"Clean" eating vs. Moderation- what works for you?
Replies
-
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".
Everybody has a different definition of clean eating. Mine is washing my fruits and vegetables prior to consumption.
Eat clean, eat unclean, eat moderately, do whatever works for you (you used in the general sense, not you personally), but the only thing that works for losing weight is to eat at a calorie deficit. Even with medical issues, it's all about finding that sweet spot of just the right calories to lose.0 -
I try to do a 70/30 approach to my diet, with 70 percent being pretty nutrient dense, minimally processed foods.
It all depends on what works for you. Moderation also means different things to different people. I'll see diaries of people touting 'moderation' but then their whole diary is only lean meats, complex grains, veggies and fruits with occasional 'fun' food. Then you see another person touting moderation and they hit their macros entirely eating wendy's and ice cream.0 -
Always moderation, I never "cut out" things. It's better to moderate in my opinion so you don't end up binging. I have a cheat day every now and then too. 2st down so far.0
-
To be completely honest, I have no idea if I am eating clean or not. I have been doing this 7 months and so far I have eaten the following "dirty" foods over that time....
+One McRib meal with fries
+One mini-blizzard (red velvet)
+About six pieces of chocolate
+Three donuts
+One cup of frozen yogurt
+A couple of brownies
+A couple of cookies
+Probably about a half a bag of potato chips
The rest of the time I eat fish, lots of veggies, and chicken. BUT, this is not that far from how I ate normally before. I just cut way back on booze, cheese, and bread - which I don't consider unhealthy. I have never liked sweets that much.
You're winning.0 -
It's all about calorie deficit. Even if all you eat is cake - Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds: edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/0
-
PoisonIvy088 wrote: »Everything in moderation. Including moderation.
That is a very moderate approach! 0 -
To me they are two completely different things that are only quasi-related.
Losing weight is about eating less. Eat only twinkies and never exercise and you can lose weight. You'll probably not be very healthy and you won't age that well, but you could be thin. Most people won't be, but it's possible.
Being healthy is about eating good, healthy food and exercising. I have been overweight while very healthy because I exercised and ate healthy food. I think when people say "eating clean" they just mean "eating healthy food".
If you do it all (eat mostly healthy/clean food, stay thin, and exercise) you will be the healthiest and look the best. Does anyone argue with that? Seems like most of the arguments are about how healthy/clean is good enough....or just arguing whether or not you can be thin eating crap while ignoring overall health.0 -
I eat a whole lot of whole foods...but I'm not scared of white carbs (note that potatoes are whole foods) and I'm not afraid of some pizza now and then or some ice cream either.
You can get awesome nutrition and eat very healthfully and still have indulgences.0 -
For me personally, clean eating is the ONLY way I can lose. If I eat in moderation and just have a calorie deficit, I am able to maintain somewhat decently. However, if I want the weight to actually come off, I have to be diligent eating TONS of veggies, meat, and fruit. It's really frustrating that carbs are the one thing that make it so hard for me to lose weight. I wish I were one of those people that could just eat at a deficit and lose.0
-
Clean eating, definitely. Because I'm in a better mood and have more energy when I eat produce and meat as opposed to cake and cookies (maybe the two are synonymous, what use is living with no energy?). Besides, a reasonable portion of ice cream for my 'discretionary calories' is a sad couple of tablespoons, not worth my bother to try to fit in.0
-
How I want to eat, and how I do eat are two different things. I really enjoy eating whole foods, (so so much!) and I'm working towards the goal of being able to grow all my own food for an entire year (including what I can 'put by' for winter).
What I can afford to eat is different than what I do eat. Organic chickens around here are about $25 each, so my family only eats one a month. I don't like the chicken sold in stores, it's a lot fattier, and tastes bland, so I don't buy it. If I could afford it, I would eat chicken once a week. Same with veggies, we buy some fresh stuff once a week, but a lot of things are pricey right now ($5 for a head of cauliflower!!) so we eat a lot of frozen vegetables too.
Eating bread and pasta just makes me crave quick high calorie snacks throughout the day, so I try to avoid it. For the rest of my family, they need high calorie snacks to maintain, so I make it for them, but I would prefer to make a stirfry or curry for myself if they are having pasta or shepherds pie.
I love spicy food, but my hubby hates it, so I usually only make it for lunch, or when he is working late.
If there is cereal in the house I'll eat it as a snack. We don't drink milk though, so no one usually eats it, although my 3 year old will sometimes have a bowl of cereal with cream. I'd rather not have it in the house.
I'd love to eat more eggs, but my chickens aren't laying right now, and the eggs in the store destroy my stomach.
Lol, so I guess what I'm trying to say is that how I WANT to eat would probably really help in my weight loss journey, but right now I have to just work within the limitations of life, what the grocery store has to offer, and my budget.
And I do still have junk food, although I avoid the stuff that is likely to set me off into 'binge' mode.0 -
Seems that moderation works best for me. But I guess I'm a little lucky. I do find myself craving salads, soups, and other things that are (or can be) pretty nutrient-dense, but I also love sweets of all kinds. I'd gladly have a cup of soup at Applebee's as my main meal if I meant I could have some mozzarella sticks for appetizer and some ice cream for dessert. It's just part of how I make it fit into my daily allowance.
I'd live a very sad life if I had to eat "clean" all the time (and by clean I mean mostly raw fruits and veggies, lean proteins and unprocessed items, because that seems to be the "general" definition of "clean", though I know it's extremely subjective and varies from person to person). I'm much happier when I eat a nice mix of everything.0 -
my daughter has been really successful with MFP by changing to whole grains and less beef no soda and just eating healthier in general. she does fit treats in to her meals. I am following her example and doing well with making better choices.0
-
I am 3 years in and 97 pounds down. I eat absolutely everything, just not every day. ;-) When I started losing weight, I decided that I needed to do something that I could sustain forever in order for it work and in order for me to keep any weight off that I did lose. Giving up entire groups of food wasn't going to work for me. I knew I wouldn't be able to sustain that forever. So I figured out how to keep eating all the foods that I love and still lose weight. For me, it has been a complete success. I am down a huge amount of weight, I feel fantastic, my blood work is fantastic and my doctor couldn't be happier.0
-
For me personally, clean eating is the ONLY way I can lose. If I eat in moderation and just have a calorie deficit, I am able to maintain somewhat decently. However, if I want the weight to actually come off, I have to be diligent eating TONS of veggies, meat, and fruit. It's really frustrating that carbs are the one thing that make it so hard for me to lose weight. I wish I were one of those people that could just eat at a deficit and lose.
Eating "clean" does not make you lose weight, eating in deficit, less then you burn, is what causes weight loss. More then likely you don't weigh your solid foods. Try weighing all solid foods.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »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.
LOL OK ...
so if I eat in a deficit during winter, I won't lose as much fat...??
http://www.burnthefat.com/cold_weather_fat_loss.html
I never said that was meant for all but some people do have issues losing fat in the winter versus the summer. Some of that can be attributed to activity as well - summer is a very active time - I don't find myself at home at all really during the summer - so moving around helps achieve a greater use of calories than in the winter.0 -
Moderation. I eat plenty of foods people would consider "clean" and a good amount that would make "clean eater" cry. It works pretty well for me. I feel good, I'm healthy, and have always been a healthy weight. So bring on the Taco Bell and chocolate!0
-
I do a lot of this as well.theresaneal77 wrote: »I just try to find healthier versions of the things I like and eat the correct serving size. I've been making a lot of homemade flatbread pizzas, rather than splitting a stuffed bacon cheese crust pizza from Pizza Hut, for example.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »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.
LOL OK ...
so if I eat in a deficit during winter, I won't lose as much fat...??
http://www.burnthefat.com/cold_weather_fat_loss.html
I never said that was meant for all but some people do have issues losing fat in the winter versus the summer. Some of that can be attributed to activity as well - summer is a very active time - I don't find myself at home at all really during the summer - so moving around helps achieve a greater use of calories than in the winter.
so when you said this " it's much harder to lose fat during the winter months because the body is preserving as much fat as possible to stay warm" that is not what you really meant?0 -
Whenever I've tried to eat a "perfect" or "restricted" diet, I failed. You know that saying - "do what you've always done, and get what you've always got?" Yeah, it applies. Last year I decided hey, let's try just eating moderately and not worry about following a diet with any name or rules. Guess what? I lost ALL the weight and have been happily maintaining for nearly 3 months.
0 -
Eating in Moderation has always been my go to. I have tried eating clean/paleo on and off but I have found for me it doesn't work so well. I also am a firm believer of "balance" and eating a good mix of foods that also can satiate cravings. Cheat day's become non-existent when you don't deny yourself food.0
-
Moderation. It's taken years and many "diets" for me to realize that I do not succeed when I am cutting out entire food groups etc. So far it's working for me. I love to bake and haven't given that up, I just don't do it every week. I also love chocolate but don't eat it every day. I feel very empowered knowing that I can use moderation with food. Like I said though, it's taken years to realize this.0
-
For me, most of my issues with food are mental. I haven't gotten to a point where I can have "treats" in moderation or without triggering some sort of emotional response. I stick to "clean" foods because it's benefited me to consider food fuel- anything with ingredients I cant pronounce, mystery ingredients, blah blah are triggers for me to the ED's I suffered from for years. Everyone will agree that whole foods are healthier, that's common sense. But we live in a world full of delicious "dirty" foods0
-
mburgess458 wrote: »To me they are two completely different things that are only quasi-related.
Losing weight is about eating less. Eat only twinkies and never exercise and you can lose weight. You'll probably not be very healthy and you won't age that well, but you could be thin. Most people won't be, but it's possible.
Being healthy is about eating good, healthy food and exercising. I have been overweight while very healthy because I exercised and ate healthy food. I think when people say "eating clean" they just mean "eating healthy food".
If you do it all (eat mostly healthy/clean food, stay thin, and exercise) you will be the healthiest and look the best. Does anyone argue with that? Seems like most of the arguments are about how healthy/clean is good enough....or just arguing whether or not you can be thin eating crap while ignoring overall health.
This is what drives me crazy. No on advocating moderation in this thread said that you should only eat twinkies and never exercise in order to lose weight or suggested that the goal was to be thin while eating crap. The people advocating for moderation probably eat as many, if not more, fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins as the "clean eaters". Just at the end of the day after meeting nutritional goals, if there is room left they may have a bowl of ice cream or some cookies. Maybe even Oreos.
To all the people saying that you feel worse eating "unclean" or sugars/carbs, etc.... Can you honestly say that if you eat whole foods all day long and have 3 Oreos at the end of the day before bed, you will feel like crap? From 3 Oreos?
0 -
mburgess458 wrote: »To me they are two completely different things that are only quasi-related.
Losing weight is about eating less. Eat only twinkies and never exercise and you can lose weight. You'll probably not be very healthy and you won't age that well, but you could be thin. Most people won't be, but it's possible.
Being healthy is about eating good, healthy food and exercising. I have been overweight while very healthy because I exercised and ate healthy food. I think when people say "eating clean" they just mean "eating healthy food".
If you do it all (eat mostly healthy/clean food, stay thin, and exercise) you will be the healthiest and look the best. Does anyone argue with that? Seems like most of the arguments are about how healthy/clean is good enough....or just arguing whether or not you can be thin eating crap while ignoring overall health.
This is what drives me crazy. No on advocating moderation in this thread said that you should only eat twinkies and never exercise in order to lose weight or suggested that the goal was to be thin while eating crap. The people advocating for moderation probably eat as many, if not more, fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins as the "clean eaters". Just at the end of the day after meeting nutritional goals, if there is room left they may have a bowl of ice cream or some cookies. Maybe even Oreos.
To all the people saying that you feel worse eating "unclean" or sugars/carbs, etc.... Can you honestly say that if you eat whole foods all day long and have 3 Oreos at the end of the day before bed, you will feel like crap? From 3 Oreos?
Yes. Never mind the fact that eating nothing but twinkies isn't moderation at all. It's the opposite of moderation really.0 -
... 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....What I am curious about is how are "real" people who are currently *successfully* losing weight actually eating? ...
I'm definitely in the moderation crowd. Food aversions make it really hard to find enough to eat, to get variety. I satisfy and mollify my cravings to prevent binges. I've had pizza three times past week, but each meal was thin crust, two slices at a time. I had a jumbo hot dog and movie popcorn last night. I continue to lose weight.
That being said, I love to experiment and I incorporate lots of "healthy" foods in my diet. Dragon's Blend cereal is so "clean" it squeaks. But it's calorie punch guarantees I will never eat more than a couple tablespoons at a time. I cook at home more often. I control salt intake, and there are few processed foods in my daily diet. Also as a long time diabetic (now in remission), I have little interest in sweets and have them rarely.0 -
mburgess458 wrote: »To me they are two completely different things that are only quasi-related.
Losing weight is about eating less. Eat only twinkies and never exercise and you can lose weight. You'll probably not be very healthy and you won't age that well, but you could be thin. Most people won't be, but it's possible.
Being healthy is about eating good, healthy food and exercising. I have been overweight while very healthy because I exercised and ate healthy food. I think when people say "eating clean" they just mean "eating healthy food".
If you do it all (eat mostly healthy/clean food, stay thin, and exercise) you will be the healthiest and look the best. Does anyone argue with that? Seems like most of the arguments are about how healthy/clean is good enough....or just arguing whether or not you can be thin eating crap while ignoring overall health.
que the strawman about eating only twinkies ....that train is never late...0 -
mburgess458 wrote: »To me they are two completely different things that are only quasi-related.
Losing weight is about eating less. Eat only twinkies and never exercise and you can lose weight. You'll probably not be very healthy and you won't age that well, but you could be thin. Most people won't be, but it's possible.
Being healthy is about eating good, healthy food and exercising. I have been overweight while very healthy because I exercised and ate healthy food. I think when people say "eating clean" they just mean "eating healthy food".
If you do it all (eat mostly healthy/clean food, stay thin, and exercise) you will be the healthiest and look the best. Does anyone argue with that? Seems like most of the arguments are about how healthy/clean is good enough....or just arguing whether or not you can be thin eating crap while ignoring overall health.
This is what drives me crazy. No on advocating moderation in this thread said that you should only eat twinkies and never exercise in order to lose weight or suggested that the goal was to be thin while eating crap. The people advocating for moderation probably eat as many, if not more, fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins as the "clean eaters". Just at the end of the day after meeting nutritional goals, if there is room left they may have a bowl of ice cream or some cookies. Maybe even Oreos.
To all the people saying that you feel worse eating "unclean" or sugars/carbs, etc.... Can you honestly say that if you eat whole foods all day long and have 3 Oreos at the end of the day before bed, you will feel like crap? From 3 Oreos?
I don't think this can be emphasized enough. It's always their go-to argument, and it's completely stupid and ridiculous. But they never listen or acknowledge when we say "I don't actually eat twinkies all day, but I do enjoy a twinkie every now and then as part of my overall healthy diet."
To them, we're all just eating Twinkies all day every day and nothing can convince them otherwise.
0 -
Clean eating, definitely. Because I'm in a better mood and have more energy when I eat produce and meat as opposed to cake and cookies (maybe the two are synonymous, what use is living with no energy?). Besides, a reasonable portion of ice cream for my 'discretionary calories' is a sad couple of tablespoons, not worth my bother to try to fit in.
how would a slice of cake or two cookies affect energy levels in the context of an overall diet????0 -
que the strawman about eating only twinkies ....that train is never late...
strawman? just some messages above yours someone wrote:
"It's all about calorie deficit. Even if all you eat is cake - Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds: edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/ "
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions