"Clean" eating vs. Moderation- what works for you?
Replies
-
SconnieCat wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Trying to think of the most non-offensive way to put this so pre-apologies if I offend, truly not meaning to do so.
From my time on MFP I have personally noticed:
Those who solely preach just the moderation aspect, like the "I eat fast food 3 times a week but under my caloric yada yada..." seem to be in reasonably ok shape. They are usually healthy, good head on their shoulders and so on. It seems a good mix of people who were once overweight and fought their way back and some that have just been actively maintaining for years and so on. Good people, great advice, great support for people actively trying to lose weight but body type is usually 'meh.
I just haven't met many in this camp with the body type or competition accomplishments that really impress or inspire me.
I have found the people that I do really look up to and reach out for advice and instruction both preach moderation but put most of their emphasis on clean eating. Not so much that they have to get organic everything but more in terms of packing as much nutritional value as possible into every single calorie they digest. Like, they make their pizza at home instead of buying papa john's. They don't eat fast food except on very rare occasions and so on. They plain out do not eat food designed to have an extended shelf life. It is either fresh or they do not consume it (with the exception of workout supplements.)
So, yeah, in short, it's the clean eaters (people who do not consume designer food is my definition) that have always impressed me and have the results I want. I am striving to be more like them and find that I overall feel better when I do.
Just my 2 cents, doesn't mean much but there it is.
What even is designer food anyway?
Oh and these....
(edited for size)
0 -
For me, "clean" eating works much better...though I don't use that term. But it is all lean meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, yogurt, eggs, natural peanut butter, etc. I eat almost zero added sugar or wheat...just on rare occasions when I am out.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 feel much better eating this way...I never get cravings or sluggish after a meal and I have more energy. Psychologically, it also makes it much easier to not overeat. When I am eating healthy, I tend to find it very easy to stick with it. I also exercise more often. The two good habits seem to reinforce each other for me.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
For me, "clean" eating works much better...though I don't use that term. But it is all lean meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, yogurt, eggs, natural peanut butter, etc. I eat almost zero added sugar or wheat...just on rare occasions when I am out.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 feel much better eating this way...I never get cravings or sluggish after a meal and I have more energy. Psychologically, it also makes it much easier to not overeat. When I am eating healthy, I tend to find it very easy to stick with it. I also exercise more often. The two good habits seem to reinforce each other for me.
You see to me that is moderation... Just stricter then others. How strict an individual moderates is determined by their preference and goals..0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Foods have shelf lives because of preservatives. You implied that these would somehow inhibit someone's progress. Which is false.
Actually, what you said is this:
"Basically what I got from this is that preservatives somehow inhibit muscle gainz.
I never implied preservatives would inhibit "gainz" or progress.
Look, I appreciate that you are now seemingly trying to have a rational conversation about the content in my post but we both know it is just a poor attempt to construct a facade around that lame attempt for you to be edgy and funny. I think you need less internet time today.
If you had read the rest of this thread, and the thousands of other threads debating this exact topic, you would see that this is a discussion that has been done to death, and plenty of people on here have proved with science and their own progress that eating "clean" by your definition is not totally necessary for becoming lean or losing fat. Pardon my sarcasm, but the horse was dead when you came in and you didn't change the laws of physics by making your statements.
Maybe for getting down to 4-8% bf, as mentioned by herrspoons, it would make a difference to pay more attention to the quality of your food, but for the average person and even most athletes who are not judged on the appearance of their bodies, it is absolutely not necessary.
Saying that people who eat food that has a shelf life doesn't have your "ideal" body does not somehow prove that eating clean is necessary for health and fat loss, which is what is being discussed in this thread.
Congratulations. You were able to post a cute picture and a block of text that once again does not have any relevance to content of my post. I am only responding at this point as you seem to be one of those people who squirms if they can't have the last word...and I've got some down time today. Cheers0 -
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.
Agree, agree, agree! I am working at losing weight and at the same time doing resistance training and cardio. It is so important for me to eat the right foods so that the weight I do lose is not coming from muscle and so that I keep my metabolism up all day long. The whole idea of clean food eating is to provide you with the best nutrients for your body no matter what your goals are!
please give me a list of the "right foods" that will prevent muscle loss in a deficit? As I am cutting right now, this would be a useful list to have...
If you are eating in a deficit it does not matter what you eat you are going to lose some muscle mass...
unless you are an untrained beginner or high performance athlete, then you may be able to add some muscle or maintain existing while in a deficit.
You should check out some of Layne Norton's cutting articles. He does a great job of outlining macros for a cut to keep everything you built as well as give food examples to meet those.
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.
Agree, agree, agree! I am working at losing weight and at the same time doing resistance training and cardio. It is so important for me to eat the right foods so that the weight I do lose is not coming from muscle and so that I keep my metabolism up all day long. The whole idea of clean food eating is to provide you with the best nutrients for your body no matter what your goals are!
please give me a list of the "right foods" that will prevent muscle loss in a deficit? As I am cutting right now, this would be a useful list to have...
If you are eating in a deficit it does not matter what you eat you are going to lose some muscle mass...
unless you are an untrained beginner or high performance athlete, then you may be able to add some muscle or maintain existing while in a deficit.
You should check out some of Layne Norton's cutting articles. He does a great job of outlining macros for a cut to keep everything you built as well as give food examples to meet those.
I wanted the poster to tell me what the right foods are....
but thanks for jumping in ...0 -
I find it easiest to not put a label on the way I eat. Obviously moderation is necessary for dieting, since calories must be moderated. But I don't like to label my diet because then I feel like I need to eat to fit the label.
Growing and preserving food is my passion and hobby, so most of my diet would qualify as clean, but I don't call myself a clean eater, nor do I limit myself only to clean foods. But, without a diet rich in whole natural foods I think I would be as big as a house.
I do believe in good food, bad food. And I avoid/limit foods based on that belief. This has nothing to do with weight loss, though.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Foods have shelf lives because of preservatives. You implied that these would somehow inhibit someone's progress. Which is false.
Actually, what you said is this:
"Basically what I got from this is that preservatives somehow inhibit muscle gainz.
I never implied preservatives would inhibit "gainz" or progress.
Look, I appreciate that you are now seemingly trying to have a rational conversation about the content in my post but we both know it is just a poor attempt to construct a facade around that lame attempt for you to be edgy and funny. I think you need less internet time today.
If you had read the rest of this thread, and the thousands of other threads debating this exact topic, you would see that this is a discussion that has been done to death, and plenty of people on here have proved with science and their own progress that eating "clean" by your definition is not totally necessary for becoming lean or losing fat. Pardon my sarcasm, but the horse was dead when you came in and you didn't change the laws of physics by making your statements.
Maybe for getting down to 4-8% bf, as mentioned by herrspoons, it would make a difference to pay more attention to the quality of your food, but for the average person and even most athletes who are not judged on the appearance of their bodies, it is absolutely not necessary.
Saying that people who eat food that has a shelf life doesn't have your "ideal" body does not somehow prove that eating clean is necessary for health and fat loss, which is what is being discussed in this thread.
Congratulations. You were able to post a cute picture and a block of text that once again does not have any relevance to content of my post. I am only responding at this point as you seem to be one of those people who squirms if they can't have the last word...and I've got some down time today. Cheers
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Foods have shelf lives because of preservatives. You implied that these would somehow inhibit someone's progress. Which is false.
Actually, what you said is this:
"Basically what I got from this is that preservatives somehow inhibit muscle gainz.
I never implied preservatives would inhibit "gainz" or progress.
Look, I appreciate that you are now seemingly trying to have a rational conversation about the content in my post but we both know it is just a poor attempt to construct a facade around that lame attempt for you to be edgy and funny. I think you need less internet time today.
If you had read the rest of this thread, and the thousands of other threads debating this exact topic, you would see that this is a discussion that has been done to death, and plenty of people on here have proved with science and their own progress that eating "clean" by your definition is not totally necessary for becoming lean or losing fat. Pardon my sarcasm, but the horse was dead when you came in and you didn't change the laws of physics by making your statements.
Maybe for getting down to 4-8% bf, as mentioned by herrspoons, it would make a difference to pay more attention to the quality of your food, but for the average person and even most athletes who are not judged on the appearance of their bodies, it is absolutely not necessary.
Saying that people who eat food that has a shelf life doesn't have your "ideal" body does not somehow prove that eating clean is necessary for health and fat loss, which is what is being discussed in this thread.
Congratulations. You were able to post a cute picture and a block of text that once again does not have any relevance to content of my post. I am only responding at this point as you seem to be one of those people who squirms if they can't have the last word...and I've got some down time today. Cheers
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Foods have shelf lives because of preservatives. You implied that these would somehow inhibit someone's progress. Which is false.
Actually, what you said is this:
"Basically what I got from this is that preservatives somehow inhibit muscle gainz.
I never implied preservatives would inhibit "gainz" or progress.
Look, I appreciate that you are now seemingly trying to have a rational conversation about the content in my post but we both know it is just a poor attempt to construct a facade around that lame attempt for you to be edgy and funny. I think you need less internet time today.
If you had read the rest of this thread, and the thousands of other threads debating this exact topic, you would see that this is a discussion that has been done to death, and plenty of people on here have proved with science and their own progress that eating "clean" by your definition is not totally necessary for becoming lean or losing fat. Pardon my sarcasm, but the horse was dead when you came in and you didn't change the laws of physics by making your statements.
Maybe for getting down to 4-8% bf, as mentioned by herrspoons, it would make a difference to pay more attention to the quality of your food, but for the average person and even most athletes who are not judged on the appearance of their bodies, it is absolutely not necessary.
Saying that people who eat food that has a shelf life doesn't have your "ideal" body does not somehow prove that eating clean is necessary for health and fat loss, which is what is being discussed in this thread.
Congratulations. You were able to post a cute picture and a block of text that once again does not have any relevance to content of my post. I am only responding at this point as you seem to be one of those people who squirms if they can't have the last word...and I've got some down time today. Cheers
...It's true....I'm kinda a dick.....
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Foods have shelf lives because of preservatives. You implied that these would somehow inhibit someone's progress. Which is false.
Actually, what you said is this:
"Basically what I got from this is that preservatives somehow inhibit muscle gainz.
I never implied preservatives would inhibit "gainz" or progress.
Look, I appreciate that you are now seemingly trying to have a rational conversation about the content in my post but we both know it is just a poor attempt to construct a facade around that lame attempt for you to be edgy and funny. I think you need less internet time today.
If you had read the rest of this thread, and the thousands of other threads debating this exact topic, you would see that this is a discussion that has been done to death, and plenty of people on here have proved with science and their own progress that eating "clean" by your definition is not totally necessary for becoming lean or losing fat. Pardon my sarcasm, but the horse was dead when you came in and you didn't change the laws of physics by making your statements.
Maybe for getting down to 4-8% bf, as mentioned by herrspoons, it would make a difference to pay more attention to the quality of your food, but for the average person and even most athletes who are not judged on the appearance of their bodies, it is absolutely not necessary.
Saying that people who eat food that has a shelf life doesn't have your "ideal" body does not somehow prove that eating clean is necessary for health and fat loss, which is what is being discussed in this thread.
Congratulations. You were able to post a cute picture and a block of text that once again does not have any relevance to content of my post. I am only responding at this point as you seem to be one of those people who squirms if they can't have the last word...and I've got some down time today. Cheers
...It's true....I'm kinda a dick.....
well, we all have our faults...0 -
If you consider having sweets once every couple of months moderation, then sure. In that sense, yes. I don't have any foods about which I have said I will never ever have it again.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
For me, "clean" eating works much better...though I don't use that term. But it is all lean meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, yogurt, eggs, natural peanut butter, etc. I eat almost zero added sugar or wheat...just on rare occasions when I am out.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 feel much better eating this way...I never get cravings or sluggish after a meal and I have more energy. Psychologically, it also makes it much easier to not overeat. When I am eating healthy, I tend to find it very easy to stick with it. I also exercise more often. The two good habits seem to reinforce each other for me.
You see to me that is moderation... Just stricter then others. How strict an individual moderates is determined by their preference and goals..
However, things that aren't part of my daily, weekly, or even monthly diet...I would say it is more accurate to say I generally just don't eat them. And I never have them at home...for me, it is just too much of a slippery slope. If my rare exceptions become the new rule, then I will regain all I have worked to lose. But I won't quibble over the language. Whatever you call it, I have found what works best for me.
0 -
I think moderation is better to start, and then you would be best to slowly start changing your diet from processed foods to more natural, health foods. Slowly as in, over the course no less than a year. I think a lot of people fail in their diet changes because they try to do everything at once. At least, that's how I failed in the past. Realistically you're not going to hit yourself with a drastic change in diet and then never go back to the way things were. It's not a cold turkey solution, you've got to be gradual with the changes.0
-
I'm a "moderation" girl. There is no way I could sustain eating "clean" w/o it making me incredibly irritable and moody and no-one wants to see that (they call me smashers for a reason
). I love m&ms and ketchup chips, I like the occasional alcoholic beverage or the occasional scoop of ice cream. I love to bake (hence why a slice of homemade lemon meringue pie is in my diary today). What can I say, I love food. I've found way to make it work.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
If you consider having sweets once every couple of months moderation, then sure. In that sense, yes. I don't have any foods about which I have said I will never ever have it again.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
For me, "clean" eating works much better...though I don't use that term. But it is all lean meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, yogurt, eggs, natural peanut butter, etc. I eat almost zero added sugar or wheat...just on rare occasions when I am out.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 feel much better eating this way...I never get cravings or sluggish after a meal and I have more energy. Psychologically, it also makes it much easier to not overeat. When I am eating healthy, I tend to find it very easy to stick with it. I also exercise more often. The two good habits seem to reinforce each other for me.
You see to me that is moderation... Just stricter then others. How strict an individual moderates is determined by their preference and goals..
However, things that aren't part of my daily, weekly, or even monthly diet...I would say it is more accurate to say I generally just don't eat them. And I never have them at home...for me, it is just too much of a slippery slope. If my rare exceptions become the new rule, then I will regain all I have worked to lose. But I won't quibble over the language. Whatever you call it, I have found what works best for me.
At the end of the day that's really all that matters...
0 -
So, yeah, in short, it's the clean eaters (people who do not consume designer food is my definition) that have always impressed me and have the results I want. I am striving to be more like them and find that I overall feel better when I do.
Just my 2 cents, doesn't mean much but there it is.
I actually find the exact opposite to be true.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
If you consider having sweets once every couple of months moderation, then sure. In that sense, yes. I don't have any foods about which I have said I will never ever have it again.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
For me, "clean" eating works much better...though I don't use that term. But it is all lean meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, yogurt, eggs, natural peanut butter, etc. I eat almost zero added sugar or wheat...just on rare occasions when I am out.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 feel much better eating this way...I never get cravings or sluggish after a meal and I have more energy. Psychologically, it also makes it much easier to not overeat. When I am eating healthy, I tend to find it very easy to stick with it. I also exercise more often. The two good habits seem to reinforce each other for me.
You see to me that is moderation... Just stricter then others. How strict an individual moderates is determined by their preference and goals..
However, things that aren't part of my daily, weekly, or even monthly diet...I would say it is more accurate to say I generally just don't eat them. And I never have them at home...for me, it is just too much of a slippery slope. If my rare exceptions become the new rule, then I will regain all I have worked to lose. But I won't quibble over the language. Whatever you call it, I have found what works best for me.
I'm befuddled by this because to be honest, I eat treats about as often as you do. (In my 100 days logging, I've logged cookies once, chocolate once and potato chips once... to give an example.) I don't want them frequently enough to work them into my calorie allowance, it's nothing more than that as far as I'm concerned.
For me, though, it's freeing to think to myself that if I want something, it's okay to have it. I don't feel the need to play a semantic game with myself and say that I "generally just don't eat treats". I like saying that I eat what I like, because that's what I DO. Is that what you're doing too, on the balance? Why is it important to you to classify yourself as a clean eater? Honest question here, no snark.
Serious question here, I am not poking at a stereotype or anything. Do you feel like you're adhering to a certain plan or virtue that you've set for yourself by having the mindset you do about the way you eat?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
If you consider having sweets once every couple of months moderation, then sure. In that sense, yes. I don't have any foods about which I have said I will never ever have it again.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
For me, "clean" eating works much better...though I don't use that term. But it is all lean meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, yogurt, eggs, natural peanut butter, etc. I eat almost zero added sugar or wheat...just on rare occasions when I am out.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 feel much better eating this way...I never get cravings or sluggish after a meal and I have more energy. Psychologically, it also makes it much easier to not overeat. When I am eating healthy, I tend to find it very easy to stick with it. I also exercise more often. The two good habits seem to reinforce each other for me.
You see to me that is moderation... Just stricter then others. How strict an individual moderates is determined by their preference and goals..
However, things that aren't part of my daily, weekly, or even monthly diet...I would say it is more accurate to say I generally just don't eat them. And I never have them at home...for me, it is just too much of a slippery slope. If my rare exceptions become the new rule, then I will regain all I have worked to lose. But I won't quibble over the language. Whatever you call it, I have found what works best for me.
I'm befuddled by this because to be honest, I eat treats about as often as you do. (In my 100 days logging, I've logged cookies once, chocolate once and potato chips once... to give an example.) I don't want them frequently enough to work them into my calorie allowance, it's nothing more than that as far as I'm concerned.
For me, though, it's freeing to think to myself that if I want something, it's okay to have it. I don't feel the need to play a semantic game with myself and say that I "generally just don't eat treats". I like saying that I eat what I like, because that's what I DO. Is that what you're doing too, on the balance? Why is it important to you to classify yourself as a clean eater? Honest question here, no snark.
Serious question here, I am not poking at a stereotype or anything. Do you feel like you're adhering to a certain plan or virtue that you've set for yourself by having the mindset you do about the way you eat?
My thoughts were similar to yours, mamapeach. I wanted to ask moiaussi if it was more the desire or lack of, I guess.
What I mean, moiaussi, is if someone offered you a cookie, would you accept it, because its something you eat on occasion and people don't always offer cookies, or would you decline because those treats are only eaten on occasion, according to you? At that point, would it just boil down to whether or not it was appealing?0 -
"Clean" food and or "clean" diets have very little if any impact on results. Getting an adequate amount of training, calories, nutrients, (macros and micros), recovery and sleep get results.So, yeah, in short, it's the clean eaters (people who do not consume designer food is my definition) that have always impressed me and have the results I want. I am striving to be more like them and find that I overall feel better when I do.
Just my 2 cents, doesn't mean much but there it is.
In order if importance...
1. Adherence
2. Energy balance
3. Macros
4. Micros
5. Nutrient timing
6. Supplements
Clean didn't even make the list...0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
If you consider having sweets once every couple of months moderation, then sure. In that sense, yes. I don't have any foods about which I have said I will never ever have it again.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
For me, "clean" eating works much better...though I don't use that term. But it is all lean meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, yogurt, eggs, natural peanut butter, etc. I eat almost zero added sugar or wheat...just on rare occasions when I am out.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 feel much better eating this way...I never get cravings or sluggish after a meal and I have more energy. Psychologically, it also makes it much easier to not overeat. When I am eating healthy, I tend to find it very easy to stick with it. I also exercise more often. The two good habits seem to reinforce each other for me.
You see to me that is moderation... Just stricter then others. How strict an individual moderates is determined by their preference and goals..
However, things that aren't part of my daily, weekly, or even monthly diet...I would say it is more accurate to say I generally just don't eat them. And I never have them at home...for me, it is just too much of a slippery slope. If my rare exceptions become the new rule, then I will regain all I have worked to lose. But I won't quibble over the language. Whatever you call it, I have found what works best for me.
I'm befuddled by this because to be honest, I eat treats about as often as you do. (In my 100 days logging, I've logged cookies once, chocolate once and potato chips once... to give an example.) I don't want them frequently enough to work them into my calorie allowance, it's nothing more than that as far as I'm concerned.
For me, though, it's freeing to think to myself that if I want something, it's okay to have it. I don't feel the need to play a semantic game with myself and say that I "generally just don't eat treats". I like saying that I eat what I like, because that's what I DO. Is that what you're doing too, on the balance? Why is it important to you to classify yourself as a clean eater? Honest question here, no snark.
Serious question here, I am not poking at a stereotype or anything. Do you feel like you're adhering to a certain plan or virtue that you've set for yourself by having the mindset you do about the way you eat?
If you are both saying the same thing, but using different terms, what does it matter. Why is it worse to say "I'm a clean eater (most of the time)" than "I eat in moderation"?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions