clean + treats", call it moderation, call it whatever you want. The problem is that those who call it clean eating build a straw man of people living on nothing but brownies. Even by moderation standards this is not sustainable nor realistic, since you would be hungry all the time.
And then there are different kinds of moderation. Some eat a square of chocolate every days, others eat a whole bar every few days/weeks. For me, I do a little of both. I can easily have a mini chocolate and be satisfied, but I can't easily have a sliver of cheesecake and be done with it. So I just have a normal-large slice of cheesecake, make up for it, and don't do it often.
Yes, this^^^
People who like to label themselves as "clean" eaters are essentially the same as the IIFYMers. However, the label makes them feel so much better about themselves and a lot of times is used to make themselves feel superior to others. "I've eaten 'clean' all week, so I won't feel guilty eating this cheesecake." Or, "I only drink beer from local breweries - they're much more natural than these mass-produced, evil beers."
And yes, they like to say things like, "Well you can eat brownies and pizza all day if you want, but eating clean is much better for your health because added sugars/chemicalz blah blah." But no one actually eats brownies and pizza all day long. They have brownies sometimes, and pizza sometimes, in addition to a balanced diet. The IIFYMers understand that there are no "bad" or "dirty" foods and that they don't have to beat themselves up with guilt or rationalize eating a cookie. It's a much healthier outlook overall, IMO, than the self righteous notion that eating clean is somehow superior.0 -
Clean eating.0
-
I eat what I like. I tend to like what most people would consider healthier food, but if the desire for a treat hits me, I fit it into my day. My idea of a treat lately is a Quest bar, but if you go back in my diary I've also logged cookies and chocolate and potato chips.
I've had the problem in the past of labeling foods "good" or "bad" and doing that would only lead me to binge behavior when I would cave into temptation because I thought I'd just get it out of my system and be back on track after the binge. With moderation? A small portion satisfies, because I can always have another small portion if I want more of something. I just have to wait until the next day. I'm "allowed" to have a food.
tl;dr In my own head game, moderation means that I want treats less because it takes away their forbidden fruit allure.0 -
DebHutton55 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »DebHutton55 wrote: »Eat the right carbs, proteins and fats. Watch the quantity. Move! There's the key to healthy living and an outcome in your later years that has you with your memory and the ability to move around with ease. If you are just eating for your weight, wise up. It's taken me most of my life to figure that out.
Someone said, sugar is nothing unless you have a medical condition. So wrong! Read, read, read. What all this stuff is doing to your brain, is more important than what it is doing to your butt.
Of course, eat an occasional bad but if you start eating correctly, you don't have that desire anymore.
This is awesome. I love this statement: "What all this stuff is doing to your brain, is more important than what it is doing to your butt." Very well put. ♥
Some people tolerate a high carb diet better than others, certainly I am not in the lot of that kind of tolerance. I was borderline Type II and have an auto-immune disorder and had to change my diet completely - I lost the weight, gained muscle and strength, lost many of the symptoms of the auto-immune disorder (not all), and now awaiting my physical this week to check my blood work one year after I made this change.
I can say I have cheated maybe 5 times in one year - and during that time, it was morsels - I still eat chocolate but it has to be pure dark chocolate. I know what is good because I was a chocolatier at one time - successfully owned a business and sold it 5 years ago. I know what goes into confections and there's no way I would eat any of them now unless its pure dark chocolate. Chocolate has fiber - that makes it palatable to eat.
There's a real difference calorie for calorie between different foods - meat <> broccoli, for example. Both provide specific nutrients (or densities of nutrients) the other doesn't have. Further, to achieve the caloric equivalent of meat, it takes a hellalot of broccoli. Say an 8oz hamburger or salmon or tenderloin - take those three calorically and you would need to eat ALOT of broccoli - in fact, all three meats contain differences in nutrition unto themselves.
I do believe CICO matters but it matters within the context of your macros. For instance, not all fiber is digestible (insoluble v. soluble). Not all soluble fiber is digestible - those calories can essentially be thrown out - fiber is used by the body in a much different way than the "net" carb of that food. You can't store fiber (or most of it) because it's not made to be stored. It's made to be moved through the body and aids in the elimination process.
Protein requires protein calories to process it - then some protein is used for muscle synthesis and hypertrophy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11255140
"Resistance exercise improves muscle protein balance, but, in the absence of food intake, the balance remains negative (i.e., catabolic)."
So one can "move around" but if one doesn't eat the required macro, one creates a catabolic state that in essence wipes out the whole concept of "moving around"!
The remaining protein is then "storable." So figure 33% of your protein calories are convertible to fat.
I don't think there's a magic number when it comes to weight loss - for instance, many purport that eating 1500 calories would garner weight loss - but 1500 calories of what - does that figure exercise into it, and is that enough to sustain muscles over the long-term? Does that raise the metabolic set point to where you need to eat even less once your metabolism slows to 1500?
That's the problem with looking at things from just the CICO perspective. I do agree (and often get mislabeled on here) that CICO matters, but it matters within the perspective of your macros, the kinds of foods you are eating, the processing (or lack thereof) of that food, and your body's metabolic resistance (or lack thereof) to certain macros and foods.
Thanks Ted! So many haters when it comes to "food talk". I stay informed and read everything I can. Looks like you do, also. Stress is another factor and I think I will walk away from this forum and instead, walk in the beautiful sunshiny eighteen below morning.
♥ Yeah I hear ya. Hormones - awesome suggestion.
Another is what you just described - it's much harder to lose fat during the winter months because the body is preserving as much fat as possible to stay warm. I find it very easy to lose fat during the summer.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Aren't moderation and clean eating (depending on your definition) essentially the same thing? Eating the majority of your calories in nutrient rich foods with some room for less nutritionally dense foods? That's exactly what I do and what has been working for me. Call it "clean + treats", call it moderation, call it whatever you want. The problem is that those who call it clean eating build a straw man of people living on nothing but brownies. Even by moderation standards this is not sustainable nor realistic, since you would be hungry all the time.
And then there are different kinds of moderation. Some eat a square of chocolate every days, others eat a whole bar every few days/weeks. For me, I do a little of both. I can easily have a mini chocolate and be satisfied, but I can't easily have a sliver of cheesecake and be done with it. So I just have a normal-large slice of cheesecake, make up for it, and don't do it often.
0 -
I wish I could do moderation. I have no will power. I either have to tell myself I can't have ANY sweets.... or I eat everything.0
-
I eat in moderation, making sure I hit macs and mics.
Lost 121 pounds, been maintaining for almost 6 months now.
0 -
Moderation for sure. I've noticed in the short term that cutting out refined sugars does seem to help weight drop off at the beginning, but that's not a sustainable lifestyle for me.0
-
Honestly, I believe in both. I like starting off by completely eating clean. No breads, pastas, or extra carbs. A strict diet of protein/veggies/fruits. It helps me clean my slate completely and helps me stop having cravings for certain things. After about a month or so of this I eat in moderation but I stay away from fatty beef/pork and white pastas/breads/rice. I limit myself to things that I know I will get carried away with.0
-
PrizePopple wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Aren't moderation and clean eating (depending on your definition) essentially the same thing? Eating the majority of your calories in nutrient rich foods with some room for less nutritionally dense foods? That's exactly what I do and what has been working for me. Call it "clean + treats", call it moderation, call it whatever you want. The problem is that those who call it clean eating build a straw man of people living on nothing but brownies. Even by moderation standards this is not sustainable nor realistic, since you would be hungry all the time.
And then there are different kinds of moderation. Some eat a square of chocolate every days, others eat a whole bar every few days/weeks. For me, I do a little of both. I can easily have a mini chocolate and be satisfied, but I can't easily have a sliver of cheesecake and be done with it. So I just have a normal-large slice of cheesecake, make up for it, and don't do it often.
Me too!0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »PrizePopple wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Aren't moderation and clean eating (depending on your definition) essentially the same thing? Eating the majority of your calories in nutrient rich foods with some room for less nutritionally dense foods? That's exactly what I do and what has been working for me. Call it "clean + treats", call it moderation, call it whatever you want. The problem is that those who call it clean eating build a straw man of people living on nothing but brownies. Even by moderation standards this is not sustainable nor realistic, since you would be hungry all the time.
And then there are different kinds of moderation. Some eat a square of chocolate every days, others eat a whole bar every few days/weeks. For me, I do a little of both. I can easily have a mini chocolate and be satisfied, but I can't easily have a sliver of cheesecake and be done with it. So I just have a normal-large slice of cheesecake, make up for it, and don't do it often.
Me too!
OMG I so would ...
0 -
In the past 5 years or so, I have really noticed what seems to be an enormous shift in what is considered the "ideal" diet. So much emphasis is now placed on eating only whole, unprocessed foods, no added sugar, nothing artificial, ditch "white" carbs, etc. Paleo this, Whole 30 that, don't eat gluten, don't eat bread, etc. I totally get that nutrition and weight loss are two totally different things. What I am curious about is how are "real" people who are currently *successfully* losing weight actually eating? Do you have the occasional bowl of sugar cereal if it fits into your calorie allowance, or are your 1200 calories (or whatever your number is) strictly filled with vegetables, nuts, and organic chicken breasts? I want to know what REALLY works for you, not just what is "ideal".
I'm at maintenance. But am also in menopause, so I'm keeping the same close eye on things.
I've been maintaining for 14 years.
Not clean. Not moderation. I eat the way that works for me.
I try to eat a primarily whole food plant based diet. Lots of vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds, some fruit, 100% whole grains, dairy, some seafood, some red meat.
I DON'T eat much in the way of heavily refined carbs. I don't eat much refined sugar. To me: both are a waste of calories and don't work well with *my* lifestyle. (they don't fill me up, and don't fuel my body.)
I've been eating this way for 14 years. I did go gluten free for about 2 years in the middle. But I found that it wasn't the gluten that bothered my stomach, because it hurt after a gluten free whole grain breads as well.
I don't eat "sugar" cereal, but will have a nice hearty cereal from time to time.
I don't count calories per se. And no, I don't stay at 1200.
0 -
definitely moderation/IIFYM approach. losing weight is hard enough as it is for some people, why add even more pressure to be perfect?0
-
Liftng4Lis wrote: »PrizePopple wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Aren't moderation and clean eating (depending on your definition) essentially the same thing? Eating the majority of your calories in nutrient rich foods with some room for less nutritionally dense foods? That's exactly what I do and what has been working for me. Call it "clean + treats", call it moderation, call it whatever you want. The problem is that those who call it clean eating build a straw man of people living on nothing but brownies. Even by moderation standards this is not sustainable nor realistic, since you would be hungry all the time.
And then there are different kinds of moderation. Some eat a square of chocolate every days, others eat a whole bar every few days/weeks. For me, I do a little of both. I can easily have a mini chocolate and be satisfied, but I can't easily have a sliver of cheesecake and be done with it. So I just have a normal-large slice of cheesecake, make up for it, and don't do it often.
Me too!Liftng4Lis wrote: »PrizePopple wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Aren't moderation and clean eating (depending on your definition) essentially the same thing? Eating the majority of your calories in nutrient rich foods with some room for less nutritionally dense foods? That's exactly what I do and what has been working for me. Call it "clean + treats", call it moderation, call it whatever you want. The problem is that those who call it clean eating build a straw man of people living on nothing but brownies. Even by moderation standards this is not sustainable nor realistic, since you would be hungry all the time.
And then there are different kinds of moderation. Some eat a square of chocolate every days, others eat a whole bar every few days/weeks. For me, I do a little of both. I can easily have a mini chocolate and be satisfied, but I can't easily have a sliver of cheesecake and be done with it. So I just have a normal-large slice of cheesecake, make up for it, and don't do it often.
Me too!
OMG I so would ...
Add me to the list
0 -
Unlike many of the posters here, moderation is something I just can't handle - one slice of cake sends my mind into a food-craving frenzy...never a good idea for me. Also, when I eat 'clean' (i.e. lean meat, veg, fruit), I feel more positive mentally
One thing which surprises me is that people don't want to categorise 'good' and 'bad' foods. For the record, I completely support whatever healthy methods everyone here has used to lose weight, but am curious how, for example, pizza cannot be considered a 'bad' food, considering the chemicals etc. companies add to it?
Again, I am not in any way knocking the IIFYM method, but am just questioning the idea that broccoli is as 'good' a food as pizza?
ain't no chemicals (by which I assume you mean preservatives / MSG) in the fresh made pizza I eat - but it's full of calcium, vitamin A, vitamin C, yummy carbs etc
Dependent on your nutritional needs a pizza (even a pre-made shop-bought one) could be better for you than that brocolli
also - have you ever seen the chemical breakdown of what you would call 'good' foods
STRAW MAN BERRIES0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »This comes up a lot, and it never ends well.
Most of the successful people on the site had success learning how to fit the foods that they love into their calorie/macro goals. Once you hit your protein/fat goals, and you have calories leftover, eat a bowl of ice cream or a candy bar if you want. Or some Doritos. Or have a beer. There is no harm in fitting "junk" food (which is in quotations because there really is no junk food, all food is energy and fuel for your body) into an otherwise healthy diet.
Then you get the people who will fight to the death to tell you that eating "clean" is the only way. But they then tell you not to pay attention to the pina coladas in their diary, or that brownie they had yesterday because they had a bad day. When in reality they are practicing moderation as well, but for some reason having that label of "clean eating" makes them feel better about themselves.
I'm personally a member of the former group, and I've lost 6 pounds since January.
This is exactly my take on all of this. I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on anything, especially weight loss. But what I have learned after years of trying everything from no/low carb diets to WW to killing myself with T25 while not knowing how to control my food intake is that you have to moderate. Everything in moderation, plain and simple.
But what I have also learned, since I began this particular journey at the first of January, is that now that I am controlling what I put into my mouth everyday, that I want the yucky stuff less and less. I allow myself the occasional cookie, mac and cheese, etc, all within my calorie limits for the day. But I am learning that those things aren't necessarily worth it to me anymore. Eating a bowl of fresh cut pineapple is far more mentally satisfying to me that 1 cookie or a small bowl of chips.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions